Skip to main content

In this photo reviewed by US military officials, a detainee, whose name, nationality, and facial identification are not permitted, prays within the grounds of the Camp Delta 4 military-run prison, at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base, Cuba, June 27, 2006. The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing a potential landmark ruling that could determine the fate of the military tribunals created by President George W. Bush to try Guantanamo prisoners for war crimes. The ruling by the nation's highest court, which is expected later this week, will be one of the most significant presidential war powers cases since World War Two and could determine whether the tribunals are lawful.  QUALITY FROM SOURCE REUTERS/Brennan Linsley/Pool  (CUBA) - RTR1EY7F

Last week's Hobby Lobby decision would almost be less awful if it resulted in this:
Lawyers for two Guantanamo Bay detainees have filed motions asking a U.S. court to block officials from preventing the inmates from taking part in communal prayers during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. The lawyers argue that—in light of the Supreme Court’s recent Hobby Lobby decision—the detainees’ rights are protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

The motions were filed this week with the Washington D.C. district court on behalf of Emad Hassan of Yemen and Ahmed Rabbani of Pakistan. U.K.-based human rights group Reprieve said both men asked for the intervention after military officials at the prison "prevented them from praying communally during Ramadan."

"Hobby Lobby makes clear that all persons—human and corporate, citizen and foreigner, resident and alien—enjoy the special religious free exercise protections of the RFRA," the lawyers argued in court papers.

The men's lawyers argue that they are being punished for their hunger strike by not being allowed to participate in the communal prayers.

That would be a just and fitting outcome of the Roberts Five Hobby Lobby decision—free prayer for everybody, including Muslims.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 08:26 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (53+ / 0-)

    "The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. [...] There would be no place to hide."--Frank Church

    by Joan McCarter on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 08:26:20 AM PDT

  •  It would be great if a decision allowing (22+ / 0-)

    a corporation's Christian owner to impose his religious beliefs on the corporation's employees resulted in individuals being able to practice their own Muslim religion, but somehow I doubt that will be the result.  

    I'm confident, though, that the Court deciding the case will be able to come up with some rationale other than - "No, this law only applies to Christians".

  •  I would like to see the victims of the (22+ / 0-)

    "Affluenza" kid refile their lawsuit against the kids father. Iirc his father closely held the company that owned the truck he was driving.

    Actually I would love to see an avalanche of lawsuits like that.

    Most of the people taking a hard line against us are firmly convinced that they are the last defenders of civilization... The last stronghold of mother, God, home and apple pie and they're full of shit! David Crosby, Journey Thru the Past.

    by Mike S on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 08:39:13 AM PDT

    •  A veil-piercing we will go, veil-piercing we will (14+ / 0-)

      go, Hi-Ho-The Merry Oh, a veil-piercing we will go!

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      —Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 09:17:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bingo! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        polecat, dewtx

        Maybe corporate owners can't have it both ways after all.  If they get all the protections of corporate status, maybe they have to give up some arbitrary power in exchange.

        That would be nice.

        --------------------- “These are troubling times. Corporation are treated like people. People are treated like things. …And if we ever needed to vote, we sure do need to vote now.” -- Rev. Dr. William J. Barber

        by Fiona West on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 12:40:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bingo indeed! (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          byteb, RogueOkie

          If the 51% owners want to pierce the religious separation between a for-profit corporation and its majority owners, then those majority owners have to go all the way and accept back the corporation's legal and financial liability personally. If an owner wants to pierce the religious separation between the owners/shareholders of a corporation and the corporation itself then that piercing of separation has to be complete and go both ways with the owners taking on the corporation's personal legal & financial liability whenever they also want to assert a corporation's religion. If they want to break that wall of corporate separation, they have to have it both ways--from them to the corporation and from the corporation to them. Then we'll really see which is the stronger motivation of a corporation's owners, God or Mammon (my cynical self would bet on Mammon).

          I am proud to be able to say that I got the chance to vote for Ann Richards for Governor of Texas, twice!

          by dewtx on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 01:52:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Of course they can. (0+ / 0-)

          Just ask the Corporate Five on the Supreme Court.

          The owners either are or are not the corporation, whichever works better for them at the time.

          "Violence never requires translation, but it often causes deafness." - Bareesh the Hutt.

          by Australian2 on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 06:13:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I'm conflicted (6+ / 0-)

    Hobby Lobby: bad.

