Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby Decision: Corporations are people and have more rights than you

So suck on it.

I’ll more to say but for now, my facebook and twitter feeds are blowing. This decision is horrendous. Five men just hurt the health care of every single American woman.

  1. #1 by Becky Stauffer on June 30, 2014 - 1:04 pm

    I wonder if frequent commenter and OneUtah supreme know-it-all “Brewski” recalls a conversation we had a couple years ago about whether or not contraception was covered under most insurance plans. Brewski contended that it was not even an issue because practically all plans did, in fact, cover contraception. That, of course, was contrary to my own experience as a healthcare consumer, as well as that of my friends and family. But so goes the #WarOnWomen. At least Brewski and all the men on SCOTUS can still get their VIAGRA.

  2. #2 by Richard Warnick on June 30, 2014 - 3:33 pm

    This is the first time the U.S. Supreme Court has exempted a for-profit corporation from a generally applicable law on religious grounds. It’s unprecedented.

    In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out the obvious fact the majority ignored: “[T]he exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities.”

    Funny how the right likes to complain about “activist” judges when it’s right-wing justices that do stuff like this.

  3. #4 by Richard Warnick on June 30, 2014 - 3:54 pm

    Right-wing partisan court majority in action: The Bait-And-Switch Behind Today’s Hobby Lobby Decision

    For many years, the Supreme Court struck a careful balance between protecting religious liberty and maintaining the rule of law in a pluralistic society. Religious people enjoy a robust right to practice their own faith and to act according to the dictates of their own conscience, but they could not wield religious liberty claims as a sword to cut away the legal rights of others.

    … Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion on behalf of a bare majority of the Court engages in a kind of legalistic bait-and-switch. It takes a law Congress enacted to serve one limited purpose, and expands that law to suit Hobby Lobby’s much more expansive purpose.

  4. #5 by Larry Bergan on June 30, 2014 - 9:20 pm

    The supreme court has been open for business for a long time. This has made myth of the courts duty to ignore partisan politics.

    Why would any corporate entity not go through the court system to get their wants filled now? It’s a no lose situation.

  5. #6 by cav on July 1, 2014 - 8:02 am

    The Bull is in the china closet, and he can’t get out.

  6. #7 by cav on July 1, 2014 - 8:19 am

    With this; I cease commenting. It’s been fun. Thanks. Over. Edited.

    • #8 by Larry Bergan on July 2, 2014 - 8:37 pm

      I have been doing the best I can to retrieve your comments from the spam bin, and I’m sure I got all of them, but who knows if some of them are getting nuked.

      Please stick around!

  7. #9 by Ronald D. Hunt on July 1, 2014 - 12:05 pm

    cav,

    everyone still taking this one in, the pretzel logic used by alito to justify every minority group controversial medical procedure/drug except contraception, stating that vaccines, and blood transfusions, etc meet the “test” of undue burden to the government while 4 drugs which are not abortificants, some how do not meet this test.

    However I think we should take alito up on his suggestion and simply have the government nationalize contraception coverage and provide it for all. And we can repeal the RFRA, and change the definition of a corporation to not natural person in the definitions act.

  8. #10 by brewski on July 1, 2014 - 8:53 pm

    Imagine that a woman starts work at Hobby Lobby tomorrow morning — July 1. She joins Hobby Lobby’s health care plan. It includes access, copay-free, to the following categories of FDA-approved birth-control:

    Male condoms
    Female condoms
    Diaphragms with spermicide
    Sponges with spermicide
    Cervical caps with spermicide
    Spermicide alone
    Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)
    Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)
    Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
    Contraceptive patches
    Contraceptive rings
    Progestin injections
    Implantable rods
    Vasectomies
    Female sterilization surgeries
    Female sterilization implants
    (This new woman at Hobby Lobby cannot use male condoms or a vasectomy, at least not directly. However, if she chose either contraceptive method, in conjunction with her husband, she would have access to it.)

    Further, not only would she have access to these medicines and devices, but Hobby Lobby would fund them. That’s right: while White House press secretary Josh Earnest claims that it “jeopardizes the health of women,” Hobby Lobby’s health plan pays for 16 different kinds of contraceptives for its female employees!

  9. #11 by Ronald D. Hunt on July 2, 2014 - 1:05 am

    SCOTUS may have only directly struck down 4 of the contested contraceptives, which may or may not be a problem dependent on the particular medical needs of a person, they left a few giant holes that make the situation so much worse.

    For one the case isn’t over, SCOTUS has created a new legal test from which people can challenge a whole number of medical procedures over, and in fact has referred the hobby lobby challenge back to a lower court to reexamine the rest of their challenge.

    This legal test, being undue burden to the government, does not apply to contraceptives alone but rather to any medical procedure, meaning that every crack pot loon so going to be emerging from the wood work to challenge the medical procedure they don’t like in their medical plan, I hope you employer isn’t a 7th day Adventist seeing as they object to plans that cover doctors. Do note that the HHS only currently has authority to cover contraceptives directly for plans that don’t cover them, this does not extend to other forms of coverage.

    Also the ruling does not cover the equal protection clause, or any super ceding law such as the civil rights act. Meaning that if a business does in fact choose to exercise religious rights they are opening themselves up to discrimination lawsuits.

