|
ayn rand hand job posted:They can't be publicly traded. RBG seems to dispute that this is the case in her dissent.
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:It would mean the Court more closely mirrored the other two branches as they exist now, rather than as they existed decades ago. That makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Ginsburgs dissents are at least a consolation prize for this poo poo sandwich, emphasis in bold is mine: It ignores the fact that many corporate RFRA claims would having nothing to do with the employees (like a theoretical Jewish butcher affected by a Kosher slaughter ban). Her argument more rightfully applies to the strict scrutiny part. Emanuel Collective posted:I'm a little unclear on this point: if RFRA were repealed, would Hobby Lobby still be good law? No.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
TheReverend posted:Would Hobby Lobby even be able to buy insurance plans without it? I don't imagine Blue Cross and the rest making a "religious/Hobby Lobby" plan when 99% of the country is mandated to have it. Hobby Lobby self insures so that's not an issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
Emanuel Collective posted:I'm a little unclear on this point: if RFRA were repealed, would Hobby Lobby still be good law? This case is about how the RFRA applies to this situation. Its only based on the law, not the constitution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
duz posted:Hobby Lobby self insures so that's not an issue. That is an issue because Hobby Lobby almost certainly does not manage their own plan. They just pay for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You should go try it. We should just wait and see how this Ebola thing pans out. I still think the Supreme Court needs their own version of a 'We the People' petition page, just so Justices can see how completely out of touch they are with most of the country.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:This case is about how the RFRA applies to this situation. Its only based on the law, not the constitution. Thanks. I wasn't sure if the ruling was broad enough to impact the Free Exercise clause too, but I just read this line: "By enacting RFRA, Congress went far beyond what this Court has held is constitutionally required"
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
McDowell posted:We should just wait and see how this Ebola thing pans out. It doesn't matter if Justices are out of touch, though, because their interpretation of the law should be the same regardless?(Yes, in theory, I know.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Gregor Samsa posted:RBG seems to dispute that this is the case in her dissent. There are a lot of good parts in there: quote:Why should decisions of this order be made by Congress or the regulatory authority, and not this Court? Hobby Lobby and Conestoga surely do not stand alone as commercial enterprises seeking exemptions from generally applicable laws on the basis of their religious beliefs. See, e.g., Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 256 F. Supp. 941, 945 (SC 1966) (owner of restaurant chain refused to serve black patrons based on his religious beliefs opposing racial integration), aff ’d in relevant part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 377 F. 2d 433 (CA4 1967), aff ’d and modified on other grounds, 390 U. S. 400 (1968); In re Minnesota ex rel. McClure, 370 N. W. 2d 844, 847 (Minn.1985) (born-again Christians who owned closely held, for profit health clubs believed that the Bible proscribed hiring or retaining an “individua[l] living with but not married to a person of the opposite sex,” “a young, single woman working without her father’s consent or a married woman working without her husband’s consent,” and any person “antagonistic to the Bible,” including “fornicatorsand homosexuals” (internal quotation marks omitted)), appeal dismissed, 478 U. S. 1015 (1986); Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, 2013–NMSC–040, ___ N. M. ___, 309 P. 3d 53 (for-profit photography business owned by a husband and wife refused to photograph a lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony based on the religious beliefs of the company’s owners), cert. denied, 572 U. S. ___ (2014). Would RFRA require exemptions in cases of this ilk? And if not, how does the Court divine which religious beliefs are worthy of accommodation, and which are not? Isn’t the Court disarmed from making such a judgment given its recognition that “courts must not presume to determine . . . the plausibility of a religious claim”? Ante, at 37. How should the lower courts look at other religious claims if the Supreme Court is extending religious liberties to for-profit businesses?  says Supreme Court.e: More Ginsburg: quote:The Court’s determination that RFRA extends to for profit corporations is bound to have untoward effects. Although the Court attempts to cabin its language to closely held corporations, its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private. Little doubt that RFRA claims will proliferate, for the Court’s expansive notion of corporate personhood—combined with its other errors in construing RFRA—invites for-profit entities to seek religion-based exemptions from regulations they deem offensive to their faith. Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
duz posted:Hobby Lobby self insures so that's not an issue. Well, it's probably not an issue one way or the other, but it should be noted that "self-insured" doesn't mean "makes up the entirety of their insurance plan". A company that is "self-insured" always (well always as far as I know) still pays an insurance company to do all the work, but doesn't pay for underwriting (except possibly as a stop-loss deal). Thus, the money for your broken leg is ultimately paid out by the employer, who also pays the insurance company for the claims processing, mailing the check, etc. Anyway in this case it'd be pretty easy for the insurer to devise a plan option to include or not include contraceptives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Beamed posted:It doesn't matter if Justices are out of touch, though, because their interpretation of the law should be the same regardless?(Yes, in theory, I know.) Not really. You can always make an argument that the law is in favor of X, or the law is against X. The law is complex and self-contradictory and lawyers and judges pick and choose what parts of it they pay attention to and make interpretations about what those those parts of the law mean. There is no platonic "right interpretation" of the law that everyone knows (somehow), that's grade-school level fantasy bullshit. Insofar as a small minority of cases exist where the law is indeed so cut and dry, those are the 9-0 rulings, not the 5-4 party-line rulings. In fact lawyers rather notoriously can always find some basis to make a stand on, even if it's just a last-ditch delaying maneuver. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
emfive posted:Anyway in this case it'd be pretty easy for the insurer to devise a plan option to include or not include contraceptives. Pretty much, if a company is large enough or will bring in enough premium, insurance companies will design whatever plan setup they want. It's a pretty common thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
Thanks for clarifying the "closely held" part. It seems that a lot of companies could be considered "closely held". Aren't companies like Wal Mart and Best Buy owned by very few people with a relative minority of stock actually owned and traded by other people? Would this law apply to them? Would a case that found taxes against their religion hold traction with this ruling and be correct in refusing to pay taxes? Also it bothers me that this court is so lovely and we refer to this court as "The Worst". RBG, Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomoyer have had outstanding dissents in many of these recent cases and are everything right with judicial analysis. The Supreme Court is terrible, but those 4 are pretty kick rear end, particularly RBG.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
Well, since the statistics on this confound the issue (because the large majority of incorporated entities are single-person businesses or whatever), can we start ticking off closely-held corporations subject to the ACA to which this decision can actually be applied? Basically I'm asking for a list of companies I can start giving the evil-eye to. :tough guy: Edit: they need to be subject to ACA, forgot that mdemone fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Haha Jesus Christ was a terribly reasoned opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Thanks for clarifying the "closely held" part. It seems that a lot of companies could be considered "closely held". Aren't companies like Wal Mart and Best Buy owned by very few people with a relative minority of stock actually owned and traded by other people? Would this law apply to them? mdemone posted:Well, since the statistics on this confound the issue (because the large majority of incorporated entities are single-person businesses or whatever), can we start ticking off closely-held corporations to which this decision can actually be applied? Fried Chicken posted:
Far and away most of these 90% are less than 50 employees, but still
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Sorry, I meant closely-held corporations to which the ACA also applies. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
Can closely held corporations owned by Jehovah Witnesses stop paying for blood transfusions?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Far and away most of these 90% are less than 50 employees, but still Right, but even large corporations with tons of employees...aren't the stocks held either directly or indirectly through a very small cadre of shareholders? SO if there is a massive spike in the price, day traders can make money, but the high ups rake in most of the benefit since they are majority shareholders between them? I only ask because if that is the case then companies like Hobby Lobby slip through, but so would Walmart, Best Buy, etc. Other LARGE companies could begin to exempt themselves from parts of the law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
ZenVulgarity posted:Haha Jesus Christ was a terribly reasoned opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
John Kruk posted:Can closely held corporations owned by Jehovah Witnesses stop paying for blood transfusions? No, this only applies to religious beliefs held by Hobby Lobby and 5 SCOTUS members because reasons
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
John Kruk posted:Can closely held corporations owned by Jehovah Witnesses stop paying for blood transfusions? They explicitly say no in the decision but I can't see how they could defend the reasoning (of which there is literally none) if challenged.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:And that means the decision doesn't have *insanely* bad consequences, just that the decision itself is incredibly bad in all ways. So for now we don't have to worry about companies using this BS to justify ignoring other laws?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
