DC Tom Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 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. Having read halfway through it...Ginsberg's opinion is supremely asinine. She extends a narrow decision to an illogical extreme, building up a straw-man argument that's more suitable to this board than it is the bench. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Having read halfway through it...Ginsberg's opinion is supremely asinine. She extends a narrow decision to an illogical extreme, building up a straw-man argument that's more suitable to this board than it is the bench. With the women's right's stuff, I completely agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Striker Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Having read halfway through it...Ginsberg's opinion is supremely asinine Surely, you can't be serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 http://www.redstate....izabeth-warren/ Two kinds of people commenting about the Hobby Lobby case… rsquo;t. Three kinds actually! The twelve year old boy that thinks he is smart because he can cut and paste right wing propaganda is one too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Obamacare passed Constitutional muster! Boom! Yeah....like when mandatory Medicaid expansion was struck down? When and if you ever develop a working understanding of Obamacare, you'll understand how important that piece of the decision was. However, as long as you get your understanding from liberal bloggers, and Ezra Klein "explainers", you're going to revel in ignorance. Ignorance: that the SCOTUS contorting itself to protect Congress's right to tax, and define taxes...is somehow more important...than essentially destroying a critical revenue stream for Obamacare. Medicare expansion was where a significant portion of the $ that makes Obamacare "work" was going to come from. Now, it's not coming. It's going to be hilarious...in a few years...to watch you suddenly hurl your bile and wild-eyed invective...at the branch of government you had been saying did you a favor, when it finally dawns on you, or, more likley Ezra Klien et al, just how much damage the SCOTUS did to Obamacare. I am not religious at all, but I think people who are religious have been on a progressive path to compromise their beliefs for years. I do think that since this did pass, and Hobby Lobby wants to deny this type of birth control on plans they offer (and they must provide healthcare to employees), that employees should be given some type of compensation from Hobby Lobby should those employees want to seek healthcare outside of what Hobby Lobby would offer. Hobby Lobby can stay true to their beliefs, and employees would not be penalized then. Employees may have to come out of pocket a little more, but would have a chance for other reasonably priced healthcare then. The administration of all this is astounding. Yet another argument from you that is based on a ridiculous premise. No one is being penalized. Every employee is free to enter into any employment contract they wish. However, every owner enjoys the same freedom. If you don't like Hobby Lobby's birth control policy, or their parking policy, or their career development policy, you are free to work elsewhere. The simple fact is: we make choices about where we work, and we negotiate the terms of our employment. No one is being penalized, when the choice to work at Hobby Lobby was theirs. Moving on, anyone can buy birth control, and the price is not even close to being a "burden". There is no "economic hardship" created by something that costs $10 a month. And, under this decision, employees can avail themselves of 30 different birth control options that, in fact, Hobby Lobby DOES pay for as part of its health care plan. All that is being denied here: Hobby Lobby paying for 4, of 34, birth control options. No one is saying that the employees aren't free to buy those other 4 options on their own, so the notion that they are somehow being restricted, or being denied anything other than the 4 options, when the other 30 exist? Patently ridiculous. Here's where you would have a point: An economic hardship WOULD be created, in the form of an unwanted child, if Hobby Lobby was empowered to DENY ALL employees, ALL birth control, as a condition of continued employment, and it could be shown that these employees had very little other choices other than to work at Hobby Lobby. But, that isn't the decision, Hobby Lobby is not empowered to stop anyone from buying anything. They simply don't have to pay for 4 of 34 options. Hobby Lobby employees are free to work at the next "useless crap" store in the stripmall, rather than Hobby Lobby. No. For your argument to succeed, we have to live an in alternate universe. We do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Yeah....like when mandatory Medicaid expansion was struck down? When and if you ever develop a working understanding of Obamacare, you'll understand how important that piece of the decision was. However, as long as you get your understanding from liberal bloggers, and Ezra Klein "explainers", you're going to revel in ignorance. Ignorance: that the SCOTUS contorting itself to protect Congress's