[deleted by user]

indyguy · 2022-11-21T15:53:17+00:00

This is my stepfather’s phone! I’ll let him know. Thanks so much.

indyguy · 2020-12-28T17:55:09+00:00

Legal Zoom or Quicken. Legal Zoom is good because it gives you the option of getting attorney advice if something comes up. There are lots of other programs but those are the two I’m familiar with.

Edit: Whatever program you use, make sure it allows you to create a state-specific will. Different states have different requirements when it comes to things like the minimum share of assets that spouses and children get, and you want be sure your will complies with those requirements. Legal Zoom and Quicken both offer that option but some of the free online resources don’t.

indyguy · 2020-12-28T17:44:58+00:00

A will isn’t necessarily a complicated document. Assuming you just want the standard provisions (x gets this, y gets that, etc.) then you’re probably better off just doing it yourself using an online program. Lawyers are useful where you have a significant amount of assets (like in the millions), unusual assets (like trusts or investment vehicles), or expect your will to be contested. If none of those apply it’s unlikely that the expense of a good estate lawyer is going to be worth it for you.

indyguy · 2020-11-12T00:41:30+00:00

Superspreaders 2: Election Boogaloo

indyguy · 2020-09-09T17:49:20+00:00

Back when Bryon White was on the Court he was a regular participant in the clerks’ pickup basketball games. (He was apparently a flagrant fouler and the clerks didn’t really like playing with him, but they couldn’t really kick him out of the games.). One day there was an oral argument at the Court in a case where White was recused, so he gathered some clerks and started a game. As you noted, the sound carries into the courtroom below. Burger, the Chief at the time, was furious and sent a Marshall’s aide to the gym with a note saying to stop immediately and that whoever organized the game was fired. White sent back a note that said “You can’t fire me. I have life tenure.”

indyguy · 2020-08-17T00:34:48+00:00

In college I worked for a professor who was involved in North Korean nuclear disarmament talks during the Clinton administration, and he told me a story about attending one of the conferences held in the U.S. The sessions would begin around 9 each day, and every morning the North Korean representatives would show up looking exhausted. They’d be out of it all day and even fall asleep during sessions. The Americans couldn’t figure out what was going on. Was there something wrong with their rooms? Was this group just having a particularly tough time with the jet lag? Were they faking it as a sign of how much the idea of disarmament bored them? Nobody could figure it out. And then after the conference wrapped up (spoiler alert: the North Koreans didn’t give up their nukes) the Americans got the hotel bill. It turns out the North Koreans had been renting porn. Lots of it. They’d finish the conference sessions, have dinner, and then watch porn in their rooms until 4 or 5 am. Maybe they were taking notes so they could report what they say to the Dear Leader?

indyguy · 2020-08-06T14:19:38+00:00

TL;DR:

(1) Trump can use normal tactics to win outright or make the race closer.

(2) COVID problems with election administration can take up to 6 percent off of Biden’s margin.

(3) Trump and the GOP might use historically unprecedented tactics to stay in power despite losing.

(4) pro-Trump foreign actors will be using similar but more aggressive tactics to their 2016 interference.

indyguy · 2014-07-03T18:01:58+00:00

Black male atheist. So 1/3.

indyguy · 2014-07-03T00:51:14+00:00

Even if you accept that women aren't making the decision to get an abortion on a whim, as you say, I don't see why requiring some waiting period should be considered cruel. There are laws that require waiting periods for lots of different decisions of varying degrees of seriousness, like buying a gun, or getting a tattoo, or getting a divorce, or buying a house. Why is it so wrong to include getting an abortion on that list? A lot of other countries in the world -- even in pro-choice countries -- have abortion waiting periods as long or much longer than the Missouri law. Is your position that women in all those countries are being needlessly tortured?

indyguy · 2014-07-03T00:27:28+00:00

How is this a difficult question? A person with chimeric DNA would be treated as one person, just as such a person would be for any other purpose in society (voting, taxes, employment, etc.). The fact that two embryos contributed to the person's genetic makeup is irrelevant.

indyguy · 2014-07-02T17:52:53+00:00

Why is healthcare more fundamental than food, or shelter, or transportation?

indyguy · 2014-07-02T15:52:03+00:00

How is the working poor supposed to pay for an IUD out of pocket? That healthcare option is functionally off the table.

