Biggest US Supreme Court ruling of the year

[Llamalandia]

There is significant risk if Ginsburg does not retire( or otherwise leave the bench) by January 2015. If the GOP wins the Senate which is about a coin flip right now, from 2015 on the GOP could block and appointees by Obama without the threat of removing the last vestiges of filibuster. They could even hold pro forma sessions to keep Obama from making recess appointments.

Imagine if the GOP takes the senate in January 2015 and Ginsburg leaves the bench in February of 2015. The GOP would get a Supreme court of 4 conservatives, 3 liberals, and a conservative leaning swing. Conservative litigants would be able to win on ties by appeal from conservative circuit courts and if there is a tie the circuit court is affirmed. So to provide an example during the aca case a 4-4 decision would have gone back to the 11th circuit enjoining enforcement of the mandate is the circuit.

You are correct. The court is in a dangerous position. Labels don't matter if you think you are going to get a fair evaluation.

Problem is the repubs like putting ideologues in place. If it was up to me, I would toss Thomas, Scalia and Alito.

Good thing, it's not only not up to you, but rather justices can't be removed from office it's a lifetime appointment, barring some kind of criminal act on their part. Also I doubt Ginsburg would leave under such a scenario, generally the justices tend to try to hang on to keep a proper balance on the court, so I'm guessing she's going to wait until a it's "safe" politically speaking for her to retire.

But hey, don't forget the Aero decision, wasn't that a unanimously wrongly decision by the court? See they get a long and work together at least when they want to screw everyone out watching local programming wherever they want.

[Gauthier]

To be honest, I was pleasantly surprised to hear of the ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby. It is a sign that conservative, Christian America is having a resurgence. It continues to show that the United States is indeed a Christian nation.

A business run by Muslims could have made the same claim. It isn't about Christianity, it's about religious conservatism in general.

Except if a Muslim business filed the case instead of Hobby Lobby, the Good Ole Boys would have struck it down because they don't want to be seen as enabling Creeping Sharia Law. And everyone cheering the decision now would agree with them.

[The Black Forrest]

You are correct. The court is in a dangerous position. Labels don't matter if you think you are going to get a fair evaluation.

Problem is the repubs like putting ideologues in place. If it was up to me, I would toss Thomas, Scalia and Alito.

Good thing, it's not only not up to you, but rather justices can't be removed from office it's a lifetime appointment, barring some kind of criminal act on their part.

Gee I am shocked you like those three. You assume I would replace them with liberal ideologues.

Also I doubt Ginsburg would leave under such a scenario, generally the justices tend to try to hang on to keep a proper balance on the court, so I'm guessing she's going to wait until a it's "safe" politically speaking for her to retire.

There are no guarantees on the scenario. Some would argue there will be a Republican in 2017 so it would make sense for her an Breyer to retire to Obama could replace them. Then again. The Repubs really don't have a great list of choices to run after Obama.

But hey, don't forget the Aero decision, wasn't that a unanimously wrongly decision by the court? See they get a long and work together at least when they want to screw everyone out watching local programming wherever they want.

I am not sure how copy right violations compare to enforcing religious morality on others?

Besides isn't this were the "free market" comes into play with the usual comments of "if you don't like it, don't use cable?"

Not an issue to me; I don't use cable.

[Viritica]

The Hobby Lobby doesn’t object to covering all contraception, only the emergency contraceptive pills Plan B and Ella and intrauterine devices (IUDs), which they believe are abortifacients. These abortifacient drugs are not what would typically come to mind when most people hear the words “birth control.”

[Brickistan]

To be honest, I was pleasantly surprised to hear of the ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby. It is a sign that conservative, Christian America is having a resurgence. It continues to show that the United States is indeed a Christian nation.

Which, incidentally, is what makes it so scary for the rest of the world.

Not that it's true, mind you, but as long as a group of crazy dominionists believe it...

To be honest, I was pleasantly surprised to hear of the ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby. It is a sign that conservative, Christian America is having a resurgence. It continues to show that the United States is indeed a Christian nation.

A business run by Muslims could have made the same claim. It isn't about Christianity, it's about religious conservatism in general.

That's the thing though.

The ruling is so narrow that it really only covers Christian beliefs. Going to be interesting to see what happens when a Muslim tries to cite the law...

Which is what hobby Lobby did. Their code said don't pay for X for your employees. And the Supreme court agreed.

No they didn't. The owner expects the employees to follow part of his his moral code.

