Supreme Court / Obama Administration

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

I did read it. And it's a terrible ruling.

Show me the language which confers religious rights on Microsoft.

 

Further, you find a ruling that would separate individuals from their First Amendment rights by entering into contract with a business entity preferable?

 

You say it's a terrible ruling. Please atleast have the courtesy to respond to my questions and requests, and state why it's terrible sourcing the decision.

Edited June 30, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[IDBillzFan]

I did read it. And it's a terrible ruling.

 

I wouldn't worry about it. Obama has a pen. And a phone. And he's about to spend the next two years turning the Rule of Law on its head.

[B-Man]

Law Professor's reactions:

 

Hobby Lobby Wins Before the Supreme Court.............. Eugene Volokh

 

 

Supreme Court Rules for Hobby Lobby, and Unions..............Jonathan Adler

 

 

Debunking of the Hobby Lobby talking points, from Ann Althouse.

 

 

Plus: The vote on whether “for-profit corporations or their owners may bring claims under [RFRA]” is 5 to 2, not 5 to 4. “Justices Breyer and Kagan express no opinion on the issue.”

[4merper4mer]

While I'm unsurprised, I think this is a dangerous ruling. This ruling basically says that religious views are more important than federally mandated regulations.

 

The Constitution called to say it was glad to be back.

[Deranged Rhino]

Show me the language which confers religious rights on Microsoft.

 

Further, you find a ruling that would separate individuals from their First Amendment rights by entering into contract with a business entity preferable?

 

You say it's a terrible ruling. Please atleast have the courtesy to respond to my questions and requests, and state why it's terrible sourcing the decision.

I responded and gave my reasons already.

[DC Tom]

While I'm unsurprised, I think this is a dangerous ruling. This ruling basically says that religious views are more important than federally mandated regulations.

 

Actually, it's the Constitution that says that.

[B-Man]

What Hobby Lobby Shows about Obama’s Fundamental Abuse of Executive Power

by John Yoo

 

This should have been an easy case, as Justice Alito’s straightforward analysis demonstrates. The logic is simple:

1. corporations are persons because Congress said so in the Dictionary Act;

2. Hobby Lobby’s right to religious freedom is violated, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, because the contraceptives requirement for mandatory insurance supplied by employers contravenes the owner’s sincere beliefs;

3. the government did not explore any less burdensome alternatives to the mandate.

 

This is a straightforward vindication of Hobby Lobby’s rights under the laws of Congress, not the Constitution.

 

But more important, this case shows the extreme ideological ends pursued by the Obama administration through its legal powers, and so is of a piece with the Noel Canning recess appointments clause case of last Thursday. In both cases, the president pursued extreme arguments in court to advance an ideological agenda — today, it was to sweep religious minorities into Obamacare; on Thursday, to create a union-friendly NLRB.

 

In both cases, the policy preference of Democrats was broadly at work. Most employers who supply insurance under Obamacare will not have religious-freedom rights at stake. The NLRB and labor law already gives unions broad rights to organize. But in order to push its ideology to extremes, the administration had to pursue even the small number of religious-oriented small businesses to force them into the contraceptives mandate. To guarantee unions a 100 percent win rate, rather than say 75 percent win rate in the NLRB, Obama had to illegally appoint its officials.

 

 

To me, that is Obama’s fundamental abuse of presidential power. He is not broadly interpreting his powers to respond to emergencies or national-security challenges. He is relying on extreme interpretations of his powers to play small-ball politics and win for ideological supporters. It is not only a misuse of power, but it damages the institution of the presidency for times when it will really matter.

 

 

 

 

 

.

[DC Tom]

I did read it. And it's a terrible ruling.

 

I don't know if it's terrible...but it's such a narrow and specific ruling that it strikes me as a Solomon-like attempt to split the baby (no joke intended) without actually committing to any actual principle.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

I responded and gave my reasons already.

You made a blanket statement that this ruling confers religious rights on corporations. I've already demonstrated, that given the incredibly narrow scope of the decision, it does not. Further you refuse to provide the language in the decision which would back your assertion.

 

So again, I ask you: why do you believe Americans should forfeit their First Amendment rights when enter into contracts?

[B-Man]

http://www.redstate....izabeth-warren/

 

Two kinds of people commenting about the Hobby Lobby case…

 

…the people who are familiar with the case and what was being argued; and then there’s the Activist Left. The people who are familiar with the case understand that while Hobby Lobby did in fact get the ruling it wanted – to wit, that the company was not required to provide access to drugs that it considered to be abortifacients* – it is not all that broad a ruling. Privately held companies have more protection here than publicly traded ones like, say, Wal-Mart or Boeing; it’s a win for religious liberty, but not a grand slam home run. Again, those are the people who are familiar with the case.