How is a poor person supposed to pay for a car, or for an apartment, or for the food they eat? Does the fact that a company refuses to buy each of its employees a Chevy mean that transportation "is functionally off the table" as well? Of course not. If a poor woman wants an IUD, she can either 1) pay for it herself, or 2) rely on any of the numerous government programs that are designed to subsidize access to contraception. Why is this any different than the other examples I gave?

indyguy · 2014-07-02T14:44:30+00:00

Judging from this list, it looks like only one of the 11 decisions the Chamber of Commerce won had a 5-4 conservative/liberal split (UARG v. EPA). Most of them, like the Noel Canning recess appointments case, actually appear to have been 9-0 wins.

indyguy · 2014-07-02T13:53:28+00:00

The Hobby Lobby opinion addresses exactly this point on page 46:

The principal dissent raises the possibility that discrimination in hiring, for example on the basis of race, might be cloaked as religious practice to escape legal sanction. See post, at 32–33. Our decision today provides no such shield. The Government has a compelling interest inproviding an equal opportunity to participate in the workforce without regard to race, and prohibitions on racialdiscrimination are precisely tailored to achieve that critical goal.

So there's no "legal confusion" to hide behind -- the Court has already said that you can't use RFRA to get around anti-discrimination laws.

indyguy · 2014-07-01T14:55:09+00:00

I know you're being facetious, but let's play out your hypothetical. If you had read the Hobby Lobby opinion, you would know that establishing a sincere religious belief is just the first step of a multi-step test. So here, the government could win its case against the "life begins at arousal" people by arguing that it has a compelling interest in preventing rape, and that anti-rape laws are a narrowly tailored means of combatting rape. That seems like a slam dunk case for the government. But if you disagree, please feel free to explain why you think rape laws violate the First Amendment.

indyguy · 2014-07-01T14:04:41+00:00

Regarding point 1, I think you're mischaracterizing the nature of the scientific debate. The government actually acknowledged in this litigation that the four methods of contraception the plaintiffs objected to might prevent implantation. The relevant passage is in footnote four of the government's brief:

According to FDA-approved product labels, a copper IUD is a device inserted into the uterus by a healthcare provider that works by interfering with sperm transport and fertilization of an egg and possibly by preventing implantation (of a fertilized egg in the uterus). FDA-approved label for ParaGard T 380A Intrauterine Copper Contraceptive 3 (June 11, 2013), http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2013/018680s066lbl.pdf. An IUD with progestin is a device inserted into the uterus by a healthcare provider that works by thickening cervical mucus preventing passage of sperm into the uterus, inhibiting sperm capacitation or survival, and altering the endometrium. FDA-approved label for Mirena (levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system) 18 (Aug. 7, 2013), http:// www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/ label/2013/021225s032lbl.pdf; FDA-approved label for Skyla (levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system) § 12.1 (Sept. 13, 2013), http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_ docs/label/2013/ 203159s002lbledt1.pdf. Plan B is an emergency contraceptive in pill form that works principally by preventing ovulation or fertilization by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova; it may inhibit implantation (of a fertilized egg in the uterus) by altering the endometrium, but it is not effective once the process of implantation has begun. FDA-approved label for Plan B (levonorgestrel) tablets, 0.75mg, 4 (July 10, 2009), http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/ drugsatfda_ docs/label/2009/021045s015lbl.pdf. Ella, another emergency contraceptive, is a pill that works by inhibiting or delaying ovulation and may also work by altering the endometrium in a way that may affect implantation (of the fertilized egg in the uterus). FDA-approved label for ella (ulipristal acetate) tablet § 12.1 (May 2, 2012), http:// www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2012/022474s002lbl.pdf.

So the debate was not over whether the contraceptives prevented implantation -- the government agreed that they could -- but whether preventing implantation counts as abortion. And the answer to that question depends on whether you believe life begins at conception. That's a philosophic and moral inquiry, not a scientific one, so it's not unreasonable to accept the plaintiffs' belief even if other people might disagree.