You really shocked that court would agree? I'm not.

By what right?

Agreeing to work for you (exchange my labour for your money) is not an agreement to follow your faith.

"I won't hire any Devil worshiping atheists".
"I won't hire any of them damn niggahs".

The latter is considered wrong but the former is now okay?

How can you be allowed to force your religious beliefs on your employees but not your racial beliefs?

[Ostroeuropa]

This was a fucking disaster. That's pretty much all.

[Alien Space Bats]

The opinion seems correct. As to the issue of corporate standing. It is purely a matter of statutory interpretation. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act says any person may bring a claim, and the dictionary act says person includes corporations.

As to the merits of the case it seemed fairly straight forward.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act requires among other requirements that the government use the least restrictive means. The law granted exemptions for grandfathered policies (effecting up to 1/3 of all policies), so it is pretty hard to say with a straight face the government is using the least restrictive means when the government exempts 1/3 of all policies from its contraception requirements. Or the exemption from the personal mandate for those whose states did not expand medicaid.

The dissents argument was unpersuasive and pretty much was limited to a slippery slope (if we grant them an exemption we have to grant and exemption for this other people will want other exemptions) and an appeal to emotion ( but the poor women). The slippery slope fails because as the interest become more important and the means to that interest become more narrow the government is more likely to satisfy the standards of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The appeal to emotion fail because far more women are affected by the grandfathered insurance policy exemption and the exemption from the mandate for those in states that did not expand medicaid then by hobby lobby getting an exemption.

You're missing a key point, G&D.

How can an artificial legal construct honestly claim to possess sincere and heartfelt religious beliefs?

More to the point, theologically speaking, how can a corporation be Christian under any effective definition of Christian belief? Can a corporation confess its sins and enter into a personal relationship with Jesus? Hell, can a corporation even sin to begin with? And how, exactly, does something with no soul achieve salvation through divine redemption?

See, that's the kicker: Even if we allow that a corporation could somehow hold religious beliefs, the claim of CHRISTIAN belief is such a huge whopper that it can't possibly be credible. Christianity is such an intensely personal religion that it strains the imagination to proclaim that a corporation adheres to the faith. I mean, when was Hobby Lobby baptized? Has it ever proclaimed the Nicene Creed? Does it pray to Jesus regularly and ask Him for counsel? And how can He have a place in the heart of that which literally HAS no heart?!?

[Alien Space Bats]

It won't do any good- this pierces the corporate veil no more so than Citizens United did or any of the other campaign finance cases (because Citizens United specifically noted that the free speech rights of corporations specifically derived from their rights as associations of people- if anything, that does more to pierce the veil than this does).

Uh, no.

A corporation can have clearly definable interests based on its needs, situation, market position, and a host of other factors; moreover, if the decision to contribute is made by the corporate officers and they can argue that those contributions serve the legitimate BUSINESS interests of the corporation, then it's all organic to the organization and there's absolutely no piercing of the corporate veil.

But here, the clear inference is that the corporation inherited its religious beliefs from its OWNERS, and that's an ABSOLUTE piercing of the corporate veil. Hell, it's not just a piercing of the veil, it's a SHREDDING of the God-damned thing. For if the OWNERS religious beliefs can flow through the ties of equity ownership, then everything that comes WITH religion — morals, ethics, character, the works — must ALSO flow from the owners into the corporation through those same ties.

Which means that misbehavior or malfeasance on the part of the corporation — whether criminal conduct or civil liability through negligence — MUST ultimately be attributable to its owners, because they're the ones who gave it its soul, so to speak: Its religious identity and everythig that comes with that identity. To tie is inescapable: Values cannot flow from owner to corporation without RESPONSIBILITY flowing back to the owners who GAVE that corporation those values.

Put differently, if the corporation is bad actor — if it has a corrupt or evil soul — then the owners MUST be held responsible, because THEY'RE the ones who made it that way.

This is wholly different from Citizens United, where there was nothing more than a recognition that corporations have interests, and might wish to advance those interests. Corporations CANNOT have faith — because faith is not the product of self-interest, and self-interest is all that a soulless corporation has got. Religion can only come into a corporation from ACTUAL PEOPLE, and since in this case those ACTUAL PEOPLE were its owners, we now have a formal recognition by the Court that ownership is more than just a passive arrangement, in which the corporation acts as it finds itself impelled to act, and then pays dividends to the owners in repayment for their equity position in the firm.