right to tax, and define taxes...is somehow more important...than essentially destroying a critical revenue stream for Obamacare. Medicare expansion was where a significant portion of the $ that makes Obamacare "work" was going to come from. Now, it's not coming. It's going to be hilarious...in a few years...to watch you suddenly hurl your bile and wild-eyed invective...at the branch of government you had been saying did you How long will this take? I'm kind of tired of right wingers constantly promising the end of the world in some future time because of...fill in the blank, deficits, debt, the government being "bankrupt," immigrants overrunning the country, killer Saddam drones, the government outlawing all free-dumb, gays having parades, wars on Christmas, hyper inflation...Boo! Can I just get a timeline here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Earth to gatorman: How long will this take? It'll take until just after the light bulb goes on for you that the current POTUS is incompetent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) 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. Agree to disagree here. My reading and interpretation of it is quite contrary to this. Again, agree to disagree. That's not what this says to me at all. 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. 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. A closely held corporation is substantially different from a publicly traded one. The two are not difficult to distinguish between, and thus, the precedent you're concerned with does not exist. As far as corporations being people, corporations are essentially extensions of people. All a corporation is is a way to limit liability. TTYT is quite right when he suggests that people don't lose their constitutional rights by choosing to incorporate. If that were the case the government could shut down your employer and/or family business (assuming you've incorporated) on the whim of the executive and leave you without recourse. Be careful what you wish for. Three kinds actually! The twelve year old boy that thinks he is smart because he can cut and paste right wing propaganda is one too Still waiting for you to explain the constitutionality of Obamacare. Not holding my breath on that one. Edited July 1, 2014 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 1, 2014 Author Share Posted July 1, 2014 USA TODAY: Workers Handed Victory Over Unions. “When the U.S. Supreme Court today issued a landmark ruling for employee rights in Harris v. Quinn, it wasn’t just a victory for the Illinois mom who had the courage to stand up to the state’s public employee unions. The decision also bolsters hopes that all government employees will one day be free from paying forced union dues as a condition of employment.” Harris v Quinn: A Win for a Mother and Her Childby Charles C W Cooke An hour or so after the Supreme Court announced its decision in Harris v Quinn, I spoke with Pam Harris, the lead plaintiff. Harris had sued the state of Illinois, after a rule authored by the state’s governor forced her to contribute part of her son’s Social Security benefits to a public-employees’ union. As I recorded earlier in the year after the oral arguments, she contended that this was illegal: RFRA Worked the Way It Was Supposed To in Hobby Lobby By Jennifer A. Marshall & Sarah Torre Today an important religious- liberty law did what it was supposed to do. In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) provided the Supreme Court with a mechanism for weighing competing claims in our pluralistic society. The Court determined that we can, in fact, balance seemingly conflicting interests without throwing out religious liberty. Under Obamacare, the Department of Health and Human Services deemed it a critical public-policy goal to ensure all women have access to contraception at no cost to them. It pursued that objective by mandating that many employers provide employee heath insurance covering all 20 FDA-approved contraceptive drugs and devices, including four that have the potential to end unborn human life. The Evangelical Green family of Hobby Lobby and the Mennonite Hahn family of Conestoga Wood Specialties could not provide coverage of these latter four without violating their religious beliefs concerning the sanctity of human life. In today’s 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court rejected the Obama administration’s argument that forcing these family-owned businesses to provide coverage for potentially life-ending drugs and devices was the least restrictive means to achieve its policy goal. Women’s access to affordable birth control was not in question in this case. Hyperbolic claims to the contrary notwithstanding, women still have access to the whole range of contraception. What was at stake was the right of Americans to run a family business consistent with their faith. The Court made clear that the administration’s policy goal could be pursued without burdening religious freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Having read halfway through it...Ginsberg's opinion is supremely asinine. She extends a narrow decision to an illogical extreme, building up a straw-man argument that's more suitable to this board than it is the bench. The narrowness of the decision is, and correct me with insults included if you want, that the religious objection over aborition, or stopping a zygote from becoming a viable fetus, is the only religious objection allowed in this or future rulings? Is that what they said? The court ruled that the religious objection over a zygote's destruction cannot extend to other religious objections, WTF is that? I actually hope I heard that wrong because the Conservative majority could not be that retarded...I think Still waiting for you to explain the constitutionality of Obamacare. Not holding my breath on that one. The court considered it and it's still there, what more needs explained? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Thank you for this explanation in plain English for those of us like me!! Yeah....like when mandatory Medicaid expansion was struck down? When and if you ever develop a working understanding of Obamacare, you'll understand how important that piece of the decision was. However, as long as you get your understanding from liberal bloggers, and Ezra Klein "explainers", you're going to revel in ignorance. Ignorance: that the SCOTUS contorting itself to protect Congress's right to tax, and define taxes...is somehow more important...than essentially destroying a critical revenue stream for Obamacare. Medicare expansion was where a significant portion of the $ that makes Obamacare "work" was going to come from. Now, it's not coming. It's going to be hilarious...in a few years...to watch you suddenly hurl your bile and wild-eyed invective...at the branch of government you had been saying did you a favor, when it finally dawns on you, or, more likley Ezra Klien et al, just how much damage the SCOTUS did to Obamacare. Yet another argument from you that is based on a ridiculous premise. No one is being penalized. Every employee is free to enter into any employment contract they wish. However, every owner enjoys the same freedom. If you don't like Hobby Lobby's birth control policy, or their parking policy, or their career development policy, you are free to work elsewhere. The simple fact is: we make choices about where we work, and we negotiate the terms of our employment. No one is being penalized, when the choice to work at Hobby Lobby was theirs. Moving on, anyone can buy birth control, and the price is not even close to being a "burden". There is no "economic hardship" created by something that costs $10 a month. And, under this decision, employees can avail themselves of 30 different birth control options that, in fact, Hobby Lobby DOES pay for as part of its health care plan. All that is being denied here: Hobby Lobby paying for 4, of 34, birth control options. No one is saying that the employees aren't free to buy those other 4 options on their own, so the notion that they are somehow being restricted, or being denied anything other than the 4 options, when the other 30 exist? Patently ridiculous. Here's where you would have a point: An economic hardship WOULD be created, in the form of an unwanted child, if Hobby Lobby was empowered to DENY ALL employees, ALL birth control, as a condition of continued employment, and it could be shown that these employees had very little other choices other than to work at Hobby Lobby. But, that isn't the decision, Hobby Lobby is not empowered to stop anyone from buying anything. They simply don't have to pay for 4 of 34 options. Hobby Lobby employees are free to work at the next "useless crap" store in the stripmall, rather than Hobby Lobby. No. For your argument to succeed, we have to live an in alternate universe. We do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Does everyone know that this was not a 5-4 decision for Hobby Lobby but a 5-2 decision since 2 justices had no opinion and said so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 The narrowness of the decision is, and correct me with insults included if you want, that the religious objection over aborition, or stopping a zygote from becoming a viable fetus, is the only religious objection allowed in this or future rulings? Is that what they said? The court ruled that the religious objection over a zygote's destruction cannot extend to other religious objections, WTF is that? I actually hope I heard that wrong because the Conservative majority could not be that retarded...I think Actually, that narrowness - only considering contraception that's considered equivalent to abortifacient - is determined by the scope of the lawsuit, as far as I know. I don't think Hobby Lobby's owners sued over any more than that, so that was all the court could reasonably judge on. The narrowness I'm talking about is the majority, rather than take a broader First (or Fourteenth) Amendment stance, gave the rather pointed opinion that the contraception mandate of the ACA violated an until-now obscure law on the grounds that it unnecessarily placed a significant burden on a very specific type of people (sincerely religious people who own businesses that employ more than 50 full-time workers.) And that's what the left is going ape-**** over. If anything, they should be celebrating - though it would have been a minor miracle, the court could have ruled on broader First Amendment principles that mandated free contraception violated freedom of religion, leading to much greater restrictions on what's provided. The decision as it stands allows a mammoth spectrum of situations where businesses are still required to provide free **** to women. You idiot. (So you know it's me.