Hobby Lobby case: Justices skeptical of White House position
Source: Politico Pro
The Supreme Court expressed skepticism today of the legality of the Obama administration's refusal to accommodate for-profit companies' religious objections to the Obamacare contraceptive requirement.
A majority of the justices seemed particularly doubtful of the administration's claim that for-profit companies have no religious rights under federal law.
The Obama administration says the provision advances a “compelling” government interest in promoting preventive health care and that it does so in the least intrusive way, without unconstitutionally impinging on religious freedom.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/hobby-lobby-case-supreme-court-104999.html?hp=l3
It is real simple premise.
If your entity is a Non-Profit, you can "express" your political views;
but you CAN'T impose them on your staff and the public.
A corporation (such as the U.S. Government) - can NOT impose their political beliefs on others.
For profit businesses can't hope to treat the public at large as et al consumers;
but put doctrines contrary to law (and common sense) to enslave workers to owners beliefs.
Ted Nugent would start a gun company tomorrow and compel everyone to own a gun!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)in which corporations get 'religious freedom'.
Not a promising start.
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)to force policy (political/religious desires) upon U.S. all!
They're going nuts on the bench.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Scalia has been nuts for years, Thomas is his willing doppelganger, and Roberts completely misled the Senate to get his job. Impartial umpire my rear end.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)He saved ACA, had he voted the other way, we would not have ACA at all.
markpkessinger
(8,396 posts). . . and it was based more on his worry about the court appearing too obviously partisan than about any legal principle. Show me any other ruling by Roberts that hasn't been toxic.
Response to laserhaas (Reply #2)
Name removed Message auto-removed
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I'd rather not pay for the military operations in the mid-east (major tenet of my religion is pacifism). If you want it, you're certainly welcome to pay for it yourself... 
Response to LanternWaste (Reply #10)
Name removed Message auto-removed
alp227
(32,023 posts)By the time I clicked on the username I saw: "Posting privileged revoked!" WOO HOO!
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)I don't have a problem with PPR but at least show the name and the post so I can reply back for the jerk to read!!
alp227
(32,023 posts)laserhaas
(7,805 posts)Though I think the Jury should include venerates who are professionals at being "considerate" of all sides.
I didn't get to see what was said;
but I'm glad that (if it was truly reprehensible)
that it was dealt with in short order.
Open discourse always
Ad Hominem attacks
NEVER....
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)alp227
(32,023 posts)
Crap, they've been completely batshit crazy since they selected Bush to be president and over-rode the votes of the citizens of
FL. They are the worst Supreme Court ever! Citizen United was another completely wrong ruling they foisted on us to improve the lot of the 1% and fuck the rest of us.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)The 4th and other amendments to protect personal rights were inadequate, so we had to go to war and pass the 14th, 15th and 16th to end the bondage of slavery. But some groups, and the GOP in particular, have no intention of following the spirit of those who freed so many and gave the right to vote to women.
This lawsuit is part of the same theocratic movement that went on steroids after the Tea Party took over in a crucial mid-term in 2010. We are at another one this year.
They aren't going to give up, and neither should we. We are making the future every day, by either making our voices heard while we are still have one.
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)Life by art of lifeless arts of decepticons
calimary
(81,265 posts)Who the hell is arguing the case on our side? Bozo the Clown?
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)I'd K&R that question....
calimary
(81,265 posts)I remember when President Obama picked Elena Kagan as a Supreme Court justice. One of his reasons - as Solicitor General, it had been her job to argue on the White House's behalf before the Supreme Court. He said she was a terrific consensus-builder. Well, I'm wondering what he was smoking that day. Kagan represented the government in the Citizens United case. What kind of consensus did she build in that one? Evidently NOT so terrific. She lost the freakin' case! I haven't been an Elena Kagan fan ever since.
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)Our Government adjudicators should be for justice of, by and for the people.
Never FOR the government and/or special interests.
Our Prez was duped into allowing the need for woman, alter race and such;
to let a wolves in sheep's clothing - inside the courtroom doors.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)laserhaas
(7,805 posts)She is a Senator in Mass (Bain's home turf)
A Bankruptcy attorney.
She KNOWS the crimes going on in our eToys case.
And can't do nothing about it - without losing the next election.
As a Justice - she could merit out justice - Always
freshwest
(53,661 posts)58. That's what just burns me up. WHO is taking the government's case here?
I remember when President Obama picked Elena Kagan as a Supreme Court justice. One of his reasons - as Solicitor General, it had been her job to argue on the White House's behalf before the Supreme Court. He said she was a terrific consensus-builder. Well, I'm wondering what he was smoking that day. Kagan represented the government in the Citizens United case. What kind of consensus did she build in that one? Evidently NOT so terrific. She lost the freakin' case! I haven't been an Elena Kagan fan ever since.