No, the majority clearly blew it with this decision: They blurred the line between owner and corporation, and now it will be almost impossible for them to keep that line intact down the road.

[Ostroeuropa]

The opinion seems correct. As to the issue of corporate standing. It is purely a matter of statutory interpretation. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act says any person may bring a claim, and the dictionary act says person includes corporations.

As to the merits of the case it seemed fairly straight forward.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act requires among other requirements that the government use the least restrictive means. The law granted exemptions for grandfathered policies (effecting up to 1/3 of all policies), so it is pretty hard to say with a straight face the government is using the least restrictive means when the government exempts 1/3 of all policies from its contraception requirements. Or the exemption from the personal mandate for those whose states did not expand medicaid.

The dissents argument was unpersuasive and pretty much was limited to a slippery slope (if we grant them an exemption we have to grant and exemption for this other people will want other exemptions) and an appeal to emotion ( but the poor women). The slippery slope fails because as the interest become more important and the means to that interest become more narrow the government is more likely to satisfy the standards of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The appeal to emotion fail because far more women are affected by the grandfathered insurance policy exemption and the exemption from the mandate for those in states that did not expand medicaid then by hobby lobby getting an exemption.

You're missing a key point, G&D.

How can an artificial legal construct honestly claim to possess sincere and heartfelt religious beliefs?

More to the point, theologically speaking, how can a corporation be Christian under any effective definition of Christian belief? Can a corporation confess its sins and enter into a personal relationship with Jesus? Hell, can a corporation even sin to begin with? And how, exactly, does something with no soul achieve salvation through divine redemption?

See, that's the kicker: Even if we allow that a corporation could somehow hold religious beliefs, the claim of CHRISTIAN belief is such a huge whopper that it can't possibly be credible. Christianity is such an intensely personal religion that it strains the imagination to proclaim that a corporation adheres to the faith. I mean, when was Hobby Lobby baptized? Has it ever proclaimed the Nicene Creed? Does it pray to Jesus regularly and ask Him for counsel? And how can He have a place in the heart of that which literally HAS no heart?!?

This is all true, but it does seem to ignore the idea that a corporation can be explicitly founded as a christian organization and such.
I agree that these organizations should still be made to follow the law and such, but explicitly founding an organization as a christian one (And it, naturally, filling with christians) does seem to mean that a corporation can be christian.
That's basically what the churches are, it's just that they are corporations we decided to exempt from taxes, because jeebus.

[Gauthier]

A business run by Muslims could have made the same claim. It isn't about Christianity, it's about religious conservatism in general.

That's the thing though.

The ruling is so narrow that it really only covers Christian beliefs. Going to be interesting to see what happens when a Muslim tries to cite the law...

I guarantee that the same people going "YAY, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!" right now would be screaming "ERMAGERD SHARIA LAW!!"

[Caninope]

This is wholly different from Citizens United, where there was nothing more than a recognition that corporations have interests, and might wish to advance those interests. Corporations CANNOT have faith — because faith is not the product of self-interest, and self-interest is all that a soulless corporation has got. Religion can only come into a corporation from ACTUAL PEOPLE, and since in this case those ACTUAL PEOPLE were its owners, we now have a formal recognition by the Court that ownership is more than just a passive arrangement, in which the corporation acts as it finds itself impelled to act, and then pays dividends to the owners in repayment for their equity position in the firm.

No, the majority clearly blew it with this decision: They blurred the line between owner and corporation, and now it will be almost impossible for them to keep that line intact down the road.

I suggest that you re-read the Citizens United decision, actually. Corporations were referred to multiple times as "associations with a corporate form", strongly implying that despite the veil, corporate entities are still associations and may on account of that hold opinions. The Hobby Lobby case is only a consistent extension of this idea of corporate identity- therefore, if Citizens United is not the first step to breaking the corporate veil, then neither is this (never mind the fact that the corporate veil is, as reaffirmed by the decision, still a legal person). If you want to argue that both are strikes against the corporate veil, then go ahead, but both are very much in the same boat.

[Maineiacs]

That's the thing though.

The ruling is so narrow that it really only covers Christian beliefs. Going to be interesting to see what happens when a Muslim tries to cite the law...

I guarantee that the same people going "YAY, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!" right now would be screaming "ERMAGERD SHARIA LAW!!"

Which is why I hope a Muslim business owner does cite this ruling soon. Although, to be fair, I'll probably have to abstain from participating in any thread made here if that happened. I just took someone to task yesterday for gloating over this case, and I'd be to tempted to do the same if this scenario happened.

