The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

[Sea Ray]

Wut?

I'd love to be wrong. Please straighten me out as I'm not yet in my 60s...but I was under the impression that two high earning spouses can't collect their full SS at age 70. One would have to be 50% of the other

 

[NorthDallas40]

I'd love to be wrong. Please straighten me out as I'm not yet in my 60s...but I was under the impression that two high earning spouses can't collect their full SS at age 70. One would have to be 50% of the other

Don’t believe that is the case at all. That looks like a survivor spouse benefit. If you paid in you draw your individual benefit.

 

[VolStrom]

I'd love to be wrong. Please straighten me out as I'm not yet in my 60s...but I was under the impression that two high earning spouses can't collect their full SS at age 70. One would have to be 50% of the other

Social Security & You: There is no marriage penalty with social security.

Actually, the opposite is true. If you or your spouse had a significantly lower income and their SS payment was less than half of the others, they would get a raise to half of the higher earning spouses' payment.

 

[StarRaider]

Wut?

Archie - Hey, Quigley, you mean to tell me this is the Jo you're planning on sharing the apartment with?
Quigley - Yep. Josephine. Jo, meet my friends, the Bunkers.
Edith - Archie, ain't they a lovely couple?
Archie - How do you mean "couple"? They ain't married, Edith. Unless-- Are you?
Quigley - No, and we ain't gonna get married either. If we did, there'd be no point in living together.
Archie - At your age, talking about living together? I'd be ashamed of myself if I was you.
Quigley - Oh, come on, sonny. Get with it. Do you know what'd happen if Jo and I got married? I'd lose half my Social Security.

 

[RockyTop85]

I don't care if he wants to worship Jobu on the 50 yard line. As long as he isn't requiring anyone to participate. If you can prove he was making decisions, of any kind, based on his beliefs then fire his ass.

At least one former player testified that he participated solely because he was worried about playing time. I don’t think there was any explicit threat. Not sure if they tried to prove that he actually made decisions based on who participated (was this guy even the head coach? I’m not certain how much authority he had). Does that make a difference?

 

[rjd970]

I don't care if he wants to worship Jobu on the 50 yard line. As long as he isn't requiring anyone to participate. If you can prove he was making decisions, of any kind, based on his beliefs then fire his ass.

Why do you think he insisted on the 50-yardline? He was given the option to do it elsewhere and have whoever attend that wanted to.

He wanted this to be public, and in view for everybody to see. I can understand where some kids might feel pressured. The schoolboard did too and that is why they were perfectly fine with him praying with his team, in a more private location.

When I played ball in HS we said a prayer in the lockeroom and nobody was compelled to participate. Why isn't that good enough?

 

[RockyTop85]

Why do you think he insisted on the 50-yardline? He was given the option to do it elsewhere and have whoever attend that wanted to.

He wanted this to be public, and in view for everybody to see. I can understand where some kids might feel pressured. The schoolboard did too and that is why they were perfectly fine with him praying with his team, in a more private location.

When I played ball in HS we said a prayer in the lockeroom and nobody was compelled to participate. Why isn't that good enough?

The case makes more sense if you look at it through the lens of whether he’s on the job, acting as an agent of the government, or not.

They basically told him he could do whatever he wanted during this time, except pray on the 50 yard line. I haven’t read it yet, but based on how the lower court stuff shook out, I expect the court found this dispositive of whether he is a government actor or not and all of his influence on students doesn’t really matter in light of that.

If the school board had told him he was responsible for gathering the players to ensure that they return to the locker room in an orderly fashion, he probably wouldn’t have had a case.

 

[volfanhill]

At least one former player testified that he participated solely because he was worried about playing time. I don’t think there was any explicit threat. Not sure if they tried to prove that he actually made decisions based on who participated (was this guy even the head coach? I’m not certain how much authority he had). Does that make a difference?

No. If he doesn't have proof besides his feelings it's not relevant.

 

[RockyTop85]

No. If he doesn't have proof besides his feelings it's not relevant.

Ok. I disagree. When he’s on the clock, I think any coercive or inherent pressure on students to participate ought to be a factor for consideration.

 

[volfanhill]

Why do you think he insisted on the 50-yardline? He was given the option to do it elsewhere and have whoever attend that wanted to.

He wanted this to be public, and in view for everybody to see. I can understand where some kids might feel pressured. The schoolboard did too and that is why they were perfectly fine with him praying with his team, in a more private location.

When I played ball in HS we said a prayer in the lockeroom and nobody was compelled to participate. Why isn't that good enough?

Why is the government telling people where they can and can't pray? Again if he was praying to a pentagram the government shouldn't get involved. Like the ruling said, separation of church and state doesn't mean state has to be adversarial. And, if the school is cool with it happening somewhere else on property then even the school isn't arguing it's a church and state issue. They are already conceding that's not the problem. It's a look at me Louie problem.

 

[volfanhill]

Ok. I disagree. When he’s on the clock, I think any coercive or inherent pressure on students to participate ought to be a factor for consideration.

Reasonable take. I disagree with it. A teacher saying a prayer to themselves before beginning a lecture, while on the clock, should be perfectly ok. Just my opinion

 

[lawgator1]

Yeah, f*** Tim Tebow!!!

Didn't kneel mid field and lead a prayer, did he? Every game. For decades.

 

[volfanhill]

Didn't kneel mid field and lead a prayer, did he? Every game. For decades.

What's going on here

 

[Weezer]

What's going on here
View attachment 467734

I'm just surprised Urban Meyer didn't burst into flames.

 

[hog88]

At least one former player testified that he participated solely because he was worried about playing time. I don’t think there was any explicit threat. Not sure if they tried to prove that he actually made decisions based on who participated (was this guy even the head coach? I’m not certain how much authority he had). Does that make a difference?