There are nine justices on the SCOTUS, Kagan is only one. She did not lose the Citizens United case as she is not even listed, despite her confirmation date, as part of the court when it was argued. I contend, this cannot be her failure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission
She was appointed to take the place of Justice Stevens, who is on the list who decided CU:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan
If you have proof to dispute what I have found, please let me know and I will edit.
On DU today I found these OPs that show her work for women in the Hobby Lobby case, and I think you will enjoy these if you read them:
Kagan Throws Scalia's Own Religious Liberty Arguments Back In His Face - TPMDC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024724945
Women Justices Rock the Hobby Lobby Argument
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024726315
Re: the Obama administraion's defense of the ACA on this issue, and this is not from a purely liberal source, but you can see the Hobby position, which is dishonest, and our defense against their lawsuit:
Analysis: Hobby Lobby case -- Matters of principle or “alleged religious beliefs”?
Ryan Kiesel of the American Civil Liberties Union, Oklahoma chapter, told CapitolBeatOK the U.S. government will succeed in its defense of the ACA provisions, including the “HHS” (Health and Human Services) mandate requiring the coverage.
He said, “For decades courts have held that religious liberty does not grant secular employers a license to discriminate against their employees or customers. Whether that discrimination is based on race or gender, courts have routinely held that claims of religious liberty by the owners or managers of a company are no justification.”
In mandating coverage of “preventative medicine with no co-pay,” Kiesel believes, Congress was “taking steps to address the inequity felt by women in the workplace. If Hobby Lobby were a church, this would be a different story altogether. However, as a private, for-profit company they do not have the right to impose their beliefs upon their employees...”
The Justice Department brief, authorized by Attorney General Eric Holder, emphasizes that the company formerly allowed “preventive services” within employee health insurance plans, dismissing the “alleged religious beliefs” of the company’s owners...
http://capitolbeatok.com/reports/analysis-hobby-lobby-case-matters-of-principle-or-alleged-religious-beliefs
Please note, that the parts I have emboldened in the article are of importance to me when scanning my Journal, for my own vision problems, and not the equivalent of yelling at anyone like putting things all capital letters.
TIA if you have a comment, must especially anything to show I am in error and that Obama, Holder or Kagan have been remiss in this effort to protect the rights of women.
sheshe2
(83,758 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)If we give the white house back to the republicans in 2016, they could put more conservative judges on the surpreme court. We are already in trouble with the conservative activist judges we have now.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Along with all of the standard arguments against Republicans.
It would be nice to hear Dems actually make arguments *for* themselves, once in a while.
To tell us what they want to do for us. Like Barack Obama did in 2008 to get a massive surge of voters behind him.
Of course, if they tell us those things then don't carry through, that turns off voters, so they have to actually do (or at least try to do) what they said as well.
For instance, if Clinton is going to be the 2016 candidate, it would help voter turn out if she came out and simply announced that any Justice she nominates for the Supreme Court will put humans first instead of corporations.
malthaussen
(17,195 posts)It follows they have the same rights as people. We need to overturn this idea that corporate entities are people. Frankly, I don't think I ever met a corporation with a conscience.
-- Mal
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)they are civil machines utilized for specific goals.
Some give out .00001 to charities;
but few (such as that tennis shoe company)
give out - for the sake of giving.
Kablooie
(18,634 posts)My religion says paying taxes is wrong and I am owed free beer from any grocery store I visit.
malthaussen
(17,195 posts)"For all you care, this beer could be my blood, this pretzel my body!"
-- Mal
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)Although the official Vatican ruling is that it is OK until there is an alternative vaccine, some object to the polio and rubella vaccines because of the use of fetuses in the development.
http://www.immunize.org/concerns/vaticandocument.htm
http://www.general-anaesthesia.com/
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)What if the owner believes in circumcisions and wants all male employees to have one?
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)No Aids treatment because you must be gay and a sinner. No breast cancer treatment because you must have had an abortion (junk science but..) and a sinner. Imagine the possibilities of refusing medical treatment based on religion?
JackHughes
(166 posts)Stand by for legal and mental contortions as the Federalist Society Five find new ways to ignore and overrule 200 years of precedent and common sense in order to force a hyper-partisan outcome.
calimary
(81,265 posts)Glad you're here. This just makes me feel sick. As I write this, I just wanna scream and then cry!
RedSpartan
(1,693 posts)with Kennedy, especially, questioning both sides:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/25/supreme-court-hobby-lobby_n_5027527.html
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)Weird!
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)egold2604
(369 posts)If the Supreme court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby, they the owners of the corporation's religious beliefs are the same as the corporations, then the inverse is true, the corporations's dealings with the public reflect on the owners. There will no longer be a corporate buffer between the public and the owners/ share holders/officers. Owners/share holders/officers will now be personally responsible for anything the corporations does.