    Not letting prisoners pray communally: petty and wrong.

    Are all these prisoners in solitary or something?  Which is itself a problem as prolonged solitary confinement is akin to torture.

    •  I believe the concern is to stifle information (7+ / 0-)

      flow and coordination between prisoners, which, if they're in solitary, I understand.  However, I also agree with you that prolonged solitary is not right.  Everyone deserves their day in court and keeping people, especially those at Gitmo who haven't done crimes (not sure if these guys did or not), well keeping people without charges/trial is un-American.

      •  Even that concern is just absurd on its face. (19+ / 0-)

        The prisoners have no knowledge that is useful at this time - years after their extra-legal imprisonment.  They'd have no clue who is where or who is doing what.  Just to keep people from talking to each other is another petty justification for petty actions.

        It's such a shame that Guantanamo wasn't shut down. We continue to get these tales of abuses large and small. The operation of the prison erodes our humanity as much as it does the prisoners'.

        "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

        by YucatanMan on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 09:08:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Segregation is important (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ColoTim, penguins4peace, Mad Season

          Keeping prisoners separate is always important. "The Great Escape" is just a movie but it has some important truths.  Allowing prisoners to coordinate in any way is dangerous.  More importantly, community - things like prayer - are critical to maintaing hope and resistance.  Its my job as the jailer to deny you anything that would strengthen your resolve to resist or give you hope.  Read "This Kind of War" about the Korean War.  There is a whole portion of the book that relates to POW experiences.  It talks about how American prisoners did the worst partially because they had no community, no discipline, no structure.  The North Koreans spoke English and exploited what they heard and conducted effective psyops on the Americans.  The Turks on the other hand maintained discipline and community and were able to communicate freely and that had a major impact on their survival rate.  

          If GITMO were a "normal" prison with a punishment/rehab agenda this kind of segregation would likely not stand up.  But because of its quasi-POW construct, it will likely survive legal challenge.  

          It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

          by ksuwildkat on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 09:34:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It is inhumane. It is wrong. Even the (8+ / 0-)

            administration admits these are not POWs.  We shouldn't be trying to mentally destroy human beings which have never even been tried.  We've swept up far too many people with no justification and imprisoned many for more than a decade on what?  

            Suspicion?  Some guy's word down the street, looking for quick cash from the reward for turning in "terrorists"?

            We shouldn't be operating on the level of North Korea, North Vietnam or a Soviet Gulag.  At least the America that I want to be a part of should not be doing such things.

            "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

            by YucatanMan on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 09:39:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh believe me, I know (5+ / 0-)

              I know first hand about the people who got sent to GITMO because their neighbor wanted to bang their wife.  Or the ones there because we offered half the GDP of their village ($50) for every person they turned in.  

              But here is the funny part - most of those guys are gone.  Released by W in the waning days of his administration.  I am shocked we have not heard some W staffer crow about how many more people the evil Republicans released compared to Obama.  Trust me, it will come some day.  They will tell how they did their due diligence and released people who were "safe" while President Obama was terrible and never released anyone.  Never mind they basically cleaned out all the people who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time and left behind the hard core cases or worse the ones with no information to judge.  

              As for it being inhuman, yeah probably.  Thats why I get to go through training on how to survive if it ever happens to me.  War sucks.  Its supposed to suck so much you don't do it.  Thats why it gets started by chicken hawks.  

              It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

              by ksuwildkat on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 09:52:39 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  god forbid we should allow gitmo prisoners (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Garrett, davidincleveland


            i found your post slightly revolting. not your words-which i am sure have some truth to them-but how they reflect on american justice and common humanity. have any of these people actually been found guilty?

            •  Some have been, but I think most have never had (4+ / 0-)

              their cases come to trial and there are still 70 or so who have been determined to not be guilty of anything but for one reason or another (I believe one reason is that their original country won't take them back) they can't be sent back to where they were captured.  These people were accused and found innocent, or were accidentally swept up and they've done nothing wrong but they can't be released.  The US has to go to great lengths to bribe other countries to take them but also guarantee that they won't be just imprisoned in those countries (because theoretically they won't have the safety and security of Gitmo).  These folks should, imo, be compensated by the US for false imprisonment such that they never have to work again (indeed, I think many cannot work).

              I don't have good answers for how to close Gitmo's prison, but I've long been in favor of doing so.  The trials and those guilty can be handled by federal courts on the mainland and should any be found guilty, their sentences can be carried out at federal or military prisons.  Gitmo is a stain on America's honor and I just hope it's not permanent.  

