When TDS Goes On Hiatus: What Would Jon Stewart Do?

[mariah23]

And so it begins...what happens when TDS goes on break: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hobby-lobby-ruling-employers-dont-have-cover-birth-control-n144321?ocid=msnhp&pos=1

[alexvillage]

 

And so it begins...what happens when TDS goes on break: http://www.nbcnews.c...cid=msnhp&pos=1

The decision was bad, as anything the five assholes in the supreme court do these days, but it is more nuanced than the media wants us to hear.

Meanwhile, yo can have some fun reading Andy Borowitz. Best one liners ever

Anyway, I really hope those five douchebags die a long and painful death.

[ABay]

In my opinion, short and painful would be better for the country. Rehnquist didn't retire even after he was diagnosed with cancer.

Edited July 1, 2014 by ABay

[alexvillage]

 

In my opinion, short and painful would be better for the country. Rehnquist didn't retire even after he was diagnosed with cancer.

It works for me. As long as they really die. Really, and take the Dick- Cheney too. 

[possibilities]

Women aren't people, so that doesn't count.

[ganesh]

Women can't even vote, so who cares?!

 

Hobby Lobby is a fraud and they got away with it. They had no problem with this kind of contraception on their own health care plan and then all of a sudden they were clamoring about religious freedom. It was coincidentally when the ACA was enacted.

[Fremde Frau]

The decision was bad, as anything the five assholes in the supreme court do these days, but it is more nuanced than the media wants us to hear.

 

I don't really understand all of the legal nuances, but I saw a bit just now on Al Jazeera America about the decision, and it seems like SCOTUS made a special effort to limit this decision to specific contraceptives and to "closely-held" family businesses, on the premise that the Affordable Care Act was forcing individual owners to act against their religious beliefs? The legal consultant for AJA went on to say that this wasn't the same as saying "small business," since multibillion-dollar corporations with tens of thousands of employees like Mars Inc. are also considered "closely held" family businesses. I wish I understood more of it.

 

EDIT: Here is the story on NPR.

 

What has Jon called it: opinion-based facts? The bit on Hobby Lobby from earlier this year has been going around social media since yesterday. I guess, until we have a change in the supreme court, ill-informed religious convictions will continue to be privileged above science and facts.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Fremde Frau

[solotrek]

I don't understand the nuances because how can a family business prove their religion? Let's say I owned a small business and wanted to be able to not allow my female workers contraceptives from insurance for religious purposes, what would I be using a documentation? Do they ask to see your church attendance? Or are they just taking your word for it?  How can other religions not be able to use the same idea of religious freedom for their beliefs? Like Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. Or Scientologist (which is a religion in the US) and any form of psychiatric care?  I hope Jon (and Stephen and Ollie) covers this because I want someone to break it down for me. I don't understand why my bosses religion could dictate my healthcare? Wouldn't the next step be me asking them about their religion or them asking me my religion during interviews? Isn't that illegal? I don't get it.

 

Not only that, but there's such a big misunderstanding in terms of what contraceptives do. I don't think it does what people think it does, did SCOTUS have pharamocologists or OB/GYNS explain exactly why certain beliefs about the morning after pill and especially IUDs are just wrong?

Edited July 1, 2014 by maculae

[Fremde Frau]

I think the supreme court has to take religious views as they come and not fact-check them. At least, that's how one reporter described the process.

 

AJA tried to discuss other religious beliefs, like Jehovah's Witnesses and Scientologists, with one of the "religious liberty" advocates that they had on, but she danced around the topic and wouldn't give a real answer. LWT did look at Hobby Lobby briefly, but I'm looking forward to more extensive coverage from one or all of them. I found this brilliant coverage by TDS from a couple of years ago: The Vagina Ideologues, followed by Sean Hannity's Holy Sausage Fest.

[Fremde Frau]

During the LWT coverage, when John mentioned that Hobby Lobby does some good (paying above the minimum wage), I kept hoping he would bring up their dependence on the working poor in China. If Jesus were real and among his (self-styled) devoted followers today, I think he'd be less concerned with legislating parts of the female body and more concerned with hypocrites who claim to be Christians standing up for the dignity of human life while profiting directly from violations of human rights. Even other Christians are calling them out. Their response:

"Our company sources from suppliers around the world," [VP and chief legal officer] Dobelbower wrote in response to an earlier op-ed, calling for a boycott, that had appeared in the same paper. "Virtually all Hobby Lobby's vendors are small entrepreneurial businesses without control over their government's abortion policies."

 

[Julia]

I think the supreme court has to take religious views as they come and not fact-check them. At least, that's how one reporter described the process.

