Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments Remotely (npr.org) 94
The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments remotely for the next two weeks, and for the first time in history, the audio will be available, live, to the public. From a report: The arguments include high-profile cases about birth control access, religious freedom, the Electoral College and President Trump's financial records. They are scheduled to take place Monday through Wednesday on the weeks of May 4 and May 11, beginning at 10 a.m. ET each day. You can listen live to all of the cases here (Monday's arguments have concluded). For each case, both sides will have the same amount of time. Each side will have two minutes of uninterrupted argument at the beginning. After that, each justice has been allotted two minutes for questioning, with more questions permitted if there is time left at the end of the first round. Each side has a total of 30 minutes.
Re:It's 2020 (Score:4, Insightful)
Because no matter which side of the debate you are one, someone is talking about forcing someone else to comply with their revision of how society should run.
And to note... it is written all over in your own incredulous thoughts that we are having this discussion in a western society as though the ONLY POSSIBLE solution to this problem is the one you think it should be as though there are no other thinking primates walking on this earth and everyone that does not think like you must be subhuman?
Did I get that right? And don't feel bad, this line of logic is not exclusive to any specific group or class of people. It's a problem humans have had since... well forever.
That is how this will always be... you put people together and disagreements about how things should work are just going to happen!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>> everyone that does not think like you must be subhuman?
No, I think that they are very human, just being manipulated through their emotions to support a bunch of hypocritical politicians who will rob them blind
Re: It's 2020 (Score:3, Insightful)
Did I miss any key concepts in your world view?
Re: It's 2020 (Score:2)
Maybe some facts would go a lot further than "Nyah, you don't agree with everything I say so you're a right wing troll trumpski poo poo head!"
I didn't even vote for the guy. I've been registered independent since I turned 18. But I'll safely guess you're a party man. Putting
Re: (Score:2)
kinda bitchy too aren't you
you are about as real as the sock puppet that my grand daughter plays with
Re: It's 2020 (Score:2)
I've been posting here as AC since
If doxxing wasn't a thing I'd use my real name like we used to i
Re: (Score:3)
Did I miss any key concepts in your world view?
You forgot the one about how "all the other side's Evil politicians and followers should just die"
Re: (Score:1)
US is being punished by God for voting into presidency an immoral rapist. Read the Bible and see how morality affects leadership.
Proverbs 29:2
When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.
Proverbs 29:12
If a ruler listens to falsehood, all his officials will be wicked.
Proverbs 16:18
Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.
Proverbs 11:14
Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety.
Titus 1:7
Re: (Score:3)
Wow... so reading between the lines you've just assumed that literally everyone who disagrees with you on the subject of birth control is "being manipulated through their emotions to support a bunch of hypocritical politicians who will rob them blind"
Partisan much? What I love is that if you remove the earlier context that indicated your stance on the issue you can apply this to any partisan of either group. If they think the GP has the same position as them it is insightful, if they think he had an opposit
Re: (Score:2)
My view, since you asked(?), is that access to sex education and contraceptives would eliminate most elective abortions, however the people who want to drive this as a wedge issue will refuse to see that and have already started to claim that the most capable forms of contraceptive are actually abortion
yep, lots of gray areas are disappearing and the people driving this issue will always work to make it a binary choice
Re: (Score:2)
"My view, since you asked(?), is that access to sex education and contraceptives would eliminate most elective abortions"
But most everyone has access to those things now and abortions are on the rise? Unless you mean the morning after pill, there are extra steps required for that in some places.
Chemical castration of men and mass exposure all males to feminizing hormones is a bigger deal than abortion. I'm very disappointed in the women who support doing this to men simply for their own selfish ends.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because no matter which side of the debate you are one, someone is talking about forcing someone else to comply with their revision of how society should run.
It depends on the debate. Take birth control. Only one side wants to force the other to comply with their preferred position. If you don't agree with birth control you can simply choose not use it; nobody is forcing you, nobody says it should be compulsory. But those who oppose birth control want to deny it to everybody.
Re: It's 2020 (Score:2)
I'm not at all against birth control, but it's not just about personal choice. There is most certainly an element of society which is using it to tr
Re: (Score:2)
under the guise of responsible family planning when the actual goal was population control
And the difference is...? What else is responsible family planning is a tool of global population control? Have you noticed the recent population of Earth?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Only, in this case it isn't one side denying it to another, it is one side not wanting to be forced to provide it to the other.
