5-4 Decision: Closely Held For-Profit Corporations Have Religious Freedom

[TheSiege]

It's only narrow because it only applies to closely held businesses.

Did they define closely held business? Or is this going to turn into a headache like abortion where they give a vague answer like "viable outside the womb" which can be argued?

 

[theeedude]

Five Republican Catholic men vote against young women's contraception rights. More at 11.

 

[fskimospy]

Obama is a lame duck that will have to deal with more republicans after this election cycle. Anybody he nominates will have to be moderate.

Hillary winning is a possibility if she can keep that foot of hers out of her mouth.

Sure, but anyone Obama is nominating is basically certain to be considerably to the left of Scalia, Kennedy, or Thomas, and still a bit to the left of Ginsburg, I'd imagine. The Republicans had the ability to filibuster his previous appointments the same as they could now, so it would be reasonable to say that any new nominee would be in a similar mold I think.

If Hillary wins (actually, even if she doesn't), the Democratic majority in the Senate should be back up to somewhere around where it is now due to the 2016 electoral map.

 

[theeedude]

Obama absolutely doesn't have to nominate anyone "moderate" which is just a code word for corporatist. He can nominate one qualified young woman after another and force GOP to fight their war on women in public.

 

[xBiffx]

Five Republican Catholic men vote against young women's contraception rights. More at 11.

I guess Sotomayor is just a bad Catholic. I expect her excommunication to be forthcoming.

 

[Wreckem]

sooooo no freebies for sandra. wonder where she'll acquire the funds to cover her sexual escapades?

oh wait she's running for congress!

hahahahaha

This case has nothing to do with Sandra Fluke. If you actually knew what this case was a about and what the ruling and dicta point to you'd realize this was a win for Hobby Lobby in the sense they arent fined $11ntybillion dollars and no longer have to provide coverage, but their insurers STILL WILL HAVE TO provide the coverage(at no cost to the Company/Employee) but will get the money back through credits.

This case has a HUGE impact on the religious non profits that fall under the ACA religious non profit accommodation. Those that have refused to comply with ACA and refuse to self certify they won't cover birth control because they don't want their employees to have any birth control coverage have ZERO leg to stand on after this case.

The Court, clearly said ACA has a mechanism in place with the religious non profit accommodation and that closely held corporation shoulds be held to that standard under RFRA(this only requires administrative action, Congress gets no say). The Court, who uses the religious non profit accommodation as part of the basis for their ruling WILL NOT be striking down that non profit accommodation, and thus the religious non profits who continue to not comply are fucked.

Basically. Hobby Lobby Et Al + Religious Non Profits don't have to pay for their employees to have the coverage, but their insurers/3rd party administrators have to cover it at the tax payers expense. They CANNOT prevent their employees from receiving coverage through their insurance coverage. Only religious institutions can prevent their employees from getting said coverage through their insurance.

This did ZERO to chip away at ACA. It has only shifted costs from corporations to taxpayers as in the end Hobby Lobby employees will still get birth control coverage through their insurance, it will just be at taxpayers expense and not Hobby Lobby's.

 

[theeedude]

I guess Sotomayor is just a bad Catholic. I expect her excommunication to be forthcoming.

SCOTUS rules on a women's health issue, can't convince a single woman on the bench to join the majority. The optics aren't good.

 

[HomerJS]

Another corporations are people ruling??

Just try a citizens arrest on a corporation and see how far you get.

And WTF does "closely-held mean"

 

[K1052]

Did they define closely held business? Or is this going to turn into a headache like abortion where they give a vague answer like "viable outside the womb" which can be argued?

In a "closely held" business typically you only have a few major shareholders (often family members) and the stock is not publicly traded on a regular basis.

 

[fskimospy]

Another corporations are people ruling??

Just try a citizens arrest on a corporation and see how far you get.

And WTF does "closely-held mean"

http://www.irs.gov/Help-&-Resources...-Employed,-Other-Business/Entities/Entities-5

Generally, a closely held corporation is a corporation that:
Has more than 50% of the value of its outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by 5 or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year; and
Is not a personal service corporation.

 

[row]

This case has nothing to do with Sandra....

yea except that defeating hobby lobby is part of her platform professor :whiste:

 

[Wreckem]

Another corporations are people ruling??