              The Congressmen who wet their pants at the idea of Gitmo prisoners coming to US soil would stop once they see the money invested in trials and imprisonment.  They also should be called cowards and mocked for their lack of trust in America's justice system.  Many, however, are in the camp to prevent Obama from achieving the campaign promise because he's a black, Democratic president.

              •  Sadly GITMO is not that bad (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                compared to many US prisons where we put US citizens.  

                The "return to sender refused" ones are really tough.  No one wants them or the ones that are willing to take them back only intend to execute them.  Total no-win for the US.  Got no answer, just too hard.  

                It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                by ksuwildkat on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 10:09:50 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  I agree - kinda (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              If we were denying hope for a reason, I would have no problem with it.  But at some point, its just because.  Here is what I mean - when you first capture someone on a battlefield you want them to have maximum hope.  Hope is why guys decide to stop fighting before they are dead.  Hope is why they decide fighting is hopeless and choose the path of hope.  But once they re captured, you want to get information from them.  You execute your 5 Ss - Search, Segregate, Silence, Speed to the rear, Safeguard.  Now you can get into interrogations and its important for them to lose all personal hope so you can give it back to them.  They need to believe that the ONLY path to hope flows through you as the interrogator.  So I do everything possible to take hope from them and then selectively give it back - when I get what I want.  If these guys were denied community prayer because of a hunger strike I am all for it.  If they are allowed to defy a rule, to make their own decisions, they have hope and will to resist.  That spreads (See Hunger Games) and you have a problem.  So you have to crush that.  You have to make them know that you make the rules and you alone.  Comply and you get good things, no-compley and you don't.  

              So here is where I have issue with some of the folks at GITMO - they have been compliant for a long time.  At some point, you are withholding hope for no reason other than thats what you have always done.  That is bad.  Because if you lose all hope you don't care and then you will do anything.  We all possess superhuman strength and will.  Lack of hope unleashes that.  

              BTW - we spend a LOT of time teaching people how to non-comply as POWs.  Small victories over your captors are so important that we encourage even the tiniest forms of non compliance.  

              It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

              by ksuwildkat on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 10:06:01 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Prisoners at GITMO are allowed communal (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ColoTim, davidincleveland

            prayers during Ramadan. The motion here was filed on behalf of two prisoners who are being denied that right because they are involved in the hunger strike at the prison. It happened in 2013 and that policy is being implemented again this year.

          •  Prisoners coordinate a number of things. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            They can coordinate hunger strikes.  They can spread information (truth or heresay) that could lead to protests and unrest/noncooperation.  They can give each other tips on surviving their confinement and treatment.  They can find out news from newer people.  They may try and coordinate escapes or pass tips, but I'm thinking the likelihood of success is low, but when despair and desperation set in, the attitude could be "why not - what more could they do to me?".

            I'm not supporting this - I'm just explaining part of the rationale behind doing it.  It's not just to punish prisoners, though that's a major effect of it.

      •  if the US has such shoddy procedures where (5+ / 0-)

        communal talking is creating a risk of any kind maybe we need new procedures.i mean really- talking is a danger when you have people on an island with US military guards and last i heard they were in cages outdoors. did they ever actually build the prisoners real indoor facilities?

        gitmo is a national disgrace and always will be.

      •  prolonged solitary=psychological torture (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Fiona West
  •  We are stuck with "All persons - human and (12+ / 0-)

    corporate". This is now standard language when using the word "persons".  What bought and paid for shitheads we have on the SCOTUS.  They should be ashamed.  They are truly paid for, however, I believe there is no briefcase or suitcase full of money.  They are immersed in billionaire culture.   They are skewed selfish.

    Please know I am not rude. I cannot rec anything from this browser. When I rec or post diaries I am a guest at some exotic locale's computer. Ayn is the bane!

    by Floyd Blue on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 08:45:13 AM PDT

  •  Good for them but the Catholic Taliban in the SC (15+ / 0-)

    will deny their request, because.

    I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

    by a2nite on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 08:46:54 AM PDT

  •  The Hobby Lobby Ripple Effect. (4+ / 0-)
    •  Somehow I'd Prefer This Ripple to the Original (8+ / 0-)


      This is potentially granting individual persons a right to conduct their own personal religious ceremony. They're not even demanding the right to preach to their guards, which many Christians would do. (SHOULD do according to the beliefs of some of them.)