 

And then there are these people: (Hilarious,angry tweets at the link)

 

To wit: people who have been programmed into screaming about this case, wound up, and sent on their merry way… and their merry way has led them to SCOTUSBlog, which apparently a large cross-section of the Left-Internet thinks is the official blog of the Supreme Court**. SCOTUSBlog, God bless ‘em, are retweeting the best – which is to say, most hysterical – comments, presumably so that the Left’s handlers will get into action and exert some control over their epistemic closure poster children. But never mind that right now. I’d like to take this opportunity to instead preemptively quash the immediate reaction of Those are just dumb people! Your side has dumb people, too! …Which is true.

 

But check out this from a sitting US Senator:

 

http://www.redstate....hobby-lobby.png

 

Here’s the thing about that: it’s just as inane and ignorant as the first set of Tweets. Elizabeth Warren clearly hasn’t read anything about the case, either: the major difference between her and the first batch is that Warren has a better grasp of written English. A pity that she doesn’t have a better one of existing federal law… actually, it’s not a pity: it’s a very, very bad sign. This woman gets to have a vote for the foreseeable future over who gets to be a Supreme Court Justice.

 

Elections have consequences, folks. Be wary of anybody who tells you that they don’t.

[IDBillzFan]

But check out this from a sitting US Senator:

 

http://www.redstate....hobby-lobby.png

 

Now THAT is the perfect example of someone going full gatorman.

 

One thing that is going to hurt Democrats this mid-term is the left's belief that they can win the day if they can just get women upset enough to vote. Unfortunately for Demos, they keep putting women like Warren and Fluke out there to explain why the left is convinced women are stupid.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Supreme Court turned down (sided w/Obama Admin) the Asian carp suit(s) brought up against the US Gov't by Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, & Minnesota (and joined by Native Tribes & Ontario).

 

Strange how New York State was never part of those cases.

[DC Tom]

Supreme Court turned down (sided w/Obama Admin) the Asian carp suit(s) brought up against the US Gov't by Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, & Minnesota (and joined by Native Tribes & Ontario).

 

Strange how New York State was never part of those cases.

 

And now that the Supreme Court has denied free birth control to everyone, the Asian Carp will just breed faster and faster. Damn legislating from the bench by reactionary justices!

[Deranged Rhino]

You made a blanket statement that this ruling confers religious rights on corporations. I've already demonstrated, that given the incredibly narrow scope of the decision, it does not. Further you refuse to provide the language in the decision which would back your assertion.

 

So again, I ask you: why do you believe Americans should forfeit their First Amendment rights when enter into contracts?

It's not a narrow decision in fact, it only appears that way on the surface. Instead what was created was an ill advised and poorly reasoned precedent which will allow corporations of any size to launch religious objections to anything and everything they wish. SCOTUS just gave them the means to do so.

 

It's a continuation of treating corporations as people, which they are most assuredly not. Considering your politics and reading of the constitution, you should be the most outraged about this. The fact you're not says to me you aren't considering the ramifications of the decision that go beyond ACA or women's rights (both of which are distractions in this case rather than the meat).

 

As I posted earlier, from Ginsberg's opinion (who I normally disagree with on nearly everything):

 

Until this litigation, no decision of this Court recognized a for-profit corporation's qualification for a religious exemption from a generally applicable law, whether under the Free Exercise Clause or RFRA. The absence of such precedent is just what one would expect, for the exercise of religion is a characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities. As Chief Justice Marshall observed nearly two centuries ago, a corporation is "an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law.: Trustees of Dartmouth College v Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 636 (1819). Corporations, Justice Stevens more recently reminded, "have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires." Citizens United v Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310, 466 (2010).

 

.... And the kicker:

 

The Court does not even begin to explain how one might go about ascertaining the religious scruples of a corporation where shares are sold to the public... No need to speculate on that, the Court says, for ‘it seems unlikely’ that large corporation ‘will often assert RFRA claims.'

 

This ruling kicks the door open for any corporation to forgo any federal regulation, bar taxes, on religious grounds if they so wish. That's a disaster for this country's future if it comes to pass.

Edited June 30, 2014 by GreggyT

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

 

And now that the Supreme Court has denied free birth control to everyone, the Asian Carp will just breed faster and faster. Damn legislating from the bench by reactionary justices!

 

 

 

LoL! Judges finally doing something right.

 

"Nutritional Value:  Bighead Carp is an excellent food for human consumption.  Tasty and healthy they contain less than 2% fat, no carbohydrates, are high in calcium and protein, as well as Omega 3's. 

 

Features and Benefites:  The many bones have kept the Bighead Carp out of the United States fresh fish markets except those frequented by Asian shoppers.  Worldwide, this Chinese delicacy is the most eaten fish, and it is considered the Cadillac of fish in Asian countries.  Product flesh is firm, clean and slightly translucent with metallic sheen like that of whitefish and trout.  The flesh when processed is bland and light in color making them very versatile.  Product taste is similar to Pollock, not fishy.  The flesh will readily absorb spices and marinades.  The large head is desirable prepared in soup."

 

That's a good thing, of course we want them to breed:

 

"On a world wide scale, CARP PROVIDE MORE PROTEIN FOR CONSUMPTION THAN CATTLE. Status of carp in the United States and Canada is very different from that in other countries.  Throughout Europe and Asia, the carp is an important and widely cultured food fish.  The consumption of carp as table food has been confined to local areas where they are harvested commercially, or to large cities where ethnic groups have accepted carp as a good food fish."