They don't have to. They've decided about the validity of religious objections before in conscientious objection cases.

[Hanahope]

I hope Jon points out that Hobby Lobby does invest its 401k money in the companies that produce the allegedly offensive forms of birth control.

[Julia]

There is no such thing as a small entrepreneurial company separate from the government in China. 

[Hanahope]

 I have to agree that this ruling opens the door for other religions to object to paying for certain medical treatments as well.  Once they establish the belief is "sincerely held" (however they do that), and its a given that the government requiring certain treatments to be covered by insurance is in the public interest (even birth control), then the final question is can the government provide the service itself "less intrusively" (i.e. can the government provide the service independently without going through insurance that the corporation has to pay for - or by paying the insurance companies to provide it 'for free' to the companies).

 

If the government can provide these forms of birth control "less intrusively", well, can't the government provide pretty much every medical treatment "less intrusively?" 

[formerlyfreedom]

With The Daily Show dark for two weeks, there is bound to be conversations to be had about how the show and Jon Stewart would cover certain topics. Let's have those discussions in here!

 

Please keep in mind, this is to discuss how you think the show would cover it. Thanks!

[ganesh]

This has absolutely nothing to do with religious freedom, HL was never 'sincere' about religion in the least, and scotus is spineless for not calling HL on it, when a clerk or intern could have easily gathered all this information that raises legit questions. 

 

And can we retire 'religious freedom' as a thing? Because it's not meaning what it's supposed to mean. You're not being denied practicing your religion, you're imposing your archaic beliefs on people at the expense of their personal health. 

[Julia]

I don't think SCOTUS is spineless. I think the majority in this decision was made up of religious judicial activists.

[Hanahope]

I don't think SCOTUS is spineless. I think the majority in this decision was made up of [male] religious judicial activists.

 

Fixed that for you.

[shok]

And can we retire 'religious freedom' as a thing? Because it's not meaning what it's supposed to mean. You're not being denied practicing your religion, you're imposing your archaic beliefs on people at the expense of their personal health. 

 

Amen!

[alexvillage]

The decision is nuanced and not as "bad" as the media is spinning it now. But it creates loopholes and complicates things for the lower courts, which is not a good legacy for the Supreme Court - which is kind of given based on how this court rules: fetuses and corporations are people, women are a threat to the rights of people.

 

The decision was a political one, and the majority is the worst kind of conservatives. They are zealots. What is incredible, reading some right wing comments, is how they all still say that their rights are being denied. When has any christian right in this country been denied? A friend of a friend cited Madison, as the reason why he opposes "the pill", as he puts it. My friend replied something like : the same Madison that never gave rights to women or slaves? 

 

Seriously, this country disappoints me beyond belief. And I still wish death to the 5 assholes.

 

ETA: I still think that the decision is a very bad one, even if not the sky is falling kind of decision

Edited July 1, 2014 by alexvillage

[Wax Lion]

 

I guess, until we have a change in the supreme court, ill-informed religious convictions will continue to be privileged above science and facts.

 

Especially since the judgement flat-out said that it doesn't matter that the objected methods of birth control aren't abortion, the plaintiff believes they're abortion and to bring up science would hurt their feefees too much.

 

On interesting thing is that apparently the decision says that it would be okay if the government just started paying for everyone's contraception... are they opening the door to a single payer system? I mean, if you're going to start there why not start making the government the main provider for other services?

[Victor the Crab]

So how long will it be before American right wingers start to challenge the basic rights of gays and lesbians because Leviticus says they're immoral?

[alexvillage]

 

So how long will it be before American right wingers start to challenge the basic rights of gays and lesbians because Leviticus says they're immoral?

They already do. And the only reason why the Supreme Court does not go with it it is because Scalia and Alito only have one vote each. Just wait until the next Republican President appoints a justice and he (because it will be a he, right) gets confirmed. As Andy Borowitz had Scalia say: “This has been a crappy year or so around here, what with all that gay-marriage stuff, but at least we finished strong,”

The only hope for this country is a revolution. Seriously. We are hopeless, otherwise. It will get worse

[dubbel zout]

On interesting thing is that apparently the decision says that it would be okay if the government just started paying for everyone's contraception... are they opening the door to a single payer system? I mean, if you're going to start there why not start making the government the main provider for other services?

This is one reason why the decision isn't quite as hateful as it could have been.

[ganesh]

 

I don't think SCOTUS is spineless. I think the majority in this decision was made up of religious judicial activists.