      This strikes me as as solid a 1st amendment tradition as I could ask.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 08:58:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It wouldn't seem you'd need a Hobby Lobby (7+ / 0-)

    to allow people freedom of religion in America. I recall reading that in some document or something.

    Yes, DailyKos DOES have puzzles! Visit us here Saturday nights @ 5:00 PDT (easier puzzles) and Sunday nights @ 5:00 PDT (more challenging) for a group solving. Even if you just pop in and comment while watching the fun, everybody is welcome. uid:21352

    by pucklady on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 09:11:28 AM PDT

    •  chuckles indulgently (4+ / 0-)

      Ohh, adorable pucklady, the writers of that document NEVER meant it to incorporate freedom of religion for ALL religions, isn't it obvious? Just like the writers of the silly 14th Amendment never at ALL meant for it to include women!

      You simply must stop diverting from Original Intent, it's un-Merkin!

      "But hate wears you down, and does not hurt your enemy. It is like taking poison and wishing your enemy would die." - - Cherokee saying

      by brillig on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 09:59:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sadly the hobby lobby decision just allows your... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Sadly the hobby lobby decision just allows your boss to foce you to follow HIS religion rather than allow you to practice your own ....if you are a woman. No such constraints on the menfolk.

  •  The bad will greatly outweigh any good. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ShoshannaD, davidincleveland
    That would be a just and fitting outcome of the Roberts Five...
    Being pelleted by millions of purses would be a just and fitting outcome of the Roberts Five.
  •  Don't the Guantanamo detainees have to incorporate (14+ / 0-)

    first in order to enjoy the same religious rights as Misogyny Lobby?

    American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

    by atana on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 09:20:11 AM PDT

  •  How much you wanna bet, (6+ / 0-)

    The oil companies are going to claim that Fracking is an exercise of their corporate religion, therefore exempt from regulation under RFRA.

  •  Hmm, didn't the POTUS promise to shut (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Damnit Janet, davidincleveland, dewtx

    this disgrace down, something like 5 or 6 years ago?

    Guess I should pay better attention, but the fact that (it seems to be) still operational is shocking, shocking I tell you.

    •  Yes he did. But that costs money. (3+ / 0-)

      And Congress allocates the money....

      Strengthen the Senate! ROCK THE HOUSE!

      by mwm341 on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 09:43:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It was one of his first orders, but Congress (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DruidQueen, dewtx

      patently refused.  Here's how it began, from wikipedia. The roadblocks have continued, to this day.

      On 22 January 2009, President Barack Obama signed an order to suspend proceedings at Guantanamo military commission for 120 days and shut down the detention facility that year.[12][13] On 29 January 2009, a military judge at Guantanamo rejected the White House request in the case of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, creating an unexpected challenge for the administration as it reviewed how the United States brings Guantanamo detainees to trial.[14] On 20 May 2009, the United States Senate passed an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 (H.R. 2346) by a 90–6 vote to block funds needed for the transfer or release of prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.[15] President Obama issued a Presidential memorandum dated 15 December 2009, ordering Thomson Correctional Center, Thomson, Illinois to be prepared to accept transferred Guantanamo prisoners.[16]

      "It ain't right, Atticus," said Jem. "No, son, it ain't right." --Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

      by SottoVoce on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 10:04:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My point is that the previous POTUS ignored (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        davidincleveland, dewtx

        congress with complete impunity.

        Not sure why this one refuses to follow suit.

        •  should he write a personal check? (0+ / 0-)

          "It ain't right, Atticus," said Jem. "No, son, it ain't right." --Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

          by SottoVoce on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 12:09:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Maybe, or alternatively actually put the (0+ / 0-)

            detainees on trial and actually convict them of something (as compared to keeping them indefinitely detained based on nothing, something I was taught as a child only happened in medieval kingdoms and when the Commies were in control . .. . of course, I obtained my education in Kansas so that obviously turned out to be yet another of the many fallacies I was taught, considering that we too do that!)

