Thank you Justice Sotomayor!!

[malaise]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/27/us-usa-healthcare-hobbylobby-idUSBRE8BQ00A20121227
<snip>
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has refused to block enforcement starting next week of a requirement in President Barack Obama's 2010 healthcare overhaul that some companies provide insurance coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices.

In an order issued on Wednesday, Sotomayor said two for-profit companies controlled by Oklahoma City billionaire David Green and his family did not qualify for an injunction while they challenge the requirement in court.

Hobby Lobby Stores Inc, an arts and crafts chain with more than 500 stores, and Mardel Inc, a chain of 35 Christian-themed bookstores, said it violated their religious beliefs to require that their group health plans cover treatments that could induce abortions.
--------------
Fugg 'em!

[ReRe]

1. Justice, finally!

[Floyd_Gondolli]

2. Good

That douche canoe treats Oklahoma City like his own fiefdom (we have a tendency to worship plutocrats here) so I always enjoy when he gets fed a shit sandwich.

[coalition_unwilling]

8. OT, but first time I've ever heard the phrase 'douche canoe'. LMFAO - n/t

[calimary]

14. That's a GREAT one, isn't it?! "Douche canoe!" I'm gonna be laughing about that all day!

Last edited Thu Dec 27, 2012, 07:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Excellent, Floyd_Gondolli!

[mimi85]

17. Too funny!

Ha - that one will be used again for sure!

[Left Coast2020]

32. Hazaa!! A new phrase is born!!

[TheMadMonk]

41. Imagery time. It's the 'c' word by another name. /nt

[Ohio Joe]

3. K&R - nt

[Honeycombe8]

4. So why is it that ONE S.Ct. Justice makes a decision, and not all of them? I've never heard of that.

I thought they all had to join in to render a decision?

[Pachamama]

5. Its kind of like "Night Court" - in an emergency situation, a SUPREME is on duty and then can step

In on whether this is truly an emergency that gets fast-tracked. Justice Sotomayer shot this one down fast and her grounds, reasoning is very clear & straightforward: these "corporations" are not religious organizations and have no grounds on their claims....

[Jim Lane]

9. Not exactly -- it's allocated geographically.

You're right that this isn't a full appeal, on which all the Justices will vote. Sometimes a litigant contends that there will be irreparable harm while the judicial process goes forward (in this case, while an appeal is being briefed and argued). A litigant in that situation may seek a preliminary injunction, to freeze the status quo until the case is resolved.

On the Supreme Court, such an application goes initially to the Justice who's assigned to hear emergency applications from that particular part of the country. That's how Sotomayor got this one.

There's also a procedure by which the full Court can take up the matter of the preliminary injunction and possibly reach a decision that's different from that of the single Justice who initially heard it. I forget the details because it's very, very rare.

The underlying case is still working its way through the court system. Apparently the circuit court of appeals (one level below the Supreme Court) hasn't even issued its final decision yet. It's likely that the challenged requirement will go into effect next week but that, at some point thereafter, the appeal will be heard by the full Court, which could well overturn the law. It's not at all uncommon for a litigant to be denied a preliminary injunction but then ultimately prevail on the merits.

[Honeycombe8]

18. Oh, I see. Thanks. nt

[NYC Liberal]

29. Yep: Circuit Justices.

It used to be that justices were actually required to "ride circuit" and hear cases in their assigned Circuit. They did away with that but as we can see here, they still do have a role in their circuits.

A justice can still sit as a judge in their circuit but they almost never do.

[bluestate10]

31. In a ruling that large, Sotomayor would have consulted with the other 8 Justices

before denying the appeal. That is how things seem to get done. Sotomayor's name would be on the denial because the request came through her circuit.

[BlueStreak]

12. She didn't rule on the case. She just refused to give a restraining order.

There can be many reasons for that.

If there is no likelihood of irreparable damages, then generally TROs are not granted.

If it seems the case is frivolous, then they would generally not give a TRO.

If it has been heard by a lower court and there is no obvious question about that court's conduct, then the SCOTUS generally doesn't intervene.

Te plaintiff can still appeal the case, and the SCOTUS might yet hear it. But my guess is that it won't be heard because it is frivolous.

[Honeycombe8]

19. Thanks! nt

[jberryhill]

13. This was not a decision on the entire case

This was an application for an injunction pending further proceedings in the underlying case.

[Mojo2]

6. Nice

Hard to believe, but the last few rulings by the Supreme Court have went our way.......has to just be killing the Repigs.