The law of unintentional consequences will bite corporations in the ass. CEOs, as an office holder will have to answer for any crimes that a corporation does.
homegirl
(1,429 posts)I am anxiously waiting for the first case. Love the law of unintended consequences. Thank you.
calimary
(81,265 posts)Great to have you join us! Unfortunately, I fear you'd be waiting til you're covered in cobwebs. As I noted in another post here - when is the last time any of us remembers a corporate CEO was held accountable for some malfeasance his/her corporation committed? Every bankster we're aware of is still walking free, enjoying the high life, and forced to face exactly ZERO consequences for tanking the economy.
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)the 14th.
I can tell you that (currently) - my opponents are in a pickle
calimary
(81,265 posts)I think we ALL are! We know you have a winning hand. It's just the panel you'll be addressing, whose members tend to have their vision clouded by dancing dollars and their ears filled with wax (or maybe little teeny rolled up pieces of dancing dollars.
I hope you win. I would LOVE to see a perp walk or two. jamie dimon and lloyd blankfein are among the top two who come to mind. Besides myth wrongney and friends, of course!
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)I'm going to put an update upon GD, in a day or two.
I can tell you this - I've got them VERY worried.
They are running around clucking that the heaven's are falling.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)the people who work for Holly Lobby. Are they ok with this? Would they rather buy insurance on their own? Not a peep from them which I find strange. If the people who work there don't want to buy birth control that is one thing, but we have not heard from the workers. Perhaps the Democrats can get out their to one of the stores and talk to the Associates and find out what they want. Have it taped and put on the national news.
dem in texas
(2,674 posts)I read in the paper that they paid a lot more than the other craft stores like JoAnn's and Micheal's. Also, the prospective employees are probably overtly screened to make sure they share the Hobby Lobby views.
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)Corporations are people
and people aren''t worth diddly to Romney & Bain
calimary
(81,265 posts)Good to have you with us! Sounds interesting, but seriously - WHEN has a CEO ever had to answer for any crimes that a corporation commits? Hell, most of the time there isn't even any trial! Just a pissant "settlement" of some sort that slaps 'em on the tip of one of their fingernails.
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)for their corporate crimes.
But Romney, Bain, Goldman Sachs and Paul Traub are still getting away 'Scot Free'.
(Thus far)
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)Neat insight.
rocktivity
(44,576 posts)And exactly how does Politico know this? Are they getting leaks from the justices themselves, like with the original ACA ruling? Is the court doing their debating in public, and if so, how about some exact quotes?
rocktivity
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)There should be quotes.
EC
(12,287 posts)An employer shouldn't have any say in their employees lifestyle, healthcare, or religion.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Burf-_-
(205 posts)that this will come down to Kennedy as the swing vote.. Scalia an d Thomas are no brainers for the fundy vote. Kennedy Himself had expressed concerns that voting for this would be too much of a 'RIGHT' lean. So... I'll tell you now not all hope is lost. He has already had that moment of clarity. GO JUSTICE KENNEDY !
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)alp227
(32,023 posts)Burf-_-
(205 posts)Doubt my optimism that a right wing judge could make a center to left decision ? Or .... It can happen, it has happened in monumental decisions like this one before.... we should hope Kennedy is as sane as he has pre-suposed in this case. It's not impossible !
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)We'll know soon enough
(I guess)
Burf-_-
(205 posts)"Burf-_-" is firstly a skeptic and cynic, thus the "-_-" part. But rare cases like this... i do tout the case of optimism, and this is one.
calimary
(81,265 posts)Glad you're here! I must say I hope you're correct but I've seldom lost money betting on THIS Supreme Court leaning too far to the wrong.
alp227
(32,023 posts)You know how to scare off those right wing Christians? Bus in a bunch of Muslims to chant along.
matters of faith...and business, are two entirely different and exclusive things. So they are just chanting bullshit out their collective asses.
Dopers_Greed
(2,640 posts)The SC siding with Hobby Lobby on this could lead to businesses declaring themselves as "faith healers" to be exempted from having to provide any health coverage at all?
Burf-_-
(205 posts)but the fact the "Christians" are forgetting is this could pave the way for OTHER RELIGIONS to Object to ANYTHING, they don't approve of... Let's suppose say... Muslims, or possibly Raylians.... or Scientologists... but why worry right ?
Samantha
(9,314 posts)And it is NOT imposing its political beliefs on others. It is protecting consumers from having their employers imposing their political beliefs on its employees choices.
Where does the right to assert one's political beliefs on others end. It ends at the very line, the intersection, if you will, where the imposition of the employer's right impugn the religious rights of those impacted.
