The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Do you honestly think that corporations should have NO rights at all? If you think that they should have any single right, then you buy into the idea of corporate personhood in general - the only question then is which rights corporations do and do not have, which is just a policy discussion.

Yeah, I'm arguing that they should have no rights at all.

No, I'm saying if people want them to have individual rights than perhaps they should be individuals and not corporations. There sure are some rights that corporations have that I don't have that I'd sure like. I don't see anyone giving me limited liability, for example.

The trend line is clear. Maybe you prefer a government that is beholden to the corporation over the individual but I don't.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Yeah, I'm arguing that they should have no rights at all.

No, I'm saying if people want them to have individual rights than perhaps they should be individuals and not corporations.

Now there's a dizzying argument. "I believe that corporations can have some rights, but to get those rights, they should have to disband and be actual individuals." Pretty sure you just argued that corporations should not have rights, there.

There sure are some rights that corporations have that I don't have that I'd sure like. I don't see anyone giving me limited liability, for example.

If you *really* wanted what corporations have (instead of just saying so on a message board), you would already be registered as a corporation by now. It's not that hard or expensive. Or did you really just want something for nothing?

Still waiting for an example where someone is arguing that corporations should have the right to gain custody of a child.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I dunno. Ask Bob though cause he thinks that if the Supreme Court doesn't allow Corporations to have religious exemptions we're basically North Korea.

The Archdiocese of NY is a corporation under NYS law.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Now there's a dizzying argument. "I believe that corporations can have some rights, but to get those rights, they should have to disband and be actual individuals." Pretty sure you just argued that corporations should not have rights, there.

Who said they should disband? Apparently you believe there should be a difference between the two. Congrats, many do not.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

The Archdiocese of NY is a corporation under NYS law.

Yes, and everyone that works there has freedom of religion. What's your point??

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Yes, and everyone that works there has freedom of religion. What's your point??

And the Archdiocese can then decide what level / type of health benefits it provides its employees?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Still waiting for an example where someone is arguing that corporations should have the right to gain custody of a child.

Isn't that what we once called an orphanage? typically organized as a not-for-profit corporation??


EDIT: or today's rich person "orphanage", also known as "boarding school" ?

I suppose it depends upon what you mean by "custody." In one common usage, schools "have custody" of children throughout the school day. I assume you meant something more than that. Even so, boarding school would have "custody" during the entire term....

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Isn't that what we once called an orphanage? typically organized as a not-for-profit corporation??


EDIT: or today's rich person "orphanage", also known as "boarding school" ?

I suppose it depends upon what you mean by "custody." In one common usage, schools "have custody" of children throughout the school day. I assume you meant something more than that. Even so, boarding school would have "custody" during the entire term....

You're thinking of "in loco parentis," not "custody." Orphans are in the custody of the government, not the particular orphanage (or foster family, etc) where they are placed. Again, the non-profit orphanage corporation has "some" of the rights/responsibilities/privileges of an individual, but nobody argues that they should have ALL of those.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I don't see anyone giving me limited liability, for example.

Just out of curiosity, what special liability limitation does a corporation, as a "person", receive that you'd like to receive?

 

[unofan]

Just out of curiosity, what special liability limitation does a corporation, as a "person", receive that you'd like to receive?

The primary selling point of corporations is that they are separate entities from the owners and the owners are not individually liable for the debts of the corporation.

Which is why the argument that corporations can somehow be an extension of the owners religion ring hollow. They're either a separate entity or not. They shouldn't get to be an arm of the owner for religious purposes but not taxation or liability purposes

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

The primary selling point of corporations is that they are separate entities from the owners and the owners are not individually liable for the debts of the corporation.

Which is why the argument that corporations can somehow be an extension of the owners religion ring hollow. They're either a separate entity or not. They shouldn't get to be an arm of the owner for religious purposes but not taxation or liability purposes

My point was that corporations don't get any special liability exemption, notwithstanding what some halfwit at the NYTimes may claim. The people behind the corporation get protection, but then of course those "persons" are separate from the "person" that is the corporation.

As for the idea that a corporation should be permitted exemption from certain laws on a religious basis, I agree with you, except possibly for those corporations who have applied for and received status as a religious organization on a tax basis.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

As for the idea that a corporation should be permitted exemption from certain laws on a religious basis, I agree with you, except possibly for those corporations who have applied for and received status as a religious organization on a tax basis.

Hmm...but can the owner of a company, a person (or family) that owns 100% of the stock, be compelled to participate in murder?