[Gauthier]

I guarantee that the same people going "YAY, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!" right now would be screaming "ERMAGERD SHARIA LAW!!"

Which is why I hope a Muslim business owner does cite this ruling soon. Although, to be fair, I'll probably have to abstain from participating in any thread made here if that happened. I just took someone to task yesterday for gloating over this case, and I'd be to tempted to do the same if this scenario happened.

There's nothing wrong in pointing out hypocritical application of "Religious Freedom". I've always Islam is a great litmus test for any religious freedom issues. If you want to see if religion should have a particular freedom, just observe people's reaction when the religion in question happens to be Islam and I guarantee you half the time there will be a quite hypocritical reaction.

[Maineiacs]

Which is why I hope a Muslim business owner does cite this ruling soon. Although, to be fair, I'll probably have to abstain from participating in any thread made here if that happened. I just took someone to task yesterday for gloating over this case, and I'd be to tempted to do the same if this scenario happened.

There's nothing wrong in pointing out hypocritical application of "Religious Freedom". I've always Islam is a great litmus test for any religious freedom issues. If you want to see if religion should have a particular freedom, just observe people's reaction when the religion in question happens to be Islam and I guarantee you half the time there will be a quite hypocritical reaction.

There certainly would be. But I know myself, and I'd be to tempted to go straight into gloating and flamebait.

[Alien Space Bats]

That's basically what the churches are, it's just that they are corporations we decided to exempt from taxes, because jeebus.

Well, churches are churches because they're a part of an organized religion.

But for-profit corporations? There's a serious case to be made that whatever the people who founded such an organization might say, such entities simply can't be Christian (or Muslim, or Jewish, or anything else). They're money-making business ventures, and as such they don't have a place within any religion, and to claim they do is essentially puffery.

[Alien Space Bats]

I suggest that you re-read the Citizens United decision, actually. Corporations were referred to multiple times as "associations with a corporate form", strongly implying that despite the veil, corporate entities are still associations and may on account of that hold opinions. The Hobby Lobby case is only a consistent extension of this idea of corporate identity- therefore, if Citizens United is not the first step to breaking the corporate veil, then neither is this (never mind the fact that the corporate veil is, as reaffirmed by the decision, still a legal person). If you want to argue that both are strikes against the corporate veil, then go ahead, but both are very much in the same boat.

I disagree, in so far as (again) in Citizens United the decision to contribute money to a candidate or cause (IOW, to engage in speech) is one made INTERNALLY by the corporation's officers. In contrast, Hobby Lobby's faith is not the result of any kind of voluntary choice on the part of its management and employees, but is instead imposed externally on the corporation by its owners.

[The Black Forrest]

And it starts.

SCOTUS ruling on little Caesars

http://www.atlbanana.com/supreme-court- ... -to-lions/



A little more serious note:

Hobby Lobby is ok with vasectomy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/3 ... r=Politics

[Ashmoria]

That's the thing though.

The ruling is so narrow that it really only covers Christian beliefs. Going to be interesting to see what happens when a Muslim tries to cite the law...

I guarantee that the same people going "YAY, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!" right now would be screaming "ERMAGERD SHARIA LAW!!"

it will be "judicial activism" that im sure will be corrected by the conservative justices of the supreme court.

[Ashmoria]

I guarantee that the same people going "YAY, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!" right now would be screaming "ERMAGERD SHARIA LAW!!"

Which is why I hope a Muslim business owner does cite this ruling soon. Although, to be fair, I'll probably have to abstain from participating in any thread made here if that happened. I just took someone to task yesterday for gloating over this case, and I'd be to tempted to do the same if this scenario happened.

its the urge to keep quotes from posters so that you can throw them in their faces later that lets you know you need to worry about your possible reaction.

[Ashmoria]

And it starts.

SCOTUS ruling on little Caesars

http://www.atlbanana.com/supreme-court- ... -to-lions/



A little more serious note:

Hobby Lobby is ok with vasectomy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/3 ... r=Politics

lol

that's the problem with religious opinions, eh? they don't have to be consistent or even reflect reality.

[Benuty]

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik ... tml#page=1
Oh dear me.

[Gauthier]

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-expanded-hobby-lobby-20140702-column.html#page=1
Oh dear me.

I know, but trust me. The moment Muslims try to join in on the fun the whole thing will come crashing down.