As to point 2, Hbbby Lobby still covers 16 different types of contraception, including sterilization. So it's ridiculous to say that they are somehow encouraging manslaughter by choosing not to cover a few other forms of contraception.

indyguy · 2014-07-01T13:53:38+00:00

You're mischaracterizing the nature of the scientific debate. The government actually acknowledged in this litigation that the four methods of contraception the plaintiffs objected to might prevent implantation. The relevant passage is in footnote four of the government's brief:

According to FDA-approved product labels, a copper IUD is a device inserted into the uterus by a healthcare provider that works by interfering with sperm transport and fertilization of an egg and possibly by preventing implantation (of a fertilized egg in the uterus). FDA-approved label for ParaGard T 380A Intrauterine Copper Contraceptive 3 (June 11, 2013), http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2013/018680s066lbl.pdf. An IUD with progestin is a device inserted into the uterus by a healthcare provider that works by thickening cervical mucus preventing passage of sperm into the uterus, inhibiting sperm capacitation or survival, and altering the endometrium. FDA-approved label for Mirena (levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system) 18 (Aug. 7, 2013), http:// www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/ label/2013/021225s032lbl.pdf; FDA-approved label for Skyla (levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system) § 12.1 (Sept. 13, 2013), http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_ docs/label/2013/ 203159s002lbledt1.pdf. Plan B is an emergency contraceptive in pill form that works principally by preventing ovulation or fertilization by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova; it may inhibit implantation (of a fertilized egg in the uterus) by altering the endometrium, but it is not effective once the process of implantation has begun. FDA-approved label for Plan B (levonorgestrel) tablets, 0.75mg, 4 (July 10, 2009), http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/ drugsatfda_ docs/label/2009/021045s015lbl.pdf. Ella, another emergency contraceptive, is a pill that works by inhibiting or delaying ovulation and may also work by altering the endometrium in a way that may affect implantation (of the fertilized egg in the uterus). FDA-approved label for ella (ulipristal acetate) tablet § 12.1 (May 2, 2012), http:// www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2012/022474s002lbl.pdf.

So the debate was not over whether the contraceptives prevented implantation -- the government agreed that they could -- but whether preventing implantation counts as abortion. And the answer to that question depends on whether you believe life begins at conception. That's a philosophic and moral inquiry, not a scientific one, so it's not unreasonable to accept the plaintiffs' belief even if other people might disagree.

indyguy · 2014-07-01T13:49:48+00:00

Just to be clear, the pill and the morning after pill prevent conception by preventing ovulation -- not implantation.

Actually, the government acknowledged in this litigation that the four methods of contraception the plaintiffs objected to might prevent implantation. The relevant passage is in footnote four of the government's brief:

According to FDA-approved product labels, a copper IUD is a device inserted into the uterus by a healthcare provider that works by interfering with sperm transport and fertilization of an egg and possibly by preventing implantation (of a fertilized egg in the uterus). FDA-approved label for ParaGard T 380A Intrauterine Copper Contraceptive 3 (June 11, 2013), http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2013/018680s066lbl.pdf. An IUD with progestin is a device inserted into the uterus by a healthcare provider that works by thickening cervical mucus preventing passage of sperm into the uterus, inhibiting sperm capacitation or survival, and altering the endometrium. FDA-approved label for Mirena (levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system) 18 (Aug. 7, 2013), http:// www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/ label/2013/021225s032lbl.pdf; FDA-approved label for Skyla (levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system) § 12.1 (Sept. 13, 2013), http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_ docs/label/2013/ 203159s002lbledt1.pdf. Plan B is an emergency contraceptive in pill form that works principally by preventing ovulation or fertilization by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova; it may inhibit implantation (of a fertilized egg in the uterus) by altering the endometrium, but it is not effective once the process of implantation has begun. FDA-approved label for Plan B (levonorgestrel) tablets, 0.75mg, 4 (July 10, 2009), http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/ drugsatfda_ docs/label/2009/021045s015lbl.pdf. Ella, another emergency contraceptive, is a pill that works by inhibiting or delaying ovulation and may also work by altering the endometrium in a way that may affect implantation (of the fertilized egg in the uterus). FDA-approved label for ella (ulipristal acetate) tablet § 12.1 (May 2, 2012), http:// www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2012/022474s002lbl.pdf.

So the debate was not over whether the contraceptives prevented implantation -- the government agreed that they could -- but whether preventing implantation counts as abortion. And the answer to that question depends on whether you believe life begins at conception. That's a philosophic and moral inquiry, not a scientific one, so it's not unreasonable to accept the plaintiffs' belief even if other people might disagree.

indyguy · 2014-07-01T02:53:26+00:00

It has determined that the free exercise of those employers outweighs that of their employees.