I put 'sincerity' in quotes because there is legal precedent for determining sincerity when opposition to something is brought up on religious grounds. Hobby Lobby invests in companies for their 401k plan that manufacture the very products that they have refused to provide due to their religious beliefs, the same products that they provided as part of their health care prior to the ACA. If information like this is flooding my FB then I'm sure that each justices clerks would be able to access this information as well. For them to not question HL's 'sincerity' in this case is spineless because I expect the justices to ask these hard questions. I don't think they should have even bothered to hear the case because it's obvious that HL isn't even remotely sincere in their opposition based on religious grounds.

 

I think it's one hell of a long game that they're playing if in fact they heard the case and ruled in this way so as a future court could use this as a precedent to uphold a single payer system. However, Roberts was the deciding vote in upholding the ACA.

[Julia]

I'm not saying that they were playing a long game. I'm saying that the justices don't want companies to have to provide contraception.

[Wax Lion]

I wasn't thinking of them playing a long game, either, when I brought up single payer. I thought that might be an unintended consequence like when Scalia(? Alito?)'s objection to Lawrence vs Texas ended up being president in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger.

[Grammaeryn]

I really dislike this ruling and was basically Hulking out Monday. Like so angry, words weren't happening. But I just want to say hold up on the 401K investment critiques. The way 401k's work is the employees' money is invested in a portfolio by investment managers. I'm a pacifist and I wouldn't be surprised if I looked back at the portfolios I have been invested in contain Halliburton or Lockheed Martin. But then again I am not suing the U.S. government to impose my pacifism on my co-workers. Maybe we should make that a thing? All of us bring suit on stuff we want to opt out of. 

Edited July 2, 2014 by Grammaeryn

[Hanahope]

The way 401k's work is the employees' money is invested in a portfolio by investment managers.

 

Sure, but if HL was really "sincere" about objecting to anything having to do with abortion, they could tell the investment managers not to use the 401k funds in companies that produce 'abortion' drugs/devices, just like they're trying to tell the health insurance companies not to provide policies that provide these 'abortion' contraception.  Afterall, HL does providing some matching 401k funds, so some of their own money is being used to 'fund abortions.'

[ChelseaNH]

I wouldn't expect the Supreme Court to inquire into the sincerity of Hobby Lobby's beliefs because that's a trial matter.  Depending on the basis for the appeal, the Supreme Court would look at things like whether such a inquiry was required or whether sincerity was or was not sufficiently established.

 

I think a better argument would have been that health insurance is compensation, which belongs to the employee rather than the employer.

[attica]

Back in the aughts, I used to moan that W and his lot ruined everything. Now I see his ruination has outlived his administration. (On the other hand, I can picture a SCOTUS opinion by once-nominee Harriet Myers. Spoiler: it's a gif of her blinking vacantly.)

[ganesh]

 

I wouldn't expect the Supreme Court to inquire into the sincerity of Hobby Lobby's beliefs because that's a trial matter.  Depending on the basis for the appeal, the Supreme Court would look at things like whether such a inquiry was required or whether sincerity was or was not sufficiently established.

I don't think they should have even heard the case because sincerity wasn't established. The justices can ask whatever the hell questions they want. I would think with such an easy piece of information like this 401k business that it would be natural to question their sincerity. Or, whether they know that their claim of the pills causing abortions is scientifically inaccurate. You know you're suing for something that's incorrect? Or, why are they suddenly so 'sincere' now when in the past they did provide this in their health care.

 

This claim of 'religious opposition' is a fraud and they somehow scammed everyone because the supposed most learned legal minds in the country couldn't think to ask a simple question? So either scotus are fucking idiots who aren't fit for their position or they have to be playing some longer game.

[Julia]

Back in the aughts, I used to moan that W and his lot ruined everything. Now I see his ruination has outlived his administration. (On the other hand, I can picture a SCOTUS opinion by once-nominee Harriet Myers. Spoiler: it's a gif of her blinking vacantly.)

 

I blame Sandra Day O'Connor, who (among other really big things making up her bodyguard in hell) broke the constitution to hand us Bush Jr and all the destruction of choice he brought with him. The one redeeming thing about our current Chief Justice is that O'Connor got to watch herself be replaced by a man who opposed her historic appointment on the grounds that  she was an unqualified affirmative action hire, and he's been pissing on her little fig leaf of judicial purity ever since. Hell, I'm low enough to be glad the husband she left office to spend more time took up with another woman in the nursing home. I hope she never knows another day of peace.

[ChelseaNH]

I don't think they should have even heard the case because sincerity wasn't established. The justices can ask whatever the hell questions they want. I would think with such an easy piece of information like this 401k business that it would be natural to question their sincerity.

 

An appeals court doesn't retry the original case.  They're not ruling on the facts of the case; they're reviewing the process -- was the law correctly interpreted and applied?  Whether Hobby Lobby is a bunch of lying hypocrites is a question of fact, not law.