This is particularly interesting because the SCOTUS ruled that a baker could not be forced to provide a cake that included something against the religious principles held by the baker. Conflicting with that is the current legal requirement on this employer to provide employees with health care including something against the religious principles held by the employer.
Simply put, the
Re: (Score:2)
And the other side can just as easily say nobody is forcing you to not use birth control, if you want birth control pay for it yourself. But the side that wants it does indeed want to force the other side to do something - pay for it.
Re: (Score:3)
Because no matter which side of the debate you are one, someone is talking about forcing someone else to comply with their revision of how society should run.
It depends on the debate. Take birth control. Only one side wants to force the other to comply with their preferred position... [the other side] who oppose birth control want to deny it to everybody.
That's a flat out lie. No one is trying to prevent people from using BC. No one is proposing to outlaw BC. No one is intending to rush into peoples homes with SWAT teams to flush the BC down the toilet.
All they're saying is "I don't want to pay for it". Whether they're right or wrong is irrelevant; even if they are wrong, the position of "I don't want to pay for your lifestyle choices" is a reasonable one at first glance, and thus deserves a more in-depth examination.
This is why it's in the court - to exam
Re: (Score:2)
The real argument is "Where do we draw the line on paying for an individuals lifestyle choices."
Completely agree. For example, since religious organizations are tax-exempt, I have to pay higher taxes to make up the difference. Thus, I am paying for people's religious lifestyle choices.
Also, I have no kids, but my insurance covers pregnancy. So I am being forced to pay for other people's lifestyle choices.
My friend goes skiing every winter, and once they broke a wrist when having a close encounter with a tree. I don't ski, and thus through my insurance am, once again, being forced to pay for their
Re: (Score:2)
The real argument is "Where do we draw the line on paying for an individuals lifestyle choices."
Completely agree. For example, since religious organizations are tax-exempt, I have to pay higher taxes to make up the difference. Thus, I am paying for people's religious lifestyle choices.
Completely agree - religious organisations should not be tax-exempt by virtue of being a religious organisation. However a lot of them will probably get around it by registering as a local charity instead.
Also, I have no kids, but my insurance covers pregnancy.
Stupid statement - you should have said "no uterus" not "no kids". Having kids doesn't make you need pregnancy insurance. Regardless, I know what you meant, but trying to convince everyone that women of a certain age should pay higher medical insurance is not going to get you very far.
So I am being forced to pay for other people's lifestyle choices.
My friend goes skiing every winter, and once they broke a wrist when having a close encounter with a tree. I don't ski, and thus through my insurance am, once again, being forced to pay for their lifestyle choices.
Well, yes. Don't peop
Re: (Score:2)
it is written all over in your own incredulous thoughts
It's incredulous that you think *your* religion should have any impact on *my* life.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Atheists do it all the time. It's incredulous that you think *your* religion have any impact on *my* life. And atheism *IS* a set of religious beliefs that cannot be proved.
All the non-atheists says this. Religous people people think that bald is a hair colour.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Atheists do it all the time. It's incredulous that you think *your* religion have any impact on *my* life. And atheism *IS* a set of religious beliefs that cannot be proved.
Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god, and nothing else. I don't see how you can characterize that as a religion.
Re: (Score:2)
Atheism is my religion, in the same way that not collecting stamps is my hobby.
But then, I discriminate against religious bigots by not letting them discriminate against non-heterosexuals. Discrimination is bad (when applied to people like me) but good (when applied to The Other).
Re: (Score:2)
Atheists do it all the time.
No we don't. We don't give a fuck about your mental stupidity providing it stays within the bounds of your person.
And atheism *IS* a set of religious beliefs that cannot be proved.
The definition of a religious belief is not "anything that cannot be proved". That has to be the dumbest thing I've read on the internet, and I'll remind you Trump tweets on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
and everyone that does not think like you must be subhuman?
To address this one too, a person who has a personal delusion impact another person is indeed subhuman. Humans have compassion ant tolerance for ideas of others.