            •  I agree with your premise absolutely. (0+ / 0-)

              It's an outrage that they are there with no charges, and really unable to be properly and honestly tried because our "evidence" is tainted by our torture policies.  Another outrage, though, is that he is expected to bring them to trial on his own and then move them to a US facility on his own, something that he is expressly forbidden from doing by Congress.  I don't understand the limits of the President's power--perhaps he can take a page from the medieval kingdom book and personally do this.  Perhaps it is something that as CIC he has the actual power to do.  Not sure.  But he doesn't bear sole responsibility for this outrageous no-man's-land created by GWB, and the bed-wetters in Congress who are too afraid of these broken, abused to treat them as they should be treated.

              "It ain't right, Atticus," said Jem. "No, son, it ain't right." --Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

              by SottoVoce on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 02:47:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  When theyAllowed the Navy to Slaughter Marine life (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    in the name of National Security this says the Supremes are going to stomp on this in favor of the Government.

    I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

    by JML9999 on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 09:26:13 AM PDT

  •  Nice angle but doomed (0+ / 0-)

    Constitutional protections only apply to citizens of the US.  On the other hand I would not put it past this court to declare religion a basic human right.  

    It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

    by ksuwildkat on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 09:26:48 AM PDT

    •  I don't think that's correct. I think the US (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Constitution applies to anyone within the USA.

      "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

      by YucatanMan on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 09:31:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Limited (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mad Season

        But even better, GITMO is not the USA.  Its why it was chosen.  The minute they set foot in the US they receive some Constitutional protections but they are in Cuba.

        It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

        by ksuwildkat on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 09:36:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  RFRA and RLUIPA do not confer constitutional (0+ / 0-)

      protections. They are statutory.

      RLUIPA does not appear to turn on where a "person" impacted by an adverse "government" action resides, so long as such person is "confined."

      "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

      by Old Left Good Left on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 01:19:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  SCOTUS... (4+ / 0-)

    Will rule in favor of prayer - but only if they pray to Christ.

    “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” - John Steinbeck (Disputed)

    by RichM on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 09:27:56 AM PDT

  •  Really has nothing to do with Hobby Lobby (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass, Fiona West

    it's an opportune reminder of a preexisting RFRA argument.  Religious exercise in prisons is a heavily litigated issue under RFRA and was part of what applies to states thru RLUIPA (IP in RLUIPA is 'institutionalized persons').  

    Hobby Lobby remains an abomination.  

    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

    by Loge on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 09:29:03 AM PDT

  •  Well, how positively delicious. (4+ / 0-)

    Let the muslims pray together. Love thy neighbor, right? That's in the Quaran, too.

    That prison in Cuba is an abomination.


    by commonmass on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 09:29:10 AM PDT

  •  I hope they succeed in this (0+ / 0-)

    and of course we shouldn't be doing this anyway...or Gitmo...

    but...hope you're enjoying you game and your church service John.


  •  I have a question about the petition linked to (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    this article:  Who is going to receive the petition?

    Obviously, it is a means of registering our disagreement with the decision, but what will be done with it?  Who will see that we disagree? Anyone?  The President?  The Supreme Court?  Congress?

    Thank you!

    "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

    by YucatanMan on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 09:30:09 AM PDT

  •  This struck me yesterday... (0+ / 0-)

    Man convicted on terror charges files appeal

    ...The new appeal has revived debate over whether Hayat had a "jihadi heart" and was intent on leading a terrorist attack, as alleged by prosecutors, or was unfairly punished for voicing anti-American views that he never intended to act on.

    The high-profile investigation and prosecution started with a paid informant's now-discredited claims that he saw high-ranking al-Qaida officials attend a Lodi mosque in the late 1990s. After 9/11, the FBI paid the informant $230,000 over three years to infiltrate the mosque and record conversations with imams and worshippers.

    I would have to think that his attorneys would be negligent if they didn't cite the Hobby Lobby decision at some point during the course of the appeal.
  •  Is the Obama Administration (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Damnit Janet

    still using forced feeding of gitmo inmates on hunger strikes?

  •  A huge stain on the USA (0+ / 0-)

    that Guantanamo was ever used and again that it wasn't shut down.

    If it was about "justice" and interrogations, do it on our own damn soil.  

    It's about torture and abuse and one day all of those who took part, condoned and allowed it to happen will be hunted down, judged and put in jail.  

    "Love One Another" ~ George Harrison

    by Damnit Janet on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 09:32:10 AM PDT

  •  Personally, I don't care HOW this bites them (3+ / 0-)

    in the ass, as long as it DOES -- often, and HARD.  When it begins to backfire on the base, in a way that's both important to them and directly traceable to Republican policy in a way that they can understand, then we'll start seeing an electoral swing.  But until it impacts the bottom line?  They'll just ignore a larger majority than they already do.  That and give them guns.  Like Zardoz.

