Page 14 of 23 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 196 to 210 of 345
  1. #196
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Hoboken NJ
    Posts
    55,449
    Quote Originally Posted by tyke1doe View Post
    Well, hasn't the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can be treated as individuals?
    Not exactly. The Court has determined that they can be given certain individual rights if those rights affect the interests of the business.
    The trouble with the world today is the intelligent people are full of doubt and the dumb people are full of confidence - Charles Bukowski

  2. #197
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Hoboken NJ
    Posts
    55,449
    The trouble with the world today is the intelligent people are full of doubt and the dumb people are full of confidence - Charles Bukowski

  3. #198
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Richfield, MN
    Posts
    19,300
    Argument day:

    The Supreme Court, in a one-hour, twenty-eight-minute session Tuesday, staged something like a two-act play on a revolving stage: first the liberals had their chance and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy gave them some help, and then the scene shifted entirely, and the conservatives had their chance — and, again, Kennedy provided them with some support.

    So went the argument in the combined cases of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius. The “contraceptive mandate” in the new federal health care law, challenged under federal law and the Constitution, fared well in the first scene, and badly in the second.

    But the ultimate outcome, it seemed, will depend upon how Justice Kennedy makes up his mind. There was very little doubt where the other eight Justices would wind up: split four to four.

    In the first drama, Kennedy worried over the plight of female workers, and he suggested that their interests could be protected with little cost to their employers. In the second he worried over the plight of corporations owned by families opposed to abortion and he implied that forcing them to pay for it would be wrong.

    The hearing could not have been a pleasant experience for two experienced advocates — Washington attorney and former U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, and current Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., making a return engagement from their encounter two years ago when the Affordable Care Act first came up for review in the Court — when each won something.

    In the end, what made trouble for each of them Tuesday was the slippery slope: if we ruled for you, what would that mean for other factual scenarios or other laws that might impinge on religious beliefs?
    ...
    http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/03/ar...ng-two-dramas/
    If the majority distributes among itself the things of a minority, it is evident that it will destroy the city. --Aristotle
    If we did all the things we are capable of, we would literally astound ourselves. - Thomas Edison

  4. #199
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Richfield, MN
    Posts
    19,300
    Quote Originally Posted by Vin Lombardi View Post
    So next year Democrats sweep the midterms, and they add in abortion coverage at no cost. Still perfectly fine? Or are you just saying this because you think contraception is such a small point?
    This seemed to be one of Kennedy's big concerns as well.
    If the majority distributes among itself the things of a minority, it is evident that it will destroy the city. --Aristotle
    If we did all the things we are capable of, we would literally astound ourselves. - Thomas Edison

  5. #200
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Irvine CA
    Posts
    10,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Vin Lombardi View Post
    This seemed to be one of Kennedy's big concerns as well.
    My take on the arguments seems to be one big "slippery slope" argument from both sides.

    Verilli: If you allow religious exemption to the BC portions of this law, religious exemptions will become commonplace, against vaccines, blood transfusions, etc.

    Clement: If you force religious corporations to provide BC, you can also force them to pay for abortions and other things they object to.

    Both slippery slope arguments already have some Federal protections to stop them

    In the end, I think the fact that corporations are not individuals with the exact same rights as individuals wins out. Corporations are not required to provide HI. They pay a tax/penalty if they elect not to. They make a business decision as to provide HI or pay the penalty. That they may have religious reasons for making a business decision, should not grant them a waiver from the tax/penalty portion of the ACA.

    There are some other fundamental issues I see with Hobby Lobby's side of the argument. They are Ok with some forms of BC but specifically against the forms which they consider to actually be an abortion, such as Plan B or IUDs. While that's understandable, its purely their opinion that those forms of BC are actually abortions. There is no legal standing or precedent that supports that belief. That debate is a whole separate issue which could end up being made separately or even as part of this case, but as of now I don't believe that debate has any legal definition which supports Hobby Lobby's position.
    "What's so funny about peace , love and understanding?" - Elvis Costello

  6. #201
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Irvine CA
    Posts
    10,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Vin Lombardi View Post
    This seemed to be one of Kennedy's big concerns as well.
    I'd also add, it looks like its solid 4-4 with Kennedy being the one undecided. Sorta like when Roberts cast the vote to keep the ACA in the first place, this is going to come down to one Justice decision. Thats the system we have, but I'm not sure its the best way.
    "What's so funny about peace , love and understanding?" - Elvis Costello

  7. #202
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The Twin Cities of Minnesota
    Posts
    26,655
    "Kennedy worried about the plight of corporations"...I would laugh out loud about such a silly thought, but unfortunately a large part of the court is driven primarily by this absurd concern. Thankfully someone out there is looking out for the "big guy"...
    "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."
    -Kurt Vonnegut "Mother Night"

  8. #203
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Grantville, Pa
    Posts
    32,971
    Quote Originally Posted by KickSave View Post
    I'd also add, it looks like its solid 4-4 with Kennedy being the one undecided. Sorta like when Roberts cast the vote to keep the ACA in the first place, this is going to come down to one Justice decision. Thats the system we have, but I'm not sure its the best way.
    He considers it an abortion case. And in the exactly 0% chance the federal government passes a law requiring abortions on health plans, he needs to F over women who need birth control to protect the nation from that.

    Hobby Lobby wins. The question is how wide open will they leave the barn doors for future religious exemptions.
    The consistent factor of all of your dissatisfying relationships and failures is you.

    R.W. 09.21.10 I love you.