Follow whatever stupid religion you want. As soon as *your* psychosis starts being forced on others, I consider you subhuman.
Re: (Score:2)
and everyone that does not think like you must be subhuman?
To address this one too, a person who has a personal delusion impact another person is indeed subhuman. Humans have compassion ant tolerance for ideas of others.
Follow whatever stupid religion you want. As soon as *your* psychosis starts being forced on others, I consider you subhuman.
How is "pay for your own purchases" a psychosis? I realise as I ask this that I am replying to a post that is almost completely devoid of original thought or intelligence, so I'm not all that optimistic about getting an answer that isn't based on your insecurities.
Re: (Score:2)
forcing everyone else - FTFY.
I won't make you use abortion/birth control/euthanasia on you. Don't prevent me from using it on me.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Abortion is an emotional issue that many religious people will vote against, even if it means electing lying scoundrels who will rob them blind and destroy their country
Emotions are funny like that, they frequently mislead us and this administration is a great learning experience for people who favor "good feels" over thinking
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The hilarious part is you can say the exact same thing about the other side in this debate. Unless you want to tell me DNC leadership isn't also terribly corrupt.
The problem with the abortion debate is that there is no good solution. Both sides end up infringing on someone's rights. And that will always be the kind of grey area fraught with debate in free societies.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Comparing Dem corruption to GOP corruption at this point is a false equivalency
The problem with the abortion debate is that there is one. Even the Bible makes reference to life starting at first breath and when a man's pregnant wife was killed, the unborn child's death was not treated as murder, but as a property loss. US legal definitions of life also treat the unborn in a similar fashion.
What we have with the anti-abortion movement is a purely emotional exercise that ignores both US and Biblical law in th
Re: (Score:2)
"Comparing Dem corruption to GOP corruption at this point is a false equivalency"
No it's not. Both sides are corrupt and to such a degree that only a person blinded by dogmatic politics can think one side is better. You are literally quibbling about the differences between to evil groups that one is more evil than the other because X. This is a terrible argument and has a no win ending. Everyone knows the "voting for the lesser of two evils" problem they face at the polls. And there is a reason we like
Re: (Score:2)
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see
And while it is amusing to watch your attempt to paint the Dem party as 'just as corrupt as the other party", anybody who looks at the history of the past 50 years would have a difficult time agreeing with you
Nixon - Used the CIA in an attempt to subvert a free election
Reagan - Brokered a deal with the Iranian government to keep US diplomats hostage in order to win an election
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, keep making the choice between a demon and a beast... you are the spitting example of why every government fails, because you keep choosing the lesser of two evils instead of doing something else.
If you keep doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results is the definition of insanity. Why do you think anything will change? You are right... refusing to see here is a problem... you just think the blind one is everyone else other than you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Heck, if the woman wants an abortion after 21 or so weeks, induce delivery and give it up for adoption.
At 21 weeks, the odds of a baby's survival are essentially zero. 2/3 of the babies born at 22 weeks die. A huge chunk of surviving babies born at 25 weeks develop serious neurological problems, like blindness, deafness, seizure or cerebral palsy.
Good luck finding a doctor who will induce delivery in a healthy mother at 21 weeks.
Re: (Score:2)
Even the Bible makes reference to life starting at first breath and when a man's pregnant wife was killed, the unborn child's death was not treated as murder, but as a property loss. US legal definitions of life also treat the unborn in a similar fashion.
You're claiming that there are US "legal definitions of life" that treat a fetus as property? Or define life beginning at first breath? Interesting. Can you cite one of these definitions that has the force of law? Thanks!
Re: (Score:1)
Abortion is an emotional issue that many religious people will vote against, even if it means electing lying scoundrels who will rob them blind and destroy their country
Emotions are funny like that, they frequently mislead us and this administration is a great learning experience for people who favor "good feels" over thinking
What interests me about the pro life crowd is that as pro life as they are and as much as they abhor abortions, a lot of them are (or were before these turned into an out of control dumpster fire) also doggedly in favour of wars/crusades in the Middle East, drone strikes, the death penalty, shoot first asks questions later police policies and denying people less fortunate than themselves healthcare. That last bit I find a bit puzzling because from what I can still remember of my religions education, before
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the glaring Hypocrisy of the American conservatives is getting harder and harder to ignore, even by a base who must struggle through cognitive dissonance and constant lies that pour from lips like 'way smarter than you' who work day and night to keep them in the fold.