[BabyVegas]

I blame Sandra Day O'Connor, who (among other really big things making up her bodyguard in hell) broke the constitution to hand us Bush Jr and all the destruction of choice he brought with him. The one redeeming thing about our current Chief Justice is that O'Connor got to watch herself be replaced by a man who opposed her historic appointment on the grounds that she was an unqualified affirmative action hire, and he's been pissing on her little fig leaf of judicial purity ever since. Hell, I'm low enough to be glad the husband she left office to spend more time took up with another woman in the nursing home. I hope she never knows another day of peace.

I think that's a little harsh. Her husband had Alzheimer's and he was beginning not to know her. I believe she has also said that taking Bush v. Gore was the great regret of her judicial career. Also Roberts actually trends more centrist, closer to Kennedy. Alito, Scalia, and Thomas, however, can retire and spend more time with their families any day now. If you want to talk hypocrisy, no one beats Thomas, the originalist who wouldn't have even counted as a person, never mind been a Supreme Court justice. I also am not totally clear how they could even issue this ruling without violating several other laws at once, willfully ignoring science, and making the decision because they wanted to be better Catholics than justices. The Court messed up on Dredd Scott and they messed up on Hobby Lobby. They're destroying their judicial legacy and de-legitimizing the Court.

It's times like these I miss Jon's controlled and pointed outrage. I'm here spluttering "what is this even..." And I rely on TDS to put it into terms that don't make me want to stroke out.

Ginsburg's opinion, though, I'm gonna read that as a bedtime story to my future children. She was on point and dropping the truth all over the place.

In other fun times, what would the show have to say about Boehner threatening to sue Obama?

Edited July 2, 2014 by BabyVegas

[Hanahope]

Actually, on the HL case, I'm not sure if the lower court actually ruled on 'sincerity of beliefs' or not, since the case actually came up to SCOTUS because a preliminary injunction was denied.  All the Court's decision really did was essentially allow the preliminary injunction to be granted, but the lawsuit is still technically going forward and HL would still have to eventually prove sincerity in court to make the preliminary injunction permanent.

[Julia]

I think that's a little harsh. Her husband had Alzheimer's and he was beginning not to know her. I believe she has also said that taking Bush v. Gore was the great regret of her judicial career. 

 

No, she says the great regret of her judicial career was the public's loss of faith in the impartiality of the court, which she claims to have had nothing to do with, and she still maintains that Bush v Gore was decided correctly. What she did say was

 

“Maybe the Court should have said, ‘We’re not going to take it, goodbye.’ ” The case, she said, which effectively awarded the 2000 Presidential election to George W. Bush, “stirred up the public” and “gave the Court a less than perfect reputation.” 

 

Passive, isn't it. We should have said "We're not going to take it." What actually happened, from a contemporaneous report by a reporter who was a great supporter of Bush, was this:

 

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and her husband, John, a Washington lawyer, have long been comfortable on the cocktail and charity-ball circuit. So at an election-night party on Nov. 7, surrounded for the most part by friends and familiar acquaintances, she let her guard drop for a moment when she heard the first critical returns shortly before 8 p.m. Sitting in her hostess's den, staring at a small black-and-white television set, she visibly started when CBS anchor Dan Rather called Florida for Al Gore. "This is terrible," she exclaimed. She explained to another partygoer that Gore's reported victory in Florida meant that the election was "over," since Gore had already carried two other swing states, Michigan and Illinois.

 

Moments later, with an air of obvious disgust, she rose to get a plate of food, leaving it to her husband to explain her somewhat uncharacteristic outburst. John O'Connor said his wife was upset because they wanted to retire to Arizona, and a Gore win meant they'd have to wait another four years. O'Connor, the former Republican majority leader of the Arizona State Senate and a 1981 Ronald Reagan appointee, did not want a Democrat to name her successor. Two witnesses described this extraordinary scene to NEWSWEEK. Responding through a spokesman at the high court, O'Connor had no comment.

 

She doesn't regret her crime. She regrets that it didn't work out for her.

 

I have no sympathy at all, and if she's genuinely a lonely old woman full of regrets, good. Sadly, I don't really think so.

Edited July 2, 2014 by Julia

[ganesh]

I also am not totally clear how they could even issue this ruling without violating several other laws at once, willfully ignoring science, and making the decision because they wanted to be better Catholics than justices.

 

Whether Hobby Lobby is a bunch of lying hypocrites is a question of fact, not law.

 

Take the hypocrites out of it and they're still claiming religious opposition on a a falsehood. The medication doesn't do what they claim to oppose. 