 

 

Jboyst in 3, 2, 1...

 

 

:-)

 

 

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

Supreme Court turned down (sided w/Obama Admin) the Asian carp suit(s) brought up against the US Gov't by Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, & Minnesota (and joined by Native Tribes & Ontario).

 

Strange how New York State was never part of those cases.

 

New York State mis-read it and though that the lawsuit was about all the low-quality Asian crap that they sell at Wal-Mart.

 

What Hobby Lobby Shows about Obama’s Fundamental Abuse of Executive Power

 

 

How does fundamental abuse differ from regular abuse?

[ExiledInIllinois]

New York State mis-read it and though that the lawsuit was about all the low-quality Asian crap that they sell at Wal-Mart.

 

Yeah... Probably. But even more reason to join. Doesn't NYS hate business? Yet, it is interesting that they totally avoided the Supreme Court showdown. They were non-existent... Not even adjoining in to say: "Oh yeah!" like Ontario and the Native Tribes. Go figure.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

It's not a narrow decision in fact, it only appears that way on the surface. Instead what was created was an ill advised and poorly reasoned precedent which will allow corporations of any size to launch religious objections to anything and everything they wish. SCOTUS just gave them the means to do so.

 

It's a continuation of treating corporations as people, which they are most assuredly not. Considering your politics and reading of the constitution, you should be the most outraged about this. The fact you're not says to me you aren't considering the ramifications of the decision that go beyond ACA or women's rights (both of which are distractions in this case rather than the meat).

 

As I posted earlier, from Ginsberg's opinion (who I normally disagree with on nearly everything):

 

Until this litigation, no decision of this Court recognized a for-profit corporation's qualification for a religious exemption from a generally applicable law, whether under the Free Exercise Clause or RFRA. The absence of such precedent is just what one would expect, for the exercise of religion is a characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities. As Chief Justice Marshall observed nearly two centuries ago, a corporation is "an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law.: Trustees of Dartmouth College v Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 636 (1819). Corporations, Justice Stevens more recently reminded, "have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires." Citizens United v Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310, 466 (2010).

 

.... And the kicker:

 

The Court does not even begin to explain how one might go about ascertaining the religious scruples of a corporation where shares are sold to the public... No need to speculate on that, the Court says, for ‘it seems unlikely’ that large corporation ‘will often assert RFRA claims.'

 

This ruling kicks the door open for any corporation to forgo any federal regulation, bar taxes, on religious grounds if they so wish. That's a disaster for this country's future if it comes to pass.

The Court specifically stated "closely held corporations". If a publicly owned corporation seeks to challenge on the same grounds? That's what the Courts are for, and the language of this decision leaves the Court the room to come down against the plantif in such a case.

 

All this decision does is state that individuals do not cede their First Amendment rights by incorporating a small business.

 

Why do you believe that the act of incorporating should justly strip an individual of his rights? Should we also be able to imprison small business owners without trial?

[Keukasmallies]

So when POTUS (with VPOTUS standing by in case there was trouble) made a statement outside the White House regarding immigration today, my wife asked me, "Once more, which one is the Doofus and which one is Dumbo?"

 

Oh, and the SCOTUS got it right in both today's decisions.

[Deranged Rhino]

The Court specifically stated "closely held corporations".

Which is all any halfway decent litigator needs to make a case for larger corporations to be granted similar protections. This decision established a precedent, without even defining the limitations of their precedent to any sort of satisfying degree, where none was needed.

 

If a publicly owned corporation seeks to challenge on the same grounds? That's what the Courts are for, and the language of this decision leaves the Court the room to come down against the plantif in such a case.

Agree to disagree here. My reading and interpretation of it is quite contrary to this.

 

All this decision does is state that individuals do not cede their First Amendment rights by incorporating a small business.

Again, agree to disagree. That's not what this says to me at all.

 

Why do you believe that the act of incorporating should justly strip an individual of his rights?

You're conflating two very independent thoughts into one question, making it impossible for me to answer you to any degree of satisfaction. People are not corporations. Corporations are not people. We clearly disagree on this basic principal which is why we are probably at odds.

 

When I formed my corporation I did so with the knowledge that I was creating a legal entity -- a protection of my own individual assets from my corporate ones -- my personal rights don't factor into the equation, certainly not my religious ones. Just because I own a company doesn't give me the right to dictate anything to the state or federal government about how they regulate it. No one forces anyone to form a corporation... it's an obligatory and beneficial act.

 

Should we also be able to imprison small business owners without trial?

 

This is a ridiculous question because the entire purpose of incorporating is to mitigate personal liability. The Court, backed by the power of the state, provides legal protection under corporate law to protect those under its umbrella. Every American company chose to become one to enjoy those protections -- they were not required to do so. At no point in the process of incorporation does a company suddenly become living thing. It's a shell, a protection, nothing more.

 

Granting it freedom of speech and now religion is an abomination.