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 How long will this take? I'm kind of tired of right wingers constantly promising the end of the world in some future time because of...fill in the blank, deficits, debt, the government being "bankrupt," immigrants overrunning the country, killer Saddam drones, the government outlawing all free-dumb, gays having parades, wars on Christmas, hyper inflation...Boo! Can I just get a timeline here? Don't be a unmitigated moron. YOU do hyperbole, not me. I do: laughing at you, once I have the quantitative data/information in front of me that justifies it. Quantifiable answer: The timeline is about 1.5-2 years. Straightforward enough for you? If you want to know why, read on. Otherwise, I have broken the supposed pattern that tires you. Carry on. 1.5-2 years depending on how many more "delays" occur. Basically, right around October 2016. Perfect, idiot timing. This is because the insurance enrollment period will be running, and the 2nd iteration of "kick in the nuts" rate increases will be deployed. Basically, everybody will be paying 120-400% of what they were originally quoted for their monthly premium. Those that don't pay anything/very little, will find that suddenly(actually, not suddenly at all, as this was planned from the beginning), their state exchange subsidy is gone, and they have to make up the difference = 200-600% increase in premium. Or, their state taxes will double. We can move the shells around, but in all cases, the ass falls out of this thing. This is directly due to lack of revenue intake, since mandatory Medicare expansion was blocked. In fact, the Obamacare delays have already maximized the effect of the SCOTUS decision to strike down the Medicare extension mandate, in that they have also kept necessary revenue out. How? Obamacare depends upon overcharging for things you don't need....so that sick people can afford health care/be subsidized. They delays have therefore prevented the necessary, increased revenue from being collected that would have been, had, for example, all the employers been forced to start overpaying for insurance via the new and "approved" Obamacare plans. So, not only do you not get the needed revenue from Medicare expansion, you also don't get the revenue that has been delayed. November is coming. Therefore, Obama can expect NO help from Congress to provide revenue to shore up Obamacare. Therefore, the revenue required has to come from someplace. The only place left? Massive premium increases. Or, the insurance company goes out of business, and thus, policy cancelled. Mandatory Medicaid expansion could have at least allowed the Federal government to force the states to pay the difference, or, at least have provided 3 years of 5-7x the revenue, compared with individual policies, into the pot. That might have been enough to turn the tide. Not now. In all cases, and, as I have explained to you in simple terms: the ban on mandatory Medicaid expansion, coupled with the self-inflicted wounds of Obamacare delay(that even a dope like Ezra Klein recognizes as a problem now), is the death of Obamacare. And, Obamacare is the death of liberals. This is why Obamacare shall forever be known as "The Liberal Cleaver". So....the SCOTUS you love so much today? Not your friend. Never was. Thank you for this explanation in plain English for those of us like me!! You are quite welcome. I've done it again above. I look at it this way: at least my effort isn't being wasted on gatorman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 How long will this take? About the same time we end up in the theocratic dictatorship predicted by the left every time a Republican's in office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 About the same time we end up in the theocratic dictatorship predicted by the left every time a Republican's in office. Funny...but... no. This is not that. The answer is ~1.5-2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 1, 2014 Author Share Posted July 1, 2014 Hobby Lobby and the shape of things to come What are the implications of today’s Hobby Lobby decision for challenges by non-profit religious institutions, such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, to Obamacare’s mandate that they facilitate the free distribution of contraceptives and abortifacients to any of their employees who desire them? Professor Mark Rienzi, who together with the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty has been litigating these sorts of religious liberty cases against the Justice Department, offers his perspective, via the Volokh Conspiracy. The “accommodation” that the government offers to religious institutions such as the Little Sisters is a form they must sign that authorizes a third party to provide the objectionable drugs in their place. Although