True story
My wife and I were preparing for the birth of our second child.
When our child was killed due to understaffing and construction being performed above the maternity ward, the hospital (which operated under the control of a large re
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, the glaring Hypocrisy of the American conservatives is getting harder and harder to ignore, even by a base who must struggle through cognitive dissonance and constant lies that pour from lips like 'way smarter than you' who work day and night to keep them in the fold.
True story My wife and I were preparing for the birth of our second child. When our child was killed due to understaffing and construction being performed above the maternity ward, the hospital (which operated under the control of a large religious group that opposes abortion) argued that her death was a stillbirth of a fetus and NO HUMAN LIFE WAS LOST. That was when the full hypocrisy of the American conservative movement was revealed to me. They want to control birth control and limit abortion to control OTHERS but will not allow those same values to limit their own pursuit of profit.
Another thing that made me scratch my head is that they want to deny the poor abortion, they want to deny the poor contraceptives, they want to deny the poor family planning all in the name of pro life. Then they complain that the poor breed to much and suggest they the poor should live in a chaste marriage which is about as likely to happen as a fire extinguisher spontaneously bursting into flame.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The real irony is they don't care about the unborn child once it's born. The Venn diagram of abortion opponents and welfare opponents is pretty much the same circle, and they don't even care that abortion and welfare (together or individually) reduce child poverty, unplanned pregnancy (and hence abortions), crime, etc.
But all of this is irrelevant, because the abortion opposition isn't concerned with abortion, their actual issue is restricting sexuality by making sex risky. If they actually cared about ab
Re: (Score:2)
Religious people are not pro life, they are pro birth. They couldn't give a fuck about life, either the life the fetus may lead nor potentially threats to life of the mother.
Re: (Score:3)
Because this is America, and we don't like freeloaders, as well there is a strong religious power base that is resistance to changes.
There is this 1950's Hollywood image of America that we think is perfect.
A Family with a Working Father, a Stay At Home mother, 2 kids in a neighborhood where they can walk the streets and all the other families follow this same dynamic.
For most of the Adults who were around during the 1950's Are mostly in their 70's+ who actually remember that decade. However this idealistic
Re: It's 2020 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that the institution of marriage has been decimated by capitalist pressure that both parent work and republican insistence that a family with two parents present cannot receive welfare benefits.
I am pretty certain that elimination of the "abstinence only" sex education pushed by republicans and giving people access to both factual sex education and contraceptives would do more to limit out of wedlock birth rate more than any shamanistic bs you want to put forward.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that the institution of marriage has been decimated by capitalist pressure that both parent work and republican insistence that a family with two parents present cannot receive welfare benefits.
And I say the institution of marriage has been decimated by radical feminism. Guess what? We're both wrong.
BYW, two parent families CAN receive welfare benefits. TANF, [hhs.gov] for instance.
Re: It's 2020 (Score:2)
As far as birth chronology, you think in the 50s there was greater access to birth control and information than today for teens?
Really?
I mean, reaaaaaalllly? C'mon. Stop spouting politically biased talking point nonsense. That statement is patently and blatantly false at first glance. What school had "sex ed" classes in the 50s that told kids anything except, "don't or you'll go blind on your way to Hell"?
Today, they're telli
Re: (Score:2)
you should do standup
Re: (Score:2)
Because this is America, and we don't like freeloaders
If you don't like freeloaders you should support free birth control for all, because nothing will drain social security more than an unwanted pregnancy by an incapable / non-existent family.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, they should have thought twice before going balls deep.
If birth control existed you wouldn't arbitrarily pretend that having sex has anything to do with being an adult.
If you looked at the case we're discussing you'd also realise how insanely moronic your comment is in the face of a discussion about employer healthcare related birth control, specifically one that already affects adults.
Congrats on building probably the single worst strawman I've seen.
Re: (Score:3)
Uhm, you're on a tech news site, not a legal debate one. The story here is for the first time, due to COVID-19, the SCotUS is accepting lawyers and participants in a session by phone.
You really should be modded out of the top position for bring up a heated issue without the other side here.
Re: (Score:2)
You really should be modded out of the top position for bring up a heated issue without the other side here.
You think because this is a tech site there's no religious nutjobs here? Have you visited Slashdot before, or are you using an account someone else registered 10 years ago?
Re: (Score:1)
This ended up at -1, so here goes.
"Why the fuck is birth control being discussed in the courts in a western society rather than simply being available for all. Excuse the language, but I'm need to burn some karma here: Fuck your imaginary sky daddy for having anything at all to do with how someone else lives their life."
Abortion? (Score:1)
You have rights. They are in the forms of Amendments. Those are actual rights.
The "Right to an abortion" isn't an actual right. It was a decision that turns out was brought about by fradulant means. The decision oddly enough is based on a woman's "privacy." No shit, a woman's right to privacy allows her to whack her own child. What about the rights of the man? He had a part in this after all, right? Men don't get squat. Woman has all the power. This is why this "right" can be overturned by SCOTUS. Actual ri
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you really believe that Sen McConnell wouldn't appoint a SCOTUS judge this year, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell to you
Re: (Score:3)
Will you take 10 cases of genuine N95 masks for the bridge? They are "factory" sealed.
Gerontocracy (Score:4, Interesting)
The Judicial branch (and Supreme Court generally) reliy on their prestige more than the other two branches of government. They cannot initiate investigations, cannot offer advice, and cannot enforce their judgments. So they generally treat the institution of the courts as if it were what they want it to be: non-partisan, above the fray, staid, and a bit like a church, with an unbroken line of succession going back to John Marshall.
I believe that they still have spittoons by their seats. So allowing an attorney to simultaneously make his (or her) case to both the Justices and the general public is something extraordinary. What if one of them has a slogan that rhymes, but demands an outcome contrary to law (ie "If the glove does not fit, you must acquit")? What if an attorney calls out a justice on some perceived partisan bias?
Such in-chambers challenges to the legitimacy of the Court would pull it down into they fray (where it may belong, see Bush v. Gore and Shelby County). Which means they will stop doing it as soon as it is safe. However, www.oyez.org has an audio archive of the past several decades worth of Supreme Court arguments, and the recordings of each day's arguments are posted quickly, but not in real time.
Courts move so slowly that I doubt we will have the spectacle of a locked-down Court hearing the case of some peon who lost government benefits because they didn't want to risk their lives to cut people's hair. But, I will offer my betters a bit of advice: make sure the Court is reminded of the precautions they and the other branches of government were taking while your clients were being forced to worth closely with the public.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was intended as a mutual protection. The Constitution forbids religious tests for Federal office and the First Amendment to the Constitution forbids the creation of a Federal Church along with protecting free exercise.
But the State can impose plenty on a Church if that imposition is "narrowly tailored" to achieving a compelling government purpose and the least restrictive means are used. (And the 1st now applies against the states as well.)
I don't know whether the various orders will meet the requirement
Sonia, save us... (Score:2)
The time limit is a little scary, because a complicated enough case may run out of time. "At least I finished on time!" is an invalid argument. We need somebody there allocating not necessarily extra time to both sides, but noticing when the winning side is in time trouble and kicking the case forward to a better day.
When I was telecommuting into SCotUS on tech issues, Sonia was responsible for declaring such situations. That may be Brett now as the most recently appointed. Still, somebody needs to be watch
Re: Sonia, save us... (Score:1)
CourtTV (Score:1)
It's also on CourtTV. I don't watch but I saw it on zqap2it.
CourtTV is having a dearth of cases lately, I noticed once they were rerunning OJ.
Sleep stories (Score:1)
Alternate Link for Oral Arguments (Score:1)
"the audio will be available" ? (Score:2)
This is the fourth article I've seen on the subject. Each one leads to a useless web link, always a different article instead of the actual place where the audio can be heard. In this case there is a temporary link at the NPR site which no longer works.
WHERE CAN THE AUDIO BE HEARD!
If it's not too much trouble.
"Trump's financial records" is misleading (Score:2)
He has made all of the legally required FEC records public, and in many ways, they show a lot more than tax returns since they deal with wealth instead of just income for a given year.
re (Score:1)