I guess, my proposal just assumes no one’s gonna get rid of lifetime appointments.
Hmm, would somone be able to graph the average age of the Supremes on appointment since the 1700s? It’d be interesting to see if it has risen faster than the avereage age of the population.
When the Blunt Amendment was attempted back in 2012 to allow ALL corporations (not just “closely held” corp’s) to have religious exemption from the ADA’s Contraception Mandate, it failed. So this an attempt to make a borderline definition that will allow some corporations to ignore the law.
Back in 2012, a workaround was developed to ensure that religiously-oriented employers wouldn’t be paying for the part of a policy they didn’t agree with. Instead, in those circumstances, employees pay into a pool with their employer when they pay their insurance, and that fund pays for everything. This was just to help calm the waters, but it does mean that the employees’ money is actually being used for payment, and can be claimed as the part of payment that goes toward the disapproved items. The employer has absolutely no right to control how an employee spends money once earned, and also can’t ignore their beliefs.
Not only that, as I’ve explained elsewhere, Hobby Lobby is seeking to apply their religious ideology unequally for monetary gain and discrimination against women. Not only will they pay for Viagra and vasectomies (so they can’t claim they’re opposed to sex out of marriage), they also are investing in companies that make the very devices that they claim religious opposition to - including i.u.d.s.
So, they are willing to personally profit from the sale of those devices, and their investment’s success requires those devices sell well, but they want to exclude only the women working for them from having equal access under the law to those devices.
That’s clearly a lapse in their supposed religious belief. They are ignoring their belief when it benefits them financially (to make an investment in a company that makes products they are religiously opposed to), and asking for legal exclusion to avoid a cost (to provide insurance coverage for those same products to their female employees).
8 Likes
OK. So is that it? I don’t know what that lobby boy pic is from so there is no explanation as to whether the comparison is flattering or negative.
This is a terrible post that doesn’t mean anything because there is no context or explanation. I still don’t know why the Hobby Lobby Boy pun is worth posting or why Scalia was singled out.
That’s a great idea! I’m not the person to do it, but here’s a helpful list:
All the Justices, birth-death dates, and dates of judicial service
1 Like
I was going to do it, then I realised I only knew Diana Ross. When I looked it up I saw there were lots of others and I decided it was too much work.
5 Likes
I suppose if it has to be explained then it’s not that funny.
It’s in reference to a recent Wes Anderson movie called The Grand Budapest Hotel. The lobby boy character is the main protagonist and the pun simply has to do with the portmanteau of merging the phrase Hobby Lobby with Lobby Boy.
As for Scalia - it really doesn’t need to be other than the picture kind of fits.
I think they all joined around the age of sixteen, but prior to 1961 they were called “The Primettes.”
(Try pulling off THAT dress, Scalia.)
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