That seems to be the issue here: a privately-held company provides health insurance benefits to its employees, and they are objecting to a requirement that they be compelled to pay for their employees' abortions. The owners of the company sincerely believe that an abortion terminates a human life.

Your position seems to be that, if the company were a partnership or a sole proprietorship, then the "owners" would have a legitimate complaint because they are "people" not "corporations." Yet if the same business is organized as a closely-held corporation, the owner would then lose his/her rights to complain, merely because of the form in which s/he does business?

seems a bitg inconsistent coming from people who also claim to believe in equal protection under the law, no?

 

[unofan]

Hmm...but can the owner of a company, a person (or family) that owns 100% of the stock, be compelled to participate in murder?

That seems to be the issue here: a privately-held company provides health insurance benefits to its employees, and they are objecting to a requirement that they be compelled to pay for their employees' abortions. The owners of the company sincerely believe that an abortion terminates a human life.

Your position seems to be that, if the company were a partnership or a sole proprietorship, then the "owners" would have a legitimate complaint because they are "people" not "corporations." Yet if the same business is organized as a closely-held corporation, the owner would then lose his/her rights to complain, merely because of the form in which s/he does business?

seems a bitg inconsistent coming from people who also claim to believe in equal protection under the law, no?

A sole proprietorship is its owner. The purpose of incorporating is to separate the business from the owners. The questions before the supreme court involves corporations, not sole proprietorships. So they can side with the government fairly easily.

Now sole proprietorships still have to abide by various laws regulating businesses. I would still argue that they should not be exempted from this because merely providing insurance that covers birth control no more violates a Catholic's religion than paying taxes for a military violates a Quaker's religion. We don't exempt the latter, and I doubt even Scalia wants to go down the rabbit hole for the former. But that is notcurrently an issue before the court.

As for your equal protection dig, equal protection means similarly situated people should be treated similarly. To the extent corporations are separate from their owners, they are not similarly situated to sole proprietorships. Which is a big distinction when talking about owners religion affecting their non religious business.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

There was a serious legal challenge to PPACA two years ago which the courts did not address. Instead, they deferred hearing the case.

According to the plain text of the statute, only people who purchase policies from state-run exchanges are eligible for subsidies. Apparently that was done deliberately, and it is not an "oversight" that they failed to offer subsidies to people who purchase insurance from the federal exchange: the thinking being that drafting the law in this manner would provide additional motivation for states to set up their own exchanges.

Oklahoma, among other states, filed suit about this section of the law, and the courts at that time said that they would not hear the suit because that portion of the law was not yet in effect.

Well, it takes effect in 2013, and Oklahoma has re-filed the suit, and this time it looks like it will be heard. Contemplate the consequences if they win: no subsidies for people who purchase insurance on a federally-run exchange (that's 36 states!) and no employer penalty either (the law says that there is an employer penalty in states that offer subsidies).

Imagine that, asking the courts to enforce the law as it is actually written.

So the law would remain in effect but the intended economics would be shot to hell. The whole website fiasco came about in part because they wanted people to see the subsidy before they saw the premium, and if the subsidy is gone, whew! what a mess.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Hmm...but can the owner of a company, a person (or family) that owns 100% of the stock, be compelled to participate in murder?

That seems to be the issue here: a privately-held company provides health insurance benefits to its employees, and they are objecting to a requirement that they be compelled to pay for their employees' abortions. The owners of the company sincerely believe that an abortion terminates a human life.

Your position seems to be that, if the company were a partnership or a sole proprietorship, then the "owners" would have a legitimate complaint because they are "people" not "corporations." Yet if the same business is organized as a closely-held corporation, the owner would then lose his/her rights to complain, merely because of the form in which s/he does business?

seems a bitg inconsistent coming from people who also claim to believe in equal protection under the law, no?

Who said I believed in equal protection under the law?

You're talking about entities that supposedly have some sort of religious belief. If I belong to a certain religion, and I (not my wife, not my kids, not my imaginary friend Barney) can demonstrate those religious beliefs/affiliations sufficiently to a court, I may be able to avoid certain obligations that compel me to do things counter to that religion.

Same way with a corporation. If the corporation (not one of the shareholders, not it's bank, not it's subsidiary corporation) can demonstrate that religious affiliation, say by being a church or a catholic school or something like that, then it too may be able to avoid certain obligations based upon it's religious beliefs.