I only read part of it: do they justify why closely held companies get this exemption?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
John Kruk posted:Can closely held corporations owned by Jehovah Witnesses stop paying for blood transfusions? Basically no. 1. The court specifically say that the decision applies only to contraceptives and not blood transfusions (their example). This technically means that the issue is still open, but it's a pretty good sign. 2. The RFRA test failed on the "least restrictive means" provision of the law. There is a separate program set up so that employees of religious employers can get free contraception through a different source - and this is less restrictive on religious beliefs than requiring that the employer cover it. There is no such program set up for blood transfusions, and it may not be practical. esquilax fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:
The key thing is also that it only seems to apply to self-insured companies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Yes, but it's more about the result for them than the process (see also: VRA, Citizens United). The lovely reasoning giving an ultimately awful result with nothing really behind it to back it up which can be challenged to open up even dumber opinions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
So, what the hell is a closely-held corporation? It doesn't seem to mean privately held, so where is the clear distinction? Is there any? God this reads terribly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Can a corporation go to heaven? Can the Pope excommunicate corporations?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Judakel posted:So, what the hell is a closely-held corporation? It doesn't seem to mean privately held, so where is the clear distinction? Is there any? God this reads terribly. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3590854&perpage=40&pagenumber=55#post431570724
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
MANIFEST DESTINY posted:Can a corporation go to heaven? Can the Pope excommunicate corporations? Sounds like a job for Pope Francis.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
I've read that vasectomies are still covered for men, but does anyone have any information on whether or not Hobby Lobby would cover tubal ligation?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3590854&perpage=40&pagenumber=55#post431570724 Thank you! It still seems like such an arbitrary distinction, but at least there is now a clear line.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
redcheval posted:I've read that vasectomies are still covered for men, but does anyone have any information on whether or not Hobby Lobby would cover tubal ligation? Covering vasectomies was never a requirement, though most companies do cover it (usually with a copay though). Tubal ligation is required to be covered and they did not mention it in the court case, so more than likely they are covering it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
quote:It is HHS’s apparent belief that no insurance-coverage mandate would violate RFRA—no matter how significantly it impinges on the religious liberties of employers—that would lead to intolerable consequences. Under HHS’s view, RFRA would permit the Government to require all employers to provide coverage for any medical procedure allowed by law in the jurisdiction in question—for instance, third-trimester abortions or assisted suicide. The owners of many closely held corporations could not in good conscience provide such coverage, and thus HHS would effectively exclude these people from full participation in the economic life of the Nation. RFRA was enacted to prevent such an outcome." I really like the examples used. John Kruk posted:Can closely held corporations owned by Jehovah Witnesses stop paying for blood transfusions? quote:In any event, our decision in these cases is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Covering vasectomies was never a requirement, though most companies do cover it (usually with a copay though). Tubal ligation is required to be covered and they did not mention it in the court case, so more than likely they are covering it. Great, thank you!
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Sounds like a job for Pope Francis. He already excommunicated the Mafia so multinational corporations wouldn't be too different.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Basically no. This is good, because an employer denying someone blood transfusions would give that employer too much power over an employee's life. Also, if someone had the misfortune of working for an employer who was a Scientologist, forget psychiatric care. Of course, restricting women's access to contraceptives also gives an employer too much power over their employee's life. Women use contraceptives for more than preventing pregnancy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
So the Roberts court has Bush v Gore, Citizens United, VRA, and now this abortion of a ruling. I mean any of those taken on their own aren't as bad as Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, or Korematsu v. United States, but combined I think it's fair to say that Roberts has been the worst Chief Justice of all time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 18:01
|
|