Sam
Augiedog
(2,546 posts)Just what we need, turn America into a corporate theocracy, Thomas Hobbes would be delirious with happiness. I can see it now, we will be required to pray to the Exxon/Mobil god of oily redemption. If corporate entities can cover themselves in the veil of some religious belief they all become tax exempt and can force employees to adhere to the corporate theological line, or else. Ultimately, because we all know what organized religion pursues is the demise of competing religions, warfare between these new godopolies. You think the Vatican was bad, wait til you see what Kocks have in mind for you to pray to.
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)I am thy Lord Koch -
Though shalt have no other 1%'rs before me.
In the beginning was the word, the word was with g0d Koch
and the word (Ga'zillionaire" 0 was g0d....
Grins
(7,217 posts)Since I'm a Quaker, I get an exemption from compulsory military service and the payment of taxes.
Since I'm fundamentalist Christian and have a religious belief in faith healing, I can not be prosecuted when I choose to prayer instead of doctors when my children die from preventable and curable illnesses.
Since I'm a member of a Native American Church with religious beliefs I can take illegal drugs where others would be arrested and prosecuted.
Since I'm fundamentalist Christian and have a religious belief in animal sacrifice, animal cruelty laws do not apply to me.
Since I'm fundamentalist Christian with a religious belief, child labor laws and child neglect laws do not apply to me.
Since I'm fundamentalist Christian with a religious belief, compulsory vaccination laws do not apply to me.
Since I'm fundamentalist Christian with a religious belief that demons or other evil spiritual entities posses me, I cannot be fired from my job nor denied exorcism at public hospitals.
Since I'm fundamentalist Christian with a religious belief that brown skin is a punishment from God, I do not have to serve, hire, or pay fairly, those with dark skin.
Since I'm fundamentalist Muslim women with religious beliefs, the state cannot compel me to uncover my face for a photo to be on my driver's license.
Since I'm fundamentalist Christian with a religious belief I'm allowed to sell my daughter into slavery.
Since I'm fundamentalist Christian with a religious belief I can kill any employee who refuses to work on the Sabbath.
Since I'm fundamentalist Christian with a religious belief I can burn my mother for wearing garments made from two different threads.
Slippery slopes, Mr. Scalia!
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)Since Koch brothers are slime - I can snix one without fear of prosecution.
It is all right (in our Moroni styled fundamentalism way) to enslave a Koch brother;
and have him ride a Dick'less Cheney mule into submission
of telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth - to ALL people.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)If Hobby Lobby were able to say they had an objection to IUDs and therefore refused to allow that covered by their health insurance policy, what would prevent them from mandating that their health insurance would only reimburse faith healers and not doctors?
Or if you think that is a reduction to absurdity, how about they reimburse for cancer treatments, but not for AIDS complications?
Or they reimburse for medical expenses from car crashes, but only if the employee was not speeding at the time -- because if they were speeding, God was probably trying to punish them for breaking the law.
Once you allow the boss to impose his own personal beliefs on this, where do you stop? How can you draw a line anywhere other than saying the employer cannot pick and choose at all?
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)sense
and seek to Bull U.S. with a winkle of a whim of an idea.
Or are we all just Nuts!
moondust
(19,981 posts)No telling where it would lead.
As an added bonus, if the HL corporation can get itself sanctioned as a for-profit religious organization maybe there will be some tax breaks ahead as well!!! 
(I'm not sure but I think I saw Monsanto in church last Sunday wearing a toupee. 
)
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)You should do a follow up thread - best on that title (premise).
muntrv
(14,505 posts)
maddogesq
(1,245 posts)Open the doors, and here's all the multi-national, for profit, law skirting corporations.
Oh wait, that didn't rhyme.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)This text is from the "religious liberty" bill that almost passed the Georgia legislature this term. I'm sure there are other bills like it in statehouses across the country.
The bill defines as person as follows:
'Person' means an individual, corporation, partnership, firm, business trust, joint-stock company, association, syndicate, group, pool, joint venture, and any other unincorporated association or group.
From: http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20132014/140141.pdf
Even in the wake of Citizen United, I was surprised at how brazen the right has become in its quest to give companies the same status as people.
I don't have a lot of hope about this case. I hope sanity prevails, but there is a larger conservative game afoot. And this is a conservative court. You do the math.
The fact that gay people exist offends the tender religious sensibilities of some. Hobby Lobby has the potential to become a freakish Pandora's Box.
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)do I get "sentenced"?
elleng
(130,903 posts)Argument focused on Religious Freedom Restoration Act, are corps persons, was govt requirement of coverage a substantial burden, does govt have compelling interest, and has govt chosen least restrictive means.
Kennedy's position unclear, made points/questions for each side.
Roberts suggested 'compromise.'
Listen to audio Friday, read transcript now. Might be on C-SPAN radio this weekend, and/or on TV and on line.