    I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

    by mojo11 on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 09:32:44 AM PDT

  •  Does the HL decision only apply (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    to U. S. citizens? I would think so.

  •  Actually reading the decision again (0+ / 0-)

    this is not a comparable case at all. The SC said:

    “This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs.”
    and also:
    “Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.”
    I can't see the relevance between the two situations. HL is about employers/employees, the HHS contraception mandate and the compelling interest as spelled out in RFRA.
    •  The hook is that, in order to get to those (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      davidincleveland, P Carey

      holdings, the Court first had to find that Hobby Lobby was a "person" for purposes of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.   The motion for TROstates that this, in effect, overrules a decision of the DC Circuit Court that the prisoners in Gitmo are not "persons" for purposes of the Act.  

      Is this likely to work?  Perhaps, and perhaps not.  There are other rationales the courts could use to exclude the plaintiffs from coverage by RFRA, but Hobby Lobby undercuts one of them.

      Anyone arguing that there's no difference between the parties is a fucking moron who can simply go to hell. -- kos

      by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 10:04:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Interesting take (0+ / 0-)

        Does their standing as aliens (not us citizens) matter I wonder?

        •  That is what is questionable. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          davidincleveland, P Carey, Mad Season

          Alienage, itself, does not eliminate their rights.  But, rather that they are non-resident aliens who are not within the United States.  However, in Rasul v. Bush, the Court held that Gitmo was, for purposes of habeas corpus review, within the jurisdiction of the United States.  So, it would appear that they probably do have standing.

          Anyone arguing that there's no difference between the parties is a fucking moron who can simply go to hell. -- kos

          by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 10:22:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Standing is not an issue as to the underlying (0+ / 0-)

            request for injunctive relief or this memo updating the law on a single argument within that earlier filing (the Court was expecting this update).

            I am responding to you ItSCS, because I am pleading with you to write a diary on the Hobby Lobby case as to the specific ruling involving the pre- and post-Smith jurisprudence and the definition of "person" in the RFRA--a shift that was not expected given the explicit legislative history of that Act.

            I can see from some of the comments here that there is confusion between the legal principle announced in the ruling and the easy-to-digest view that "some corporations can now dictate medical decisions of their employees."


    •  How do they rationalize (0+ / 0-)

      that it only applies to contraceptives but not e.g. immunization if the owners happen to be against immunization?! This is a clear discrimination against women because they are the only ones directly affected by it.

      •  Well that's the issue (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        with religious beliefs and compelling interest as outlined in RFRA. I've said all along I thought this was poorly written legislation and there would be a lot of challenges like this.

      •  When my kids were in school (10) years ago, I c... (0+ / 0-)

        When my kids were in school (10) years ago, I could sign a waiver that would let me enroll the boys in school without updated immunizations, based on my "religious beliefs" I am not religious but one year I used it to start them on time, I immunized them later. Oh yes, this can easily spread to other types of medical procedures, and you dont even need "sincerely held" religious beliefs to use them.

  •  Alito already narrowed it to icky girl stuff (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    No transfusions, treatments; certainly not the prayers of terrorists.

  •  I think that the conservatives on the court will (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    soon start saying that their decisions only apply to specific one-time-only events ala Bush v. Gore then laughing while they flip everybody off.

    Slow thinkers - keep right

    by Dave the Wave on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 10:05:02 AM PDT

  •  Wait till SCOTUS nullifies the whole concept of... (0+ / 0-)

    Wait till SCOTUS nullifies the whole concept of democracy because it violates your freedom to have an invisible dictator in the sky spoken for by the likes of king Pat.

  •  Silly Lawsuit (0+ / 0-)

    Everyone knows the "strict Constitutionalist" decision in the Hobby Lobby case only involves Christian owners preventing insurance companies from offering certain kinds of contraception to women which the owners believe, incorrectly, are "abortifactient."

    Just the way the Founding Fathers intended.

  •  And the flood gates open... (0+ / 0-)

    ... just as any sane person knew they were going to.

  •  Not Necessary (0+ / 0-)

    Geneva Convention prohibits intervention in the religious expression of P.O.W.'s.

    Guantanamo is NOT a civilian prison, the people held are NOT CONVICTED by any court of law. They are merely held until hostilities end.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site