[Bastet]

Ginsburg's opinion, though, I'm gonna read that as a bedtime story to my future children. She was on point and dropping the truth all over the place.

 

Ginsburg writes some of the best dissents in the Court's history.  Unfortunately, she gets a lot of practice.

[Victor the Crab]

This story would also upset Jon in a big way: Buses with migrant children and families rerouted amidst protests by flag-waving conservatives.

[alexvillage]

 

Alito, Scalia, and Thomas, however, can retire and spend more time with their families any day now.

No, I want then to die in excruciating pain

 

 

This story would also upset Jon in a big way: Buses with migrant children and families rerouted amidst protests by flag-waving conservatives.

Selma, all over again

[Fremde Frau]

Those "patriots" have no sense of history, do they? Among other things they lack. I'd bet that they think Emma Lazarus' poem defaces the Statue of Liberty.

 

How was it that Jessica put it last year, in that bit about Santa? First you fix history, then you lock that shit down.

[trow125]

Speaking of that story, Victor the Crab, I think Jon would also have to get in a dig at the way Fox News is covering it. Check out this graphic which Fox is using for its coverage. It wouldn't surprise me if this story gets covered when TDS comes back, along with HL.

[formerlyfreedom]

I'm surprised they included the Statue of Liberty in that graphic, considering she was a gift from France.

[Victor the Crab]

Speaking of that story, Victor the Crab, I think Jon would also have to get in a dig at the way Fox News is covering it. Check out this graphic which Fox is using for its coverage. It wouldn't surprise me if this story gets covered when TDS comes back, along with HL.

 

Oh my God, trow, that is so despicable. Do those assholes at Fox News feel Americans need to take up arms and defend themselves from scared children? If the answer is yes, then they need to die and go to Hell.

[The Luvly Junkie]

Oh my God, trow, that is so despicable. Do those assholes at Fox News feel Americans need to take up arms and defend themselves from scared children? If the answer is yes, then they need to die and go to Hell.

 

I'm surprised they included the Statue of Liberty in that graphic, considering she was a gift from France.

 

    I believe those protestors should realize they come from immigrants, too. I see no trace of Native Americans anywhere. They+Fox News would need to re-compress their history down to very simple, if not obvious, facts that even a fifth grader would memorize by heart. Immigrants? Check. Statue of Liberty's from France: That ain't hard to forget! 

 

    And if Jon would have to address this protest, he should address indirectly to the participants exactly how ludicrous and cruel it is they were preventing innocent Central Americans who've already had bones to pick on in their countries. It's already corrupt as with any country, and America is their only resort if they want to survive. If this is America, shouldn't we live by our priorities of granting opportunities to those who've lived in despair? The protestors are turning them away like they're nothing but monsters stealing their jobs. For God's sake, they're humans (and immigrants) like the rest of America.

[Fremde Frau]

In other news: NASA has launched a second satellite to study carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, since the first satellite's data couldn't be used.

 

NASA intends to freely and widely distribute OCO data in hopes that research organizations will use it to make better climate predictions.

 

“We’d also hope that policy-makers might use some of this information to, for example, start to take a look at the impact of some of the emission-reduction activities that go or, or deforestation and understanding what’s happening globally,” added OCO program executive Betsy Edwards, at NASA Headquarters in Washington, DC.

 

Good luck with that... I anticipate some fun and rage by John, Larry, Stephen, and Jon on this subject over the next few years.

 

There should be a test before policy makers take office and are allowed to make and influence policy. Just a basic science, math, and reading comprehension test, like the GRE but for politicians. Maybe also a social sciences refresher course that includes anthropology, so that they at the very least remember (or realize for the first time) that their point of view is not the point of view.

[RapBert]

Speaking of that story, Victor the Crab, I think Jon would also have to get in a dig at the way Fox News is covering it. Check out this graphic which Fox is using for its coverage. It wouldn't surprise me if this story gets covered when TDS comes back, along with HL.

 

As many gaming websites already pointed out, the logo they used is quite similar to the logo of the video game Bioshock Infinite. Very ironic, since the enemy in that game is a "true American" xenophobic, racist and fascist state led by an insane preacher who idolizes the Founding Fathers.

[maraleia]

What these FOX newsmodels fail to remember is the fact that the US played a role in every Central American countries affairs and not for the better. See the 2009 coup in Honduras for an example of what the US brings on a country and now refugees from those countries want to come to the very country that helped screw them over. We should be ashamed of ourselves for not welcoming them with open arms.

[Jediknight]

Now we have Rick Perry refusing to shake hands with Obama, and it being praised.  There's also Sarah Palin calling for Obama's impeachment.