the Hobby Lobby majority does not tackle the specific question of whether this “accommodation” would pass muster under Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), Prof. Rienzi contends that much of the Court’s reasoning will apply to the non-profit cases. Moreover, “that reasoning all points towards another defeat for the Government,” in Rienzi’s view. He notes that in the non-profit cases, the government has relied almost exclusively on the “attenuation” argument — i.e., that the objections of the employer to complicity in abortion are too “attenuated” to state a violation of the RFRA. But the Supreme Court rejected that argument today. It found that the government’s argument arrogated to it the authority to provide a binding national answer to this religious and philosophical question, and amounted to the government deciding that the religious beliefs of the Hobby Lobby owners are “flawed.” This suggests that the government will find it very difficult to minimize the burden imposed on groups like the Little Sisters by claiming, as it has in many lawsuits, that they need do nothing more that sign a form. Rienzi also believes that the Hobby Lobby decision undermines the Government’s “least restrictive means” argument in the non-profit cases: The opinion for the Court makes clear that the Government must explain why it cannot simply pay for the drugs itself. And Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion states that “RFRA is inconsistent with the insistence of an agency such as HHS on distinguishing between different religious believers — burdening one while accommodating the other — when it may treat both equally by offering both of them the same accommodation.” Yet that is precisely what the Government proposes to do to non-profits: It provides a full exemption to some religious employers (churches) while denying that same exemption to others (such as Little Sisters of the Poor). Finally, Rienzi notes that just after the Hobby Lobby decision was announced, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction in a non-profit mandate case, Eternal Word Television Network v. Burwell, which involves a non-profit television network founded by nuns. The injunction protects the plaintiff from having to comply with the Government’s “accommodation” pending appeal. Thus, as Ed Whelan said earlier today, the Hobby Lobby decision would seem to augur well for the success of the ongoing challenges by religious non-profit groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor. http://www.powerline...ngs-to-come.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Actually, that narrowness - only considering contraception that's considered equivalent to abortifacient - is determined by the scope of the lawsuit, as far as I know. I don't think Hobby Lobby's owners sued over any more than that, so that was all the court could reasonably judge on. I kind of think that's the point, so can't any lawsuit based on religious objections now have a precedent in this case? This same court will have to consider why a religious objection over a law that is about--I don't know--domestic violence or anything--now have to be squared with this religious objection? How do you now limit this to just protecting zygotes? Seems like a reasonable complaint against the ruling Don't be a unmitigated moron. YOU do hyperbole, not me. I do: laughing at you, once I have the quantitative data/information in front of me that justifies it. Quantifiable answer: The timeline is about 1.5-2 years. Straightforward enough for you? If you want to know why, read on. Otherwise, I have broken the supposed pattern that tires you. Carry on. I look at it this way: at least my effort isn't being wasted on gatorman. Ok, we shall see! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 The court considered it and it's still there, what more needs explained? The parts that aren't still there, dumb ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 1, 2014 Author Share Posted July 1, 2014 Toobin, Turley: It’s getting pretty obvious that Obama’s overreaching by Mary Katherine Ham For the liberal lawyer trifecta, if you count Laurence Tribe, too. George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley declares it an awful 10 days for Obama administration legal philosophy, having been rebuked on the 4th Amendment in the cell phone case, the 1st Amendment in the Hobby Lobby case, and on separation of powers in the recess appointments case: Then Jeffrey Toobin offers some perspective on the contents of the Constitution: Obama explained his decision Monday by declaring, “I take executive action only when we have a serious problem, a serious issue, and Congress chooses to do nothing.” “Well,” Toobin reacted, “that’s not necessarily the way the Constitution set it up. He can only act when Article 2 of the Constitution says the president has the authority. He can’t allocate money.” Click over to the Daily Caller for a bonus clip of Toobin telling CNN’s Carol Costello that the president did, indeed, lose in the recess appointments case. Costello is comically unable to accept this fact: http://hotair.com/ar...s-overreaching/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts