Did he like his Hobby Lobby decision, or were his hands tied on that as well?
Meh. I’ll take it. Conservative leaning judge. Scalia-esque, but more open to compromise.
I will fucking take it. I know the democratic senators want to drag their feet, and they should be pissed about Merrick Garland, who was equally as qualified, but… this pick doesn’t seem out of line. I mean, Trump was floating some insane candidates a while back. (maybe to soften the blow here)
Just roast the GOP during the confirmation hearings and vote to confirm to get this shit done with. This was going to happen, and while waiting almost an entire year to replace Scalia is stupid, and the GOP was stupid for doing this. We need to replace Scalia, and anyone less conservative (this guys is) should be a net win.
Now, if someone dies with a year left in Trump’s office… bring it on.
According to something I heard on the radio yesterday he favored the Hobby Lobby decision.
Did we ever learn whether Scalia was found dead?
I think he was mostly dead all day.
I just read the part he wrote on that decision, and he presents a pretty clear case for why it ruled as it did. It’s not due to any opinion that he himself held at all, but is instead based upon the content of the law itself.
Essentially, the case we had was that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (put forth by Democrats Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy, back in 1993, lest we forget) says that persons cannot be forced by laws to directly act against their religious convictions.
This conflicts with the ACA, which states that companies must provide certain types of health coverage, because the Greens were forced to take an action which would essentially result in something which their religion deemed wrong. He points out that there is a large amount of precedent which precludes the court from injecting itself into the debate of whether a particular religious belief is correct, instead only being able to decide whether the belief was genuinely held.
Beyond this, he points out why the RFRA supercedes the ACA, as it was specifically written to do exactly that, except when explicitly stated. So, they actually could have gotten around this by explicitly excluding the RFRA’s application within the text of the ACA, but they did not. (This is actually the only reason the RFRA is still considered constitutional for federal laws, while it’s not for the states… because Congress can essentially negate the RFRA at will.)
Additionally, it could potentially have been superceded by an application of the Anti-Injunction Act, which precludes suits that attempt to interfere with the collection of a federal tax. However, AIA is a waivable defense for the federal government, and they did not choose to employ it, even when the court requested additional briefing. Since the AIA is waivable, it doesn’t automatically kick in. (And actually, both the plaintiff and defense specifically said it did not apply.)
So, in his writings here, he actually lays out two ways in which it could have gone the other way… the ACA could have simply said, “The RFRA doesn’t apply to this law”, and it would have been fine… or the government could have just said, “This is an attempt to interfere with the collection of a federal tax” which potentially would have just thrown it out of court based on the AIA.
His writings seem to be consistent with someone who is interested in the literal and thoughtful interpretation of law. From that perspective, if you don’t like how this turned out, then the answer is to write better laws (or in this case, perhaps just present better court arguments)… not depend on the courts to pick up the slack.
What Timex said.
I’m actually curious how he’ll handle the exclusionary rule. In my opinion, that was Scalia’s biggest load of bullshit. He believed in enforcing the Constitution, in theory, but when it came to reality and actually seeing the 4th Amendment work, he devoted his existence to gutting it so it would be stupid for authorities not to violate it.
If the cops illegally obtain evidence, that evidence should be thrown out, otherwise… the cops are going to illegally obtain evidence. Telling them it was wrong and then rewarding them by letting them use it anyway just means the 4th Amendment is “nice in theory” and utterly non-existent in reality.
Except for the part where corporations aren’t entitled to religious rights. Because what, Hobby Lobby is going to lose their job? Individual Hobby Lobby executives don’t have to take birth control if they don’t want to, they are not being individually persecuted for their religious belief. It’s a misapplication of the law, twisted to fit the conservative world view that my religion>you.
I’d recommend reviewing the decision in detail, because you’re making some mistakes here. The specific argument you’re making was dismantled pretty thoroughly.
I agree that corporations don’t have rights in themselves, and I think great damage has been done by that notion. But think of it in the context of the Little Sisters of the Poor. They run nursing homes, and as an employer, they provide health insurance to their employees. They cannot pay for contraception because it contradicts the moral order of conjugal love. Before the ACA, they could pick insurance policies that did not violate the precepts of their religion. After the ACA, they would face hugely burdensome fines for doing so. The Little Sisters have a choice–and paying, directly or indirectly, for contraception is not one of them. You may think that’s dumb, but for them it’s simply not an option. So their choice under ACA is to operate with the fines until they can no longer afford to, or shut down their nursing homes immediately. If it was one nun running a nursing home, this would be coercion by the government to make her violate her conscience. Just because there are two or more running the nursing home, doesn’t change that that’s what’s happening.
Protecting their religious conscience doesn’t fundamentally undermine the ACA contraception mandate. Employees of a Catholic organization should expect that the organization isn’t going to pay for something that is against its long-established principles. They can pay for their own contraceptives, or find employment elsewhere. The ACA states through policy that those alternatives are worse than telling a Catholic organization it can no longer be Catholic.
Except by almost the other half of the Court. It was a 5 to 4 decision.
Gorsuch, like all Justices, will interpret according to his leanings. His record is clear. You can say he’s an “originalist” but he pretty consistently sides with GOP and religious folks.
Anyway, we’re fucked if the leak about the Religious Freedom EO is true.
Like I said, read the decision yourself. It specifically deals with that point, and provides a detailed argument with supporting precedent.
I did. I also read the dissent.
Catholic organizations are a bit different and I think a case may be made for exceptions so long at the time of hire they make clear to the prospective employee their religious expectations. But commercial enterprises cannot be I think construed as “Christian.” I.e., there’s no such thing as a Christian pizza parlor or what have you. In Hobby Lobby’s case they even paid for birth control prior to ACA. I think pretty clearly conservative judges whether they are originalists or not read case law with their priors intact.
I would have also been ok with making an exception for explicitly religious non profit organizations. For a retail store the notion of religious conscience is not only laughable, it is offensive to me. It also opens up a whole host of potential abuses.
Whereas I say that religious organizations probably need to pay a higher rate directly into a contraception and abortion fund to offset the grievous harm their backwards views have done to the world over the subject…
Look at this guy in high school:
But hey, it’s high school. Maybe it was a joke? Maybe he was just being a typical high school edgy guy?
I’m sure he wasn’t the same in college…
But he’s a totally reasonable candidate! Goddamned liberal #whiners!
Hey, it’s perfectly OK for Republicans to joke about Nazism. It’s just youthful hijinks! Democrats who complain about jokingly promoting groups that engaged in genocide are worse than Hitler.
I mean, it’s not like there will ever be real, actual, honest-to-God white nationalists in positions of power in the White House.
Curious what this was about … and now I know. What could go wrong?