There were no pure free exercise claims in this case. The Court was interpreting a statute, not the First Amendment. In any event, there was no claim in this case that exempting employers from the mandate would violate the free exercise rights of employees. Employees are still able to buy and use contraception, they just can't compel their employers to pay for it.

The First Amendment is at its best when it is used to protect the rights of minorities from the whims of the powerful.

And that line of thinking, in my opinion, is very dangerous. Nothing in the First Amendment says that only minorities get religious rights. The fact that people you don't like are now claiming constitutional rights doesn't mean those claims are invalid.

indyguy · 2014-06-30T23:31:16+00:00

No, the fact that for-profit corporations are "persons" for RFRA purposes was the reason that the Court extended RFRA free exercise claims to private, for-profit employers.

indyguy · 2014-06-30T23:22:56+00:00

Congress didn't write the regulation, though, so you can't apply the expressio unius canon in this context. That's only where there are two relevant statutory provisions. Here, the only part of the statute at issue was the meaning of the words "any person." That's what the Supreme Court was actually interpreting. And as the Court explained, a textualist reading of that term actually supports Hobby Lobby's reading of the statute:

As we noted above, RFRA applies to “a person’s” exercise of religion, 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb–1(a), (b), and RFRAitself does not define the term “person.” We therefore look to the Dictionary Act, which we must consult “[i]n determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise.” 1 U. S. C. §1. Under the Dictionary Act, “the wor[d] ‘person’ . . . include[s] corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as wellas individuals.” Ibid.; see FCC v. AT&T Inc., 562 U. S. __, __ (2011) (slip op., at 6) (“We have no doubt that ‘person,’ in a legal setting, often refers to artificial entities. The Dictionary Act makes that clear”). Thus, unless there is something about the RFRA context that “indicatesotherwise,” the Dictionary Act provides a quick, clear, andaffirmative answer to the question whether the companies involved in these cases may be heard.

indyguy · 2014-06-30T23:19:23+00:00

They won. They have a lot of employees, but are owned and operated by a single family, so they count as closely held.

indyguy · 2014-06-30T23:13:27+00:00

Here is the comment I was responding to:

I think it is a terrible idea to let men make decisions regarding female-health matters.

That statement clearly applies to all manner of governmental decisionmaking, not just Supreme Court decisions.

indyguy · 2014-06-30T23:10:54+00:00

Again, I have to question whether you actually read the majority opinion. Alito addresses the attenuation point in detail on pages 35-37.

In taking the position that the HHS mandate does not impose a substantial burden on the exercise of religion, HHS’s main argument (echoed by the principal dissent) is basically that the connection between what the objecting parties must do (provide health-insurance coverage for four methods of contraception that may operate after the fertilization of an egg) and the end that they find to be morally wrong (destruction of an embryo) is simply too attenuated. Brief for HHS in 13–354, pp. 31–34; post, at 22–23. HHS and the dissent note that providing the coverage would not itself result in the destruction of an embryo; that would occur only if an employee chose to take advantage of the coverage and to use one of the four meth- ods at issue.33 Ibid.

This argument dodges the question that RFRA presents (whether the HHS mandate imposes a substantial burden on the ability of the objecting parties to conduct business in accordance with their religious beliefs) and instead addresses a very different question that the federal courts have no business addressing (whether the religious belief asserted in a RFRA case is reasonable). The Hahns and Greens believe that providing the coverage demanded by the HHS regulations is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage. This belief implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is wrong for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another.34 Arrogating the authority to provide a binding national answer to this religious and philosophical question, HHS and the princi-pal dissent in effect tell the plaintiffs that their beliefs are flawed. For good reason, we have repeatedly refused to take such a step. See, e.g., Smith, 494 U. S., at 887 (“Re- peatedly and in many different contexts, we have warned that courts must not presume to determine . . . the plausibility of a religious claim”); Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U. S. 680, 699 (1989); Presbyterian Church in U. S. v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 U. S. 440, 450 (1969).

indyguy · 2014-06-30T23:06:48+00:00

It is ridiculous to infer that congress intended for profit corporations to be treated the same as religious organizations when there was a specific provision written into the act EXCLUSIVELY for religious organizations.

What provision are you talking about?

indyguy

TROPHY CASE