[Llamalandia]

Good thing, it's not only not up to you, but rather justices can't be removed from office it's a lifetime appointment, barring some kind of criminal act on their part.

Gee I am shocked you like those three. You assume I would replace them with liberal ideologues.

Also I doubt Ginsburg would leave under such a scenario, generally the justices tend to try to hang on to keep a proper balance on the court, so I'm guessing she's going to wait until a it's "safe" politically speaking for her to retire.

There are no guarantees on the scenario. Some would argue there will be a Republican in 2017 so it would make sense for her an Breyer to retire to Obama could replace them. Then again. The Repubs really don't have a great list of choices to run after Obama.

But hey, don't forget the Aero decision, wasn't that a unanimously wrongly decision by the court? See they get a long and work together at least when they want to screw everyone out watching local programming wherever they want.

I am not sure how copy right violations compare to enforcing religious morality on others?

Besides isn't this were the "free market" comes into play with the usual comments of "if you don't like it, don't use cable?"

Not an issue to me; I don't use cable.

Actually I'm really more just a fan of Scalia and Thomas, not to say I got anything against alito he's ok. I guess just the fact he was a bush appointee has me reserving judgement, I mean bush doesn't have the greatest team record with personnel decisions after all who could forget "heck of a job browny".

[Greed and Death]

The opinion seems correct. As to the issue of corporate standing. It is purely a matter of statutory interpretation. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act says any person may bring a claim, and the dictionary act says person includes corporations.

As to the merits of the case it seemed fairly straight forward.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act requires among other requirements that the government use the least restrictive means. The law granted exemptions for grandfathered policies (effecting up to 1/3 of all policies), so it is pretty hard to say with a straight face the government is using the least restrictive means when the government exempts 1/3 of all policies from its contraception requirements. Or the exemption from the personal mandate for those whose states did not expand medicaid.

The dissents argument was unpersuasive and pretty much was limited to a slippery slope (if we grant them an exemption we have to grant and exemption for this other people will want other exemptions) and an appeal to emotion ( but the poor women). The slippery slope fails because as the interest become more important and the means to that interest become more narrow the government is more likely to satisfy the standards of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The appeal to emotion fail because far more women are affected by the grandfathered insurance policy exemption and the exemption from the mandate for those in states that did not expand medicaid then by hobby lobby getting an exemption.

You're missing a key point, G&D.

How can an artificial legal construct honestly claim to possess sincere and heartfelt religious beliefs?

More to the point, theologically speaking, how can a corporation be Christian under any effective definition of Christian belief? Can a corporation confess its sins and enter into a personal relationship with Jesus? Hell, can a corporation even sin to begin with? And how, exactly, does something with no soul achieve salvation through divine redemption?

See, that's the kicker: Even if we allow that a corporation could somehow hold religious beliefs, the claim of CHRISTIAN belief is such a huge whopper that it can't possibly be credible. Christianity is such an intensely personal religion that it strains the imagination to proclaim that a corporation adheres to the faith. I mean, when was Hobby Lobby baptized? Has it ever proclaimed the Nicene Creed? Does it pray to Jesus regularly and ask Him for counsel? And how can He have a place in the heart of that which literally HAS no heart?!?

How can an artificial construct deposit a check; Hire/Fire people; Divest from Isreal, Divest from Apartheid South Africa or own property ? It is a legal fiction because the reality is the decision makers for the corporation are having all of these done, and the law allows the aforementioned actions. A corporation can sin or be baptized as much as a church, Churches are also corporations and their ability to bring religious freedom claims were not once questioned.

Your opinion of what is Christian is noted, it however clearly differs from green family interpretation, and we were testing if they had a sincere belief not yours. Both differ from mine (Xtainity is a book old people read to become annoying).

The reality is this requiring the ability of baptism, proclamation of the Nicaea creed, or prayer to Jesus to bring a legal action would be far more violation of the division between church then anything in Scalia's wet dreams. The statute passed by congress used a term that encompassed corporations, and the decisions makers at this corporation have made a decision. Don't like it ? Win an election and change the law.

[Greed and Death]

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-expanded-hobby-lobby-20140702-column.html#page=1
Oh dear me.

I know, but trust me. The moment Muslims try to join in on the fun the whole thing will come crashing down.

The supreme court has protected minority religions pretty well.
IF some cult from Brazil can be protected in its right to import and drink Schedule 1 drugs then I think Muslims getting exemptions from the ham mandate will be accepted. Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006)