    Ignoring the stupidity of the SCOTUS in allowing hobby lobby to redefine several drugs as something they are not, as the drugs in question are not abortificants. Ignoring the fact that the SCOTUS ruling only effects the PPACA and leaves State passed requirements in place. Ignoring the ridiculous idea of a government creation of legal fiction(a corporation) having a religion. Ignoring the allowance of an employer to force through benefits their religious beliefs onto employees hired for non religious purposes.

    The SCOTUS has created a giant mess, and will be hearing follow up cases, for years to come, where 5 white Christian men, will get to decide which beliefs meet a measure of undue burden and which are musli~~, i mean Je~~~~, I mean unworthy of legal protection.

  10. #12 by Ronald D. Hunt on July 2, 2014 - 1:06 am

    comments in moderation

  11. #14 by Becky Stauffer on July 2, 2014 - 7:12 am

    This is no longer just about Hobby Lobby and what they will cover. SCOTUS clarified that the ruling extends to any form of contraception.

    And what about this: Insurance is just one part of a total benefit package that employees receive–a package that might also include vacation time, salaries, etc. What if a company could restrict its employees in how benefits could be used based on the owner’s religious beliefs? Maybe employees would be forbidden to visit Las Vegas using company-paid vacation. And perhaps salaries could not be used for gambling or alcohol or R-rated movies. That would be an outrageous infringement of employees’ freedom, right? A slippery slope thought to chew on

    • #15 by Richard Warnick on July 2, 2014 - 8:38 am

      It’s been pointed out that legal precedent until now was to treat religious freedom as a shield to protect individuals, not as a sword for organizations to attack individuals.

    • #17 by brewski on July 2, 2014 - 6:48 pm

      There is nothing about the ruling which implies that she is not a person.

    • #18 by Larry Bergan on July 2, 2014 - 7:45 pm

      brewski:

      What about previous rulings by the Roberts court? You know which ruling I’m talkn’ about.

      • #19 by brewski on July 2, 2014 - 9:42 pm

        I don’t recall any decision that said that she is not a person.

      • #20 by Larry Bergan on July 3, 2014 - 7:09 pm

        They may not have said she was not a person in their arguments, but they DID create ultra-people who have more constitutional rights then she does if they happen to be christian.

        • #21 by Shane Smith on July 4, 2014 - 2:08 pm

          All animals are equal, some are just more so than others.

      • #22 by Richard Warnick on July 4, 2014 - 12:00 pm

        Supreme Court Broadens Hobby Lobby Ruling to All Forms of Birth Control

        Less than a day after the United States Supreme Court issued its divisive ruling on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, it has already begun to toss aside the supposedly narrow interpretation of the decision. On Tuesday, the Supremes ordered lower courts to rehear any cases where companies had sought to deny coverage for any type of contraception, not just the specific types Hobby Lobby was opposed to.

        According to the all-male right-wing partisan Supreme Court majority, women have no rights. Nobody is trying to take away insurance coverage for Viagra!

        • #23 by Shane Smith on July 4, 2014 - 2:05 pm

          Best part? The fact that the narrow inturp was there in the first place was part of the justification. “We are totally justified in doing A, because B is reality! Now watch as we undo B…”

          These two decisions will be taught in future law classes, so they are famous anyway.

  12. #24 by Larry Bergan on July 5, 2014 - 9:42 am

    The honorable male justices better rule that women, (baby machines), can no longer serve on the court before it’s too late.

    I don’t respect her since she cast the vote that put George W. in office, but Sandra’s opinion might be interesting on this one.

    Women vs men on the supreme court. I would have thought gender, generally, shouldn’t be considered in law, but who knew?

  13. #25 by Ronald D. Hunt on July 6, 2014 - 1:40 pm

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/issue-emancipation-proclamation-corporations/GC2jM1p9

    I must admit, that is a strangely odd legal situation the court has created.

    I wonder if someone could sue to free the corporations from their bondage!

    • #26 by Larry Bergan on July 6, 2014 - 2:26 pm

      Ronald:

      Not a whole lot of people signed the sarcastic petition. Like me, they were probably scared it would actually become law. In fact, if it did become an issue and made it to this supreme court, it would definitely become law. Corporations cannot lose in this forum.

  14. #27 by Ronald D. Hunt on July 6, 2014 - 3:24 pm

    SCOTUS would never rule for emancipation, they would be forced to change to the status of corps to not people.

    Ruling for emancipation, would have the legal consequence of turning every corporation into a ward of the state creating a communist state, Or dissolve the status of corporate ownership putting all property into sole proprietorship / partnership law which has no liability benefits for said owners.

    SCOTUS can’t create a new class of person that selectively has rights based on their whim and fancy, they either have all the rights defined for persons, or they are not persons and only have rights as defined by current law, of which current law defines very few.

    The Constitution leaves no room to wiggle around this one, if this case came up i bet cha it would be a 6-3 ruling, with Kennedy and Roberts joining the liberal Justices.

    BTW that petition has only been up for 2 days, I am curious to see some dailykos diaries on its a legal consequences.

  15. #28 by Larry Bergan on July 6, 2014 - 5:23 pm

    We need two more women on the supreme court and one less fake negro.

    There. I said it!

    I’m pretty sure the blacks would agree with me.

(will not be published)


%d bloggers like this: