SCOTUS

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Extremely upset that they dismissed the case about gay conversion therapy. I am fed up with the courts pandering to homosexual ideology at all costs. First they stealth-legalized gay marriage, in one of most illogical, atrocious decisions in court history. Now they go on and legitimize depriving free speech rights to people counseling homosexuals.

And remember, this from a "conservative" court.

lol

For the record, I'm far more upset over the work-for-less victory. At least the court didn't go further to bust all public sector unions.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Seems like a bizarrely narrow decision given the scope of the logic that it's premised on. I mean, employers can refuse to buy contraception in the case of a religious objection, but a similar religious objection to some other medical treatment holds no water?

Smacks of Kennedy honestly. Yeah, and also one kind of business versus another kind of business; this is an instance of religious expression by a company, but that is not. This company can do it, but that company cannot.

Pbbbbbbbbt. Bizzarre-o.

Not bizarre at all.  Hobby Lobby is a closely held company owned by a group of people who were able to show they shared common values beyond a desire to make money together.  I can respect those who disagree with where that logic led the court today, but not those who claim there is no logic at all.

[Likely Voter]

Seems like a bizarrely narrow decision given the scope of the logic that it's premised on. I mean, employers can refuse to buy contraception in the case of a religious objection, but a similar religious objection to some other medical treatment holds no water?

It seems that they recognize that declaring corporations to have freedom of religion was a slippery slope (ala Citizens United) so they narrowed both the type of corps (closely held) and really narrowed what they can do (limit contraception coverage). So this wont lead to many of the potentially crazy possibilities that could arise if corporations had 'freedom of religion.' Still a bad ruling but could be much worse. 

[Person Man]

Seems like a bizarrely narrow decision given the scope of the logic that it's premised on. I mean, employers can refuse to buy contraception in the case of a religious objection, but a similar religious objection to some other medical treatment holds no water?

It seems that they recognize that declaring corporations to have freedom of religion was a slippery slope (ala Citizens United) so they narrowed both the type of corps (closely held) and really narrowed what they can do (limit contraception coverage). So this wont lead to many of the potentially crazy possibilities that could arise if corporations had 'freedom of religion.' Still a bad ruling but could be much worse. 

It could still be enough to wreak havoc.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Union-busting while giving corporations religious rights? This Supreme Court is completely terrible.
Of course all 3 non-Christians realized that giving corporations religious rights is a terrible idea. 

[AggregateDemand]

--

[Person Man]

Union-busting while giving corporations religious rights? This Supreme Court is completely terrible.
Of course all 3 non-Christians realized that giving corporations religious rights is a terrible idea. 

1920s style "Civic Republicanism". The court thinks it's cementing "Civic Virtue" against "Private and Partial Interests". Back then the welfare state in any form was stripping the people of their substantive Due Process but Eugenics wwas a state police power protected by the Tenth Amendment.

[IceSpear]

Extremely upset that they dismissed the case about gay conversion therapy. I am fed up with the courts pandering to homosexual ideology at all costs. First they stealth-legalized gay marriage, in one of most illogical, atrocious decisions in court history. Now they go on and legitimize depriving free speech rights to people counseling homosexuals.

And remember, this from a "conservative" court.

[SWE]

Extremely upset that they dismissed the case about gay conversion therapy. I am fed up with the courts pandering to homosexual ideology at all costs. First they stealth-legalized gay marriage, in one of most illogical, atrocious decisions in court history. Now they go on and legitimize depriving free speech rights to people counseling homosexuals.

And remember, this from a "conservative" court.

Pls stop

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

From initial reports, the Hobby Lobby decision wasn't quite as bad as liberals may have feared, as it limited the scope to closely-held corporations (and presumably, sole-proprietors as well).

I haven't yet read the opinion, but that part strikes me as odd.  If a majority of shareholders of a publicly held corporation decided to vote to not provide birth control, based on sincerely held religious beliefs, why should that not be allowed, but it is allowed for closely-held corporations?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The SCOTUS has been on a role. Good ruling on Hobby Lobby.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

A lot of truly terrible rulings by the SC ... they are indeed on a roll and the dissent by Bader-Ginsberg was EP-IC!

At least they recognised "gay conversion therapy" for what it is, torture.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

So now if a young woman who can't afford birth control happens to be working for a company that suddenly "finds God" to lower healthcare costs, she's screwed, basically?

[King]

From initial reports, the Hobby Lobby decision wasn't quite as bad as liberals may have feared, as it limited the scope to closely-held corporations (and presumably, sole-proprietors as well).

I haven't yet read the opinion, but that part strikes me as odd.  If a majority of shareholders of a publicly held corporation decided to vote to not provide birth control, based on sincerely held religious beliefs, why should that not be allowed, but it is allowed for closely-held corporations?

Probably because in theses cases it's not simply a majority. Hobby Lobby is 100% controlled by people who support this decision.

They're basically saying there's such a thing as a for-profit religious organization. I'm not sure I agree with that at all. Could Hobby Lobby or a similar company sue for tax exempt status now? This could come back to bite the court.

[Mopsus]

Corporations that engage in labor practices that are perceived as exploitative are regularly criticized by left-wingers. That's because the people who run corporations are expected to have a basic moral compass that prevents them from engaging in business practices that are unfair. So when the people who run a company decide that subsidizing birth control for their employees violates that moral compass, I don't think that those on the left have much credibility when they say that corporations aren't allowed to have moral beliefs.

With that said, I don't personally see a difference between subsidizing an employee health insurance plan that could hypothetically allow an employee to obtain birth control for free, and an employee purchasing birth control with part of her salary. It isn't as if businesses are required to pay for birth control out of their own pockets and personally see to it that all of their female employees are regularly taking The Pill.

Of course, none of this would matter if health insurance were paid for by the government rather than by one's employer.

[SNJ1985]

I'm very glad to see the court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby. Too bad they caved in to the left on conversion therapy, though.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'm very glad to see the court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby. Too bad they caved in to the left on conversion therapy, though.

... it literally hurts my head

[Mr. Illini]

Extremely upset that they dismissed the case about gay conversion therapy. I am fed up with the courts pandering to homosexual ideology at all costs. First they stealth-legalized gay marriage, in one of most illogical, atrocious decisions in court history. Now they go on and legitimize depriving free speech rights to people counseling homosexuals.

And remember, this from a "conservative" court.

What is it about Republicans from Ohio?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Extremely upset that they dismissed the case about gay conversion therapy. I am fed up with the courts pandering to homosexual ideology at all costs. First they stealth-legalized gay marriage, in one of most illogical, atrocious decisions in court history. Now they go on and legitimize depriving free speech rights to people counseling homosexuals.

And remember, this from a "conservative" court.

What is it about Republicans from Ohio?

Hey, hey.  Badger's a good guy.

[Lief 🗽]

From initial reports, the Hobby Lobby decision wasn't quite as bad as liberals may have feared, as it limited the scope to closely-held corporations (and presumably, sole-proprietors as well).

Ah good, the ruling only applies to 90% of businesses then.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

From initial reports, the Hobby Lobby decision wasn't quite as bad as liberals may have feared, as it limited the scope to closely-held corporations (and presumably, sole-proprietors as well).

I haven't yet read the opinion, but that part strikes me as odd.  If a majority of shareholders of a publicly held corporation decided to vote to not provide birth control, based on sincerely held religious beliefs, why should that not be allowed, but it is allowed for closely-held corporations?

Well, first of all, it should be noted that Alito did not hold this as a constitutional tight, but as something arising out of the application of the RFRA to this particular provision of Obamacare.  Alito made note of the apparent fact that publicly-traded corporations have not previously made RFRA claims and doubts that there likely would be any now.  He also noted that Congress under RLUIPA gave judges the discretion to determine if certain religious claims were being made in good faith.  Also with the scope of this decision limited to the contraceptive mandate, for which there certainly is no financial interest to be gained by faking a belief, it boggles the mind that there would be corporations that tried to do that.

So in short, the bit about it not applying to publicly-held for-profit corporations appears to arise out of the difficulty of showing that they do have a sincere religious belief combined with the unlikelyness of such companies to seek the religious exemption to the contraceptive mandate already made to non-profit corporations.  Also, the way Alito's ruling is worded, he seems to leave open the possibility of Congress (tho obviously not this Congress) eliminating the exemption of Hobby Lobby and similar firms to the contraceptive mandate by applying a different standard of "person" that that under the Dictionary Act, as he gave examples where Congress had done that with specific laws.

From initial reports, the Hobby Lobby decision wasn't quite as bad as liberals may have feared, as it limited the scope to closely-held corporations (and presumably, sole-proprietors as well).

Ah good, the ruling only applies to 90% of businesses then.

Far fewer than that since most sole-proprietorships and partnerships were already excluded by virtue of having fewer than 50 employees.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

From initial reports, the Hobby Lobby decision wasn't quite as bad as liberals may have feared, as it limited the scope to closely-held corporations (and presumably, sole-proprietors as well).

Ah good, the ruling only applies to 90% of businesses then.

Saying the ruling is narrow does not in any way guarantee it is will be applied as precedent in that way in the future... the mine-field analogy is very apt.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

From initial reports, the Hobby Lobby decision wasn't quite as bad as liberals may have feared, as it limited the scope to closely-held corporations (and presumably, sole-proprietors as well).

Ah good, the ruling only applies to 90% of businesses then.

Saying the ruling is narrow does not in any way guarantee it is will be applied as precedent in that way in the future... the mine-field analogy is very apt.

Perhaps, yet even trying to apply it more broadly would have problems.

First off, Congress could always prevent it by adopting a different standard for "person" than that which currently applies to RFRA (granted that's not gonna happen under this Congress).

Second, to invoke RFRA, any claim would have to show that a particular mandate
   (1) is not in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
   (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Alito made use of the existing program to allow religious non-profits to avoid the contraceptive mandate to show that there was an existing government alternative that was less restrictive than requiring the employer to provide the contraceptive coverage.  Few, if any, claims are going to have such an easy path towards showing there is a less restrictive means available.

Also, Alito made a considerable point of refuting the fears raised in the dissent that this might be used to gut anti-discrimination laws wholesale since those have already been shown to further a compelling governmental interest.

[bullmoose88]

...So in short, the bit about it not applying to publicly-held for-profit corporations appears to arise out of the difficulty of showing that they do have a sincere religious belief combined with the unlikelyness of such companies to seek the religious exemption to the contraceptive mandate already made to non-profit corporations... 

That is what is so absurd with any ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby.  A corporation is not a sentient being.  It cannot have religious beliefs, sentient or otherwise.  Sure the law seems to accept some sort of constructive belief. but let's face it, a corporation only has religious beliefs if its controlling shareholders share some tenets.  Which leans against the corporate entity being its own separate "person" since you know mommy and daddy shareholder are telling it what to think anyhow.  

Moreover if the corporation was "forced" to say, provide abortifacients, or lets get ridiculous...take female employees in one of the corporate cars to Planned Parenthood, its not the corporation that's suffering harm...what's the Don Bluth movie?  All Corps Go to Heaven?  Something like that.  No...its the shareholders...which to me indicates the relationship is far too close...perhaps time to veil pierce.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Is there any chance a health insurance company might want to charge *more* for a policy that doesn't cover birth control? Less birth control means more future dependents, and more ovarian cancer.