No, unless there is a proven pattern of the coach taking playing time for non-participation that's just a kid being overly sensitive.

 

[hog88]

Why do you think he insisted on the 50-yardline? He was given the option to do it elsewhere and have whoever attend that wanted to.

He wanted this to be public, and in view for everybody to see. I can understand where some kids might feel pressured. The schoolboard did too and that is why they were perfectly fine with him praying with his team, in a more private location.

When I played ball in HS we said a prayer in the lockeroom and nobody was compelled to participate. Why isn't that good enough?

What's the difference?

 

[NorthDallas40]

What's going on here
View attachment 467734

Urban Meyer is acting like he has religion and isn’t really just an amoral pig? Am I close?

Edit: dammit @Weezer !!

 

[whodeycin85]

No one would object to him praying silently. The issue is making a display of it in a setting where young people might feel compelled to join in. It seems..... "look-at-me" ish. I tend to find people who wear their religion so prominently to generally suck as people.

Would you feel the same about a Muslim on a prayer rug on the 50 after a game??

 

[RockyTop85]

Reasonable take. I disagree with it. A teacher saying a prayer to themselves before beginning a lecture, while on the clock, should be perfectly ok. Just my opinion

A couple of hypotheticals:

After the start-of-class bell rings and all students are in their seats, the teacher begins kneeling or just praying audibly. I don’t think this is entirely analogous, but I think it’s clearly out of bounds in a public school.

Same situation but the prayer is silent. I feel like this is the toughest call. Also least likely to get litigated. A teacher taking a moment to collect themselves isn’t really a big deal as long as it doesn’t go on for significant amount of time.

Same situation outside of class time, but during the school day, prayer is either silent or audible. Even take it further and say a student happens upon teacher and more and more students begin participating voluntarily over time. Not sure this is entirely analogous, either, but I think this is basically what the court found happened here. Under these facts, I don’t have a problem with it.

I don’t think any of these is exactly analogous to this case, but the facts that bring it into line with either hypo 1 or hypo 3 are within the control of the school board, so drawing the line between the two seems fine.

 

[volfanhill]

A couple of hypotheticals:

After the start-of-class bell rings and all students are in their seats, the teacher begins kneeling or just praying audibly. I don’t think this is entirely analogous, but I think it’s clearly out of bounds in a public school.

Same situation but the prayer is silent. I feel like this is the toughest call. Also least likely to get litigated. A teacher taking a moment to collect themselves isn’t really a big deal as long as it doesn’t go on for significant amount of time.

Same situation outside of class time, but during the school day, prayer is either silent or audible. Even take it further and say a student happens upon teacher and more and more students begin participating voluntarily over time. Not sure this is entirely analogous, either, but I think this is basically what the court found happened here. Under these facts, I don’t have a problem with it.

I don’t think any of these is exactly analogous to this case, but the facts that bring it into line with either hypo 1 or hypo 3 are within the control of the school board, so drawing the line between the two seems fine.

I would agree that audible is out of bounds. The others I think the court should have no problem with. That would include obvious non verbal acts of prayer. Like the laying out of a rug, closing one's hands, kneeling etc

 

[AM64]

I'd love to be wrong. Please straighten me out as I'm not yet in my 60s...but I was under the impression that two high earning spouses can't collect their full SS at age 70. One would have to be 50% of the other

If the husband is older, he can collect SS at the rate as determined by age at application. The wife on reaching the age to draw SS can draw reduced SS based on the husband's SS payment and defer her own until a later age - like 70 for the full amount. Works the same if the wife is older. It's a pretty neat glitch, feature, scam, or whatever other noun somebody might want to call it; but it's absolutely legal.

 

[lawgator1]

Would you feel the same about a Muslim on a prayer rug on the 50 after a game??

Sure.

 

[lawgator1]

A couple of hypotheticals:

After the start-of-class bell rings and all students are in their seats, the teacher begins kneeling or just praying audibly. I don’t think this is entirely analogous, but I think it’s clearly out of bounds in a public school.

Same situation but the prayer is silent. I feel like this is the toughest call. Also least likely to get litigated. A teacher taking a moment to collect themselves isn’t really a big deal as long as it doesn’t go on for significant amount of time.

Same situation outside of class time, but during the school day, prayer is either silent or audible. Even take it further and say a student happens upon teacher and more and more students begin participating voluntarily over time. Not sure this is entirely analogous, either, but I think this is basically what the court found happened here. Under these facts, I don’t have a problem with it.

I don’t think any of these is exactly analogous to this case, but the facts that bring it into line with either hypo 1 or hypo 3 are within the control of the school board, so drawing the line between the two seems fine.

Those hypothetical are FAR different than this. No one just happened across the guy silently praying. He promoted it in a public event.

 

[Orangeburst]

Supreme Court Expansion After Controversial Rulings

Poor bastards are a threat to our Republic

 

[CagleMtnVol]

Lizzo vows to donate $500K of her tour proceeds to Planned Parenthood which Live Nation will match for total of $1million... hours after Roe v. Wade abortion ruling was overturned

Lizzo announced she will be donating $500K of her upcoming tour proceeds to Planned Parenthood and Abortion Funds hours after Roe v. Wade was overturned.

The singer, 34, made the announcement on her Instagram Story on Friday, where she revealed that entertainment company Live Nation has agreed to match her generous donation making it a grand total of $1million.

Taking a stand: Lizzo (seen in June 2019 at Glastonbury Festival in England) announced that she will be donating $500K of her upcoming tour proceeds to Planned Parenthood and Abortion Funds just hours after Roe v. Wade was overturned

Lizzo to donate $500K of tour proceeds to Planned Parenthood which Live Nation will match for $1m | Daily Mail Online