Just try a citizens arrest on a corporation and see how far you get.

And WTF does "closely-held mean"

A closely held corporation is a subset of privately owned corporations. It is loosely defined as a small, privately held corporation with only a few shareholders, usually family members or other close associates.

 

[Wreckem]

yea except that defeating hobby lobby is part of her platform professor :whistle:

In the end, she(and others) got what she(they) wanted, coverage for Hobby Lobby employees and coverage for all religious non profit employees.

The only people who lost today were those who do not believe in this over expansion of the 1st amendment and well the religious non profits. The lawyers for the religious non profits have got to be livid with this ruling. Their cases just got infinitely more difficult.

 

[xBiffx]

SCOTUS rules on a women's health issue, can't convince a single woman on the bench to join the majority. The optics aren't good.

Seems that being a Roman Catholic has nothing to do with it. I'm glad you realize that.

 

[Knowing]

Why do people think that corporate personhood is a new concept? Why do people think that groups of people lose their rights when acting collectively?

 

[theeedude]

Seems that being a Roman Catholic has nothing to do with it. I'm glad you realize that.

It has a lot to do with it. Not everything, but most certainly not "nothing." These judges were picked by GOP for their pro-life leanings. There is a strong correlation between being a devout Roman Catholic and pro-life leanings.

 

[xBiffx]

It has a lot to do with it. Not everything, but most certainly not "nothing." These judges were picked by GOP for their pro-life leanings. There is a strong correlation between being a devout Roman Catholic and pro-life leanings.

Then explain Sotomayor. You just want to ignore that fact that she is Roman Catholic as well because it doesn't go along with your little fantasy?

Are we also to assume that Jews aren't pro life then?

 

[HomerJS]

A closely held corporation is a subset of privately owned corporations. It is loosely defined as a small, privately held corporation with only a few shareholders, usually family members or other close associates.

I thought the idea of creating a corporation was to segregate yourself as a person from the business? That way people can't hold you personally liable for things done by company.

So how are business now suddenly people?

Question should have been asked if any of the Hobby Lobby family members have ever used birth control.

 

[fskimospy]

Why do people think that corporate personhood is a new concept? Why do people think that groups of people lose their rights when acting collectively?

I'm not sure, what made you think that people believe that individuals lose their rights when acting collectively?

As is shown in the case law, corporations have certain rights enjoyed by people but not others. I find the idea that a corporation would hold religious beliefs to be preposterous.

 

[TheSiege]

In a "closely held" business typically you only have a few major shareholders (often family members) and the stock is not publicly traded on a regular basis.

But it can be interpreted differently by different people right? Much like "viable outside the womb"

I think its interesting that ACA focuses on the amount of employees a corporation has and the SCOTUS is focusing on the amount of owner the corporation has. While I don't agree with the ruling, I can somewhat understand where they are coming from, with it being a privately held corporation.

 

[Wreckem]

I thought the idea of creating a corporation was to segregate yourself as a person from the business? That way people can't hold you personally liable for things done by company.

So how are business now suddenly people?

Closely held corporations are the overwhelming majority of the corporations who have their corporate veil pierced by courts making the owners personally liable.

 

[theeedude]

Then explain Sotomayor. You just want to ignore that fact that she is Roman Catholic as well because it doesn't go along with your little fantasy?

Are we also to assume that Jews aren't pro life then?

So you think it's a complete coincidence that Republicans, who are obsessed with pro-life issues, keep putting Roman Catholic men on the bench? You are entitled to that opinion, but I am inclined to think otherwise.
Jews are accustomed to being a religious minority and much less likely to try to impose their religious beliefs on others from the bench.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I really, really hate this supreme court and their policy of putting corporations over the individual citizen.

 

[theeedude]

Yeah, they keep "discovering" corporate entity "rights." But I am not too worried about the 5-4s. They are purely political decisions that will likely not survive for long if the composition of the court flips. I am more worried about the 7-2s.

 

[Knowing]

I'm not sure, what made you think that people believe that individuals lose their rights when acting collectively?

Because that's what a corporation is: a group of people acting collectively by creating a separate legal entity (person) that saves the government and the public from having to interact with each stake or shareholder individually.