The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

[joecct]

I think people tend to blow the impact of these court cases way out of proportion, but what essentually has now happened is every instance of an employer raising a religious exemption just became a court case. Keeps the SCOTUS busy I suppose, but this has also maginalized the mostly Southern part of the country from everywhere else as companies providing contraception has strong support amongst voters. Not sure how you run nationally on an anti-contraception platform (which supporting this decision will be viewed as).

First, the decision only applies to closely held corporations, not behemoths like GM.

Remember, this case was that Hobby objected to providing abortificants to its employees. Hobby provides birth control.

When the Catholic Church comes before the bench, it will be for the whole spectrum. I think they'll also prevail.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

How does a corporation have religious beliefs? Inquiring minds want to know!

Well, you might start by actually reading what was written!

In a very narrowly-limiting ruling, the OWNERS of CLOSELY-HELD companies had their First Amendment right affirmed today: the government cannot compel the OWNERS of a CLOSELY-HELD COMPANY to act contrary to their religious beliefs.

Nothing whatsoever to do with "corporations" at all in that sentence, Mr. Inquiring Mind.

[Priceless]

Most states will say you vote on it. Same way you decide other corporate action.

But they have to have a soul. How can they be redeemed for their sins if they don't have a soul? Or did Jesus only die for flesh and blood people and not brick and mortar people? But if that's true, then what is the foundation of their religion?

It's all so confusing.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Here is the IRS definition of a "closely-held coproration":

http://www.irs.gov/Help-&-Resources/...ies/Entities-5

[ScoobyDoo]

Well, you might start by actually reading what was written!

In a very narrowly-limiting ruling, the OWNERS of CLOSELY-HELD companies had their First Amendment right affirmed today: the government cannot compel the OWNERS of a CLOSELY-HELD COMPANY to act contrary to their religious beliefs.

Nothing whatsoever to do with "corporations" at all in that sentence, Mr. Inquiring Mind.

Then they do not deserve the protections afforded corporations. Thats BS and its wrong.

[unofan]

Well, you might start by actually reading what was written!

In a very narrowly-limiting ruling, the OWNERS of CLOSELY-HELD companies had their First Amendment right affirmed today: the government cannot compel the OWNERS of a CLOSELY-HELD COMPANY to act contrary to their religious beliefs.

Nothing whatsoever to do with "corporations" at all in that sentence, Mr. Inquiring Mind.

Hobby Lobby is a corporation. A closely held one, but a corporation nonetheless. Hence the "Inc." in its name.

Kennedy's concurrence should give you pause. He essentially says single payer could be less restrictive than the current system. He pretty much implies that the government will be providing contraception to women working for hobby lobby just as it does for religious non-profits, which is why hobby lobby won today. If it couldn't, hobby lobby would've lost his vote and the case because there would be no less restrictive means of accomplishing the government's compelling interest in women's health.

So congratulations, your taxes will now be covering birth control for thousands of women. I'm sure you're thrilled to be subsidizing Hobby Lobby due to it's owner's religion.

[unofan]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Oh, and further proof you didn't read the opinion yourself, the first amendment was explicitly and specifically not used today. This was entirely an RFRA case. No one's first amendment rights were affirmed.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Here's an interesting nugget from the New York Times: how frequently do the same justices vote together on cases?

Even the Justices who vote together least often (Ginsburg and Thomas, Ginsburg and Alito) still vote together almost 2/3 of the time (65%)!

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Hobby Lobby is a corporation. A closely held one, but a corporation nonetheless. Hence the "Inc." in its name.

Kennedy's concurrence should give you pause. He essentially says single payer could be less restrictive than the current system. He pretty much implies that the government will be providing contraception to women working for hobby lobby just as it does for religious non-profits, which is why hobby lobby won today. If it couldn't, hobby lobby would've lost his vote and the case because there would be no less restrictive means of accomplishing the government's compelling interest in women's health.

So congratulations, your taxes will now be covering birth control for thousands of women. I'm sure you're thrilled to be subsidizing Hobby Lobby due to it's owner's religion.

If there was any chance this decision moved us closer to just a single payer system, I'd say it was a great decision.

Purchasing health insurance used to be a voluntary activity in this country. Then employers stupidly tried to bribe prospective hires by offering to buy it for them.

A paternalistic majority of legislators decided it was something we all needed, but lacked the backbone to say the government will pay for it and spread it out over the entire tax base, so they just decided to make employers pay for it because many of them already were.

If we need health insurance, or a country-wide program to pay for everyone's health care, they should have just taken the necessary step of passing it, and not this silly intermediary step of trying to make someone else pay for it.

[Rover]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Not to get too political on this thread as its a law related one, but I'm extremely amused at conservative posters acting like they've scored some sort of huge victory here. Since they're all males presumably (Fishy, Bob Gray) this doesn't affect them unless I'm missing something, and as has been pointed out they'll still be paying for these services one way or the other. However, this drives a stake in a GOP Presidential candidacy in 2016, especially against a female candidate. The people most likely against contraception are either 1) too old to need it, or 2) not having sex - pretty much the GOP base. However, as the public at large is in favor of such coverage, I'm real curious how whatever hard right fundie the Republicans nominate is going to finesse this one, especially when another right wing company decides they don't want to pay for a life saving operation (say a heart transplant) because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Not to get too political on this thread as its a law related one, but I'm extremely amused at conservative posters acting like they've scored some sort of huge victory here. Since they're all males presumably (Fishy, Bob Gray) this doesn't affect them unless I'm missing something, and as has been pointed out they'll still be paying for these services one way or the other. However, this drives a stake in a GOP Presidential candidacy in 2016, especially against a female candidate. The people most likely against contraception are either 1) too old to need it, or 2) not having sex - pretty much the GOP base. However, as the public at large is in favor of such coverage, I'm real curious how whatever hard right fundie the Republicans nominate is going to finesse this one, especially when another right wing company decides they don't want to pay for a life saving operation (say a heart transplant) because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

Not to get too political. Ha! I stopped there, as that's too hilarious to bother reading the rest.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Unf*kingbelievable...

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

First, the decision only applies to closely held corporations, not behemoths like GM.

Why? This seems arbitrary.

[Rover]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Not to get too political. Ha! I stopped there, as that's too hilarious to bother reading the rest.

Hey, keeping P.O.ing the electorate at your own peril Bob. Last time I checked your side hasn't been very good at winning Presidential elections. But keep hoping only your voters show up next time. Worked well for President Romney, so should do the same for President Cruz/Paul/Walker/etc....

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Hey, keeping P.O.ing the electorate at your own peril Bob. Last time I checked your side hasn't been very good at winning Presidential elections. But keep hoping only your voters show up next time. Worked well for President Romney, so should do the same for President Cruz/Paul/Walker/etc....

I'm not about P.O.ing anyone, just sticking to my values, that's all. If those aren't popular with the electorate, well, there's worse things. I realize that's a rather antiquated way of approaching things, but there's more to life than finding out what is popular and then changing yourself to match that.