[libodem]

7. Canceling that trip to Hobby Lobby

I've been dying to make. Eff them, now. Glad I never made it in to check them out. Oh, yeah, eff them.

[Ineeda]

10. Mardel's apparently is the same family/owner.

Neither Hobby Lobby or Mardel's is anywhere near me, so I've never patronized either. But they would go on my "boycott list" if they were local. The list is growing.

[libodem]

15. They built one here a couple of years ago

I finally spotted it near the Kohls I like. We have a craft store called Michael's, that I've used for years. Oh, the $ I've forked out for hot glue.

[tavalon]

23. Hobby Lobby is just a bigger Michael's

with the crappy Christian music piped in.

[japple]

24. Yeah, that crappy christian muzak is a dead giveaway. Michael's isn't any better.

Edit to add: I remembered reading something nasty about Michael's, too. Went and looked it up and found this stinking piece of info:

"On October 31, 2006, substantially all of the Common Stock of Michaels Stores, Inc. (formerly NYSE: MIK) was acquired through a merger transaction by affiliates of two private investment firms, Bain Capital Partners, LLC and The Blackstone Group (collectively, the “Sponsors”), with certain shares retained by affiliates of Highfields Capital Partners (a then-existing shareholder of Michaels Stores, Inc.)."

http://www.michaels.com/About-Us/About-Us,default,pg.html


If I had the money, I'd buy any crafting materials I need from Martha Stewart. She is a strong supporter of the Democratic party. As it is, I usually just make crafts out of found or natural materials.

[tavalon]

35. Ewww

Didn't know that about Michael's.

[malaise]

26. I walk out of any store that is playing religious music and I let them know

why I'm leaving. I enter to buy something not to be bombarded with the beliefs of the owner, management or staff.

[Honeycombe8]

20. I used to go to Hobby Lobby, but then I started hearing some things about them.

It's no big sacrifice to shop elsewhere, so that's what I do. (Avoiding Walmart is much harder for me.)

[tavalon]

22. Yeah, I've been quietly boycotting Hobby Lobby since this stupidity came up.

[Politicub]

11. The way it should be - Commercial companies must adhere to the law

Thank you Justice Sotomayor!

[AAO]

16. Fuck'em all where the sun don't shine! n/t

[tavalon]

21. Good

They needed a spanking. I didn't know about Mardel but since one of my ex family members works at Hobby Lobby, I was aware of this stupidity for a while. I'm glad they didn't get an injunction.

[indepat]

25. Fugg all such bastards, the long, and short, and tall, all of 'em

[molonlabe91]

27. im so lost

Why are so many people that want to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit so happy to see someone else loose that right?

[tavalon]

37. Lose, punkin, lose

Reading may be fundamental, but so is writing.

Religion and public sector need to stay apart. Much like the separation of Church and State, which unfortunately hasn't really happened. The owners of Hobby Lobby have every right to not buy birth control for themselves and they have no right to determine that for their employees. They are required to provide a certain level of health care and they can't pick and choose based on their rigid fundamentalism.

[Vattel]

28. If the belief that abortion is wrong is a religious belief,

then pretty much any belief can be a religious belief. It is a moral belief but not a religious belief in the sense relevant to the freedom of religion.

[NYC Liberal]

30. Not to mention: this is a corporation.

How can the personal religious beliefs of its officers have anything to do with requirements of the corporate entity?

The whole point of incorporation is supposed to be that the corporation is a separate legal entity from the people who form it or run it (to protect them from being personally liable for the corporation's debts, etc). So they can't have it both ways.

[Angry Dragon]

33. +14,880 .......... a very good point

[Snarkoleptic]

34. Right!

Imagine working for a Jehovah's Witness-owned company only to find out your post trauma transfusion was denied for coverage because of the religious views of the company's board of directors.

Religion stops at the church door and cannot be allowed into the private sector employer/employee relationship.
IMHO

[tavalon]

38. For profit corporation

Not a non taxable religious entity. So, pony up for your employees or get the fuck out of the business. In other words, just piggybacking on your post - I wholeheartedly agree with you.

[Vattel]

42. good point

[suffragette]

36. Great to hear! Reminds me of what I posted about one of her key decisions

before she was on the Supreme Court and what that process showed about her:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5733426

[PatrynXX]

39. that last item on abortions

total fiction but they believe it. for whatever reason birth control is not an abortion.

[malaise]

40. The only place I saw this covered on TV last night was

on Rachel's show. This was huge news.