If I own 100% of a business and I am so whacked out about my religion that I don't want to comply with typical employment rules because of that religion, don't form a corporation. No one forces you to do that.

 

[unofan]

There was a serious legal challenge to PPACA two years ago which the courts did not address. Instead, they deferred hearing the case.

According to the plain text of the statute, only people who purchase policies from state-run exchanges are eligible for subsidies. Apparently that was done deliberately, and it is not an "oversight" that they failed to offer subsidies to people who purchase insurance from the federal exchange: the thinking being that drafting the law in this manner would provide additional motivation for states to set up their own exchanges.

Oklahoma, among other states, filed suit about this section of the law, and the courts at that time said that they would not hear the suit because that portion of the law was not yet in effect.

Well, it takes effect in 2013, and Oklahoma has re-filed the suit, and this time it looks like it will be heard. Contemplate the consequences if they win: no subsidies for people who purchase insurance on a federally-run exchange (that's 36 states!) and no employer penalty either (the law says that there is an employer penalty in states that offer subsidies).

Imagine that, asking the courts to enforce the law as it is actually written.

So the law would remain in effect but the intended economics would be shot to hell. The whole website fiasco came about in part because they wanted people to see the subsidy before they saw the premium, and if the subsidy is gone, whew! what a mess.

If you're going to steal an argument straight from the WSJ's editorial pages, at least cite it. It's still better to be a partisan shill than a plagiarist.

Im also sure the Attorney General of Oklahoma, from whom you are stealing this rant, is completely unbiased in his framing of his argument.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

There was a serious legal challenge to PPACA two years ago which the courts did not address. Instead, they deferred hearing the case.

According to the plain text of the statute, only people who purchase policies from state-run exchanges are eligible for subsidies. Apparently that was done deliberately, and it is not an "oversight" that they failed to offer subsidies to people who purchase insurance from the federal exchange: the thinking being that drafting the law in this manner would provide additional motivation for states to set up their own exchanges.

Oklahoma, among other states, filed suit about this section of the law, and the courts at that time said that they would not hear the suit because that portion of the law was not yet in effect.

Well, it takes effect in 2013, and Oklahoma has re-filed the suit, and this time it looks like it will be heard. Contemplate the consequences if they win: no subsidies for people who purchase insurance on a federally-run exchange (that's 36 states!) and no employer penalty either (the law says that there is an employer penalty in states that offer subsidies).

Imagine that, asking the courts to enforce the law as it is actually written.

So the law would remain in effect but the intended economics would be shot to hell. The whole website fiasco came about in part because they wanted people to see the subsidy before they saw the premium, and if the subsidy is gone, whew! what a mess.

Well, considering it's only Republicans who decided they wanted the Feds running Health Care instead of taking care of it at the State level they're getting exactly what they deserve for their Constituents.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Well, considering it's only Republicans who decided they wanted the Feds running Health Care instead of taking care of it at the State level they're getting exactly what they deserve for their Constituents.

????? IIRC, the vote on PPACA was GOP 0, Dems 99% all in.

 

[unofan]

????? IIRC, the vote on PPACA was GOP 0, Dems 99% all in.

He's referring to GOP governors refusing to create state exchanges and leaving it in the hands of the feds, numbnuts.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Hmm...but can the owner of a company, a person (or family) that owns 100% of the stock, be compelled to participate in murder?

That seems to be the issue here: a privately-held company provides health insurance benefits to its employees, and they are objecting to a requirement that they be compelled to pay for their employees' abortions. The owners of the company sincerely believe that an abortion terminates a human life.

Your position seems to be that, if the company were a partnership or a sole proprietorship, then the "owners" would have a legitimate complaint because they are "people" not "corporations." Yet if the same business is organized as a closely-held corporation, the owner would then lose his/her rights to complain, merely because of the form in which s/he does business?

seems a bitg inconsistent coming from people who also claim to believe in equal protection under the law, no?

All together now, everyone: Corporations are NOT people and are NOT always treated like people. Corporations deserve equal protection under the law (i.e. the same as all other corporations) and individuals deserve equal protection to other individuals. A sole proprietor can make his own religious choices in his own free time, but when he is acting as the owner of the company, he has to follow the rules for corporations. I would argue that corporations have no soul (I know I'll get a lot of agreement there!) and therefore have no religious interest, and therefore do not have the right to freedom of religion. I would argue this even for religiously-affiliated corporations. Individuals have the right to freedom of religion, corporations do not - period.