  9. #204
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Grantville, Pa
    Posts
    32,971
    Quote Originally Posted by Vin Lombardi View Post
    This seemed to be one of Kennedy's big concerns as well.
    And why Hobby Lobby will win.
    Of course, that has no chance of ever happening, ever. I'll turn blue and sprout wings first. Even if Democrats were able to take a supermajority of the House and Senate and keep the Presidency.
    But on that point, why am I required to pay for all kinds of odorous things that I don't like with my taxes, but some think compelling to support with taxes going the OTHER way is where we get of line?

    But in the off chance such a thing happened, another Hobby Lobby could bring suit on those grounds. If's and But's / Candy and Nuts.
    The consistent factor of all of your dissatisfying relationships and failures is you.

    R.W. 09.21.10 I love you.

  10. #205
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Hoboken NJ
    Posts
    55,449
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ourt-obamacare

    On many levels, the Hobby Lobby case is a mess of bad facts, political opportunism, and questionable legal theories that might be laughable had some federal courts not taken them seriously. Take for instance Hobby Lobby's argument that providing coverage for Plan B and Ella substantially limits its religious freedom. The company admits in its complaint that until it considered filing the suit in 2012, its generous health insurance plan actually covered Plan B and Ella (though not IUDs). The burden of this coverage was apparently so insignificant that God, and Hobby Lobby executives, never noticed it until the mandate became a political issue.
    So prior to the mandate Hobby Lobby was actually offering Plan B and Ella to their employees. They only discovered this to be a crisis of conscience when the mandate law came about. How fitting.

    In Employment Division of Oregon v Smith, two state employees were fired for using peyote. They sued saying this was a religious practice. The courts were unimpressed. Anton Scalia said...

    The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind—ranging from compulsory military service to the payment of taxes to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races.
    Apparently he was well aware of the slippery slope back then. Somehow I'm guessing that the past 20 years have led him to an epiphany.

    So it is becoming more obvious that this is an entirely political move with religion as a pretext based on the hope that the Court won't delve into intent.
    The trouble with the world today is the intelligent people are full of doubt and the dumb people are full of confidence - Charles Bukowski

  11. #206
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The Twin Cities of Minnesota
    Posts
    26,655
    Quote Originally Posted by flyerhawk View Post
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ourt-obamacare

    So prior to the mandate Hobby Lobby was actually offering Plan B and Ella to their employees. They only discovered this to be a crisis of conscience when the mandate law came about. How fitting.
    Nice find flyer - Mother Jones does some good journalism.
    "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."
    -Kurt Vonnegut "Mother Night"

  12. #207
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Grantville, Pa
    Posts
    32,971
    Scalia is the least consistent justice on the court. Just file this the same as Wickard and Raich.
    I believe he did an interview where near explicitly stated he will interpret law precedent different ways depending on the outcome he wants. His 'originalism' is a farce.
    Last edited by Superbelt; 03-26-2014 at 06:11 PM.
    The consistent factor of all of your dissatisfying relationships and failures is you.

    R.W. 09.21.10 I love you.

  13. #208
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Hoboken NJ
    Posts
    55,449
    Quote Originally Posted by Superbelt View Post
    Scalia is the least consistent justice on the court. Just file this the same as Wickard and Raich.
    I believe he did an interview where near explicitly stated he will interpret law precedent different ways depending on the outcome he wants. His 'originalism' is a farce.
    His Originalism is exactly what Originalism is all about. Defining the law the way you believe it was meant to be defined. It doesn't have to be consistent. If you believe that the Founding Fathers(a more amorphous group of people has never existed) believed in a strong military but a weak social safety net then you rule that way regardless of what precedent has set.

    It's why Originalism is so popular among non-legal conservatives.
    The trouble with the world today is the intelligent people are full of doubt and the dumb people are full of confidence - Charles Bukowski

  14. #209
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Irvine CA
    Posts
    10,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Superbelt View Post
    He considers it an abortion case. And in the exactly 0% chance the federal government passes a law requiring abortions on health plans, he needs to F over women who need birth control to protect the nation from that.

    Hobby Lobby wins. The question is how wide open will they leave the barn doors for future religious exemptions.
    Perhaps he considers it an abortion case, but there is no legal precedent for that opinion, and as Flyer's MotherJones article points out, its not really that objectionable to Hobby Lobby either.
    "What's so funny about peace , love and understanding?" - Elvis Costello

  15. #210
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Richfield, MN
    Posts
    19,300
    Quote Originally Posted by KickSave View Post
    In the end, I think the fact that corporations are not individuals with the exact same rights as individuals wins out.
    Not sure if it was the article I linked or another one, but some of the Justices addressed this point. We've already established that corporations do have personal rights, and I'm not just talking about Citizens United. We let corporations sue for employment discrimination (race, gender, etc), so why wouldn't we let them sue for religious discrimination?

    Quote Originally Posted by KickSave View Post
    Corporations are not required to provide HI. They pay a tax/penalty if they elect not to. They make a business decision as to provide HI or pay the penalty. That they may have religious reasons for making a business decision, should not grant them a waiver from the tax/penalty portion of the ACA.
    Do you really think this is a valid compromise? "I can't stand working with women, so I'll add on a surcharge to any female-owned company that is a supplier of mine." Do you think that would fly?
    If the majority distributes among itself the things of a minority, it is evident that it will destroy the city. --Aristotle
    If we did all the things we are capable of, we would literally astound ourselves. - Thomas Edison

Page 14 of 23 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  






Fantasy Football Rankings


Part of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties.