Hinz looks at Hobby Lobby
Thursday, Jul 3, 2014 - Posted by Rich Miller
* This is going to be a very light day for me. I’m heading out of town soon, so we’ll have this post, the upcoming Illinois Supreme Court ruling shortly after 9, and then maybe one or two more.
This is from a very thoughtful Greg Hinz post that I think gets right to the heart of the real world problems with the Hobby Lobby case…
In his majority opinion, Justice Sam Alito argued that “closely held” private companies such as Hobby Lobby are close to a sole proprietorship in their mix of personal and business matters. “We do not hold, as the principal dissent alleges, that for-profit corporations and other commercial enterprises can opt out of any law,” he said. But Congress made it clear in a 1993 law that religious views of such a company will prevail when other means exist to protect those views — in this case, perhaps having the government or an insurance company pay for the contraceptives, rather than Hobby Lobby, Mr. Alito added. […]
In fact, [Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent], in what I found to be a truly insightful point, there is a huge difference between a sole proprietorship and an incorporated firm such as Hobby Lobby, which has 500 stores in 47 states.
“In a sole proprietorship, the business and its owner are one and the same,” she wrote. “But incorporating a business, however, an individual separates herself from the entity and escapes personal responsibility for the entity’s obligations. One might ask why the separation should hold only when it serves the interest of those who control the corporation.” […]
Hobby Lobby’s owners got something special from society when they incorporated: exemption from personal legal liability, preferred tax treatment, etc. But when it comes to paying the dues of setting up shop in the public square — following the public’s rules — they’re supposedly no longer a corporation?
Mr. Alito tacitly concedes the point. The Obama administration “would put these merchants to a difficult choice: either give up the right to seek judicial protection of their religious liberty or forgo the benefits, available to their competitors, of operating as corporations.”
Go read the whole thing and discuss.
- Upon Further Review - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 9:06 am:
Mr. Hinz would do well to study the “Galler” court decision which was litigated in the Illinois courts in the 1950s. Small, closely held corporations (owned by a few individuals, usually family members) have been treated differently than large publicly traded corporations for almost seventy plus years. The number of store outlets that Hobby Lobby operates has nothing to do with its ownership being controlled by a small group of family members.
- PublicServant - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 9:06 am:
Also,
The “pension protection” clause states that “membership in any pension or retirement system of the State *** shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.” In this decision, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the State’s provision of health insurance premium subsidies for its retirees is a benefit of membership in a pension or retirement system under this provision, which the General Assembly was precluded from diminishing or impairing.
- RonOglesby - Now in TX - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 9:06 am:
I think this HUGE bill that mostly allowed HHS to set rules vs congress was bound to be fought like this, time and time again. It touched way to many things not to.
While you may agree or not this simply was not the 1st A vs the PPACA. There was also the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in play here. A law passed by congress in the 90’s (signed by Pres clinton).
Generally though for political reasons that part is left out of the discussion.
- PublicServant - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 9:13 am:
Sorry wrong thread. As for Hobby Lobby, a good boycott and mass resignations might be the penance they deserve.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 9:19 am:
Congress made it clear in a 1993 law that religious views of such a company will prevail when other means exist to protect those views.
I saw Larry Tribe on MSNBC confirm this. He disagrees with Hinz and disagrees with those who are interpreting this decision as giving corporations a way out by using the law to protect themselves. Judge Tribe has a new book which just came out and focuses on the Roberts Court. He has an awful lot of knowledge and experience compared to Mr. Hinz.
Consequently, after listening to Mr. Tribe’s clear and complete analysis concerning this case, and listening to MSNBC challenge him on views similar to Mr. Hinz’s, I have discovered that this liberal legal author and analyst is absolutely correct. He made news by asking his interviewer to stop the “cardboard cut-out characters”, being used to describe the Roberts Court being thrown about by news reporters.
This was all about the very popular 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed overwhelmingly through Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton. At the time, even the NYT hailed the new law and supported the kind of safety for religious freedoms Hobby Lobby sued under and won.
It is good to have the US Supreme Court reaffirm our religious rights in this case. Religion is vital to an individual’s self worth, diversity and moral character. A society which protects that freedom will gain immeasurably. Anyone who has studied history will recognize how special the United States is in its protection of religious liberties.
Our very beginnings as a nation shows the US accepting people of all religions and has given them the freedom to express themselves openly, even allowing the formation of new forms of worship. This is an important and invaluable part of each individual’s basic human right.
This is why the 1993 law was so accepted by both political parties and hailed throughout by both liberal and conservative news organizations.
The Hobby Lobby case reaffirms that 1993 law. This is not a case of a corporation seeking a loophole and suddenly finding religion in order to save costs. This is a corporation which has a long 40 year history of following the same basic religious principles. Their use of the 1993 Clinton-signed bill was found to be entirely appropriate and legal.
Justice Ginsburg’s concerns are worthy of merit. They will come in handy if we do have a corporation suddenly finding religion in order to avoid a governmental mandate.
But not in this case. Not with this particular corporation.
Larry Tribe is most completely correct here.
- ... - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 9:39 am:
Well said VanillaMan and UponFurtherReview.
- Person 8 - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 10:19 am:
===Religion is vital to an individual’s self worth, diversity and moral character.===
And this nullifies anything else you put in your post.
- Amalia - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 10:24 am:
The future, and further applied implications are frightening. But the decision and other related rulings released the day after the decision, are an immediate problem. and a huge one. a declaration of a war on women, a war on personal control, a war on agency. 50% + of the population with a body that may be able to get pregnant are now reduced to questioning employers whether birth control pills will be covered. because the application to employer is confusing…see those rulings on Tuesday. there is no wondering on this for people who want to prevent pregnancy. the decision is clear and horrible. and it is now.
- MOON - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 10:38 am:
AMALIA
If you or other woman do not want to get pregnant you have several choices.
Refrain from sex, use one of the 16 means of birth control covered under insurance, or spend a few bucks and buy one of the 4 methods not allowed due to this ruling.
It’s your choice, go for it!
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 10:39 am:
Clearly Hobby Lobby provided contraceptive coverage for those wishing to prevent pregnancy. What it did not provide for, was drugs which ended pregnancy, and were not contraceptives. Pro-abortionists need to recognize that abortion may be a form of birth control, but it is not a contraceptive preventing pregnancy.
So any fears that this ruling is against contraceptives is incorrect.
Finally, the law is clear:
…when other means exist to protect those views.
The government can fund end of human life abortions. It did not have the right to demand that funding those abortions come from organizations recognizing abortions as ending a human life, and against their religious beliefs.
The law clearly says that when there is a choice government can make, it cannot make the choice against religion. This is why the ruling is a reaffirmation of our freedom of religion, and a very good thing.
- Amalia - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 10:42 am:
Vanilla Man, read the Tuesday rulings that go beyond the Hobby Lobby case. Moon thanks for clarifying that you are among those who tell women to stop having sex.
- Cheryl44 - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 10:44 am:
This decision has made if perfectly clear that the highest court in the land considers both corporations and fetuses human beings, but not women.
- A guy... - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 10:48 am:
I’m not sure who that’s clear to, Cheryl 44.
- hisgirlfriday - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 10:51 am:
VanillaMan, do you have a link to Tribe on this? Searching Tribe and Hobby Lobby on google I see his initial take on the case for Slate was that while the case was decided on the text of RFRA, it may take years to fully understand the scope of this decision and what it will lead to in future cases. I also do not see Tribe agreeing with the justice’s interpretation of RFRA.
My understanding of RFRA’s role in this is that this the first time ever SCOTUS applied RFRA’s protections to fictional legal entity persons rather than just human persons.
And as a human person with human religious beliefs I am offended to have my human faith and religious spirit demeaned by this ruling which imagines a fictious entity such as a corporation of being capable of holding religious beliefs like us human persons.
The 1st Amendment exists to protect human beings in their natural rights of freedom of expression, freedom of worship and freedom of civic participation via the press and petitioning the government.
That this Roberts Court has gone so far to distort the 1st amendment to erode the distinction between human persons and corporate persons should be deeply troubling to every human person in America.
Hinz is 100 percent correct by the way in pointing out the tradeoff that exists and has existed from the beginning of corporate law where corporations get the benefit of legal liability protection from the government (and corporations are and always have been creatures of government, not organic independently created entities) in exchange for paying taxes and following all of the government’s rules.
- hisgirlfriday - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 10:58 am:
@MOON
Pregnancy is a medical condition. Birth control pills and intrauterine devices whether they prevent an egg from being fertilized or prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus are medical treatments.
The Hobby Lobby case was not some grand victory for religious liberty. If that was the case, Jehovah’s witnesses could refuse to provide insurance coverage for blood transfusions for their employees and Scientologists could refuse to provide insurance coverage for antidepressants for their employees as a result of this decision.
Instead, five male Catholic judges applied Catholic doctrine rather than the Constitution, existing legal precedents, and the scientific
- hisgirlfriday - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 11:00 am:
…facts of the case to reach a political decision dictating birth control policy in this country rather than a legal decision based on sound constitutional reasoning.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 11:04 am:
The continued march with this court: Corporations have no personal liabilities, but they get the rights of individuals.
Pretty sweet deal, and one that is above and beyond what citizens enjoy.
- MOON - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 11:09 am:
AMALIA/HIS GIRL
You ladies have choices; I never said you cannot have sex.
If you want an abortion then buy one of the 4 methods excluded under the court ruling.
It’s your choice ladies, exercise it. Quit the sexist remarks about the judges that ruled in the majority.
Pregnancy is your choice and only becomes a medical condition if you choose it.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 11:12 am:
–It’s your choice, go for it!–
So I guess we’ll put you down as “pro-choice,” Moon.
Actually, as you know, now the court says a corporation, acting as an individual, can restrict health-care choices available to employees due to religious (read anti-abortion) reasons.
Hey, as long as it doesn’t effect you, who cares?
Do your bit, though, and keep your snake in the cage, if you’re so concerned.
- Person 8 - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 11:13 am:
–word—
I cannot wait for someone to claim they personally themselves are a corporation, so they can get all the freedoms a person gets and all the protections the cooperation a get.
You cannot put a corporation in jail, right?
- MartyFriar - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 11:13 am:
“Clearly Hobby Lobby provided contraceptive coverage for those wishing to prevent pregnancy. What it did not provide for, was drugs which ended pregnancy, and were not contraceptives. Pro-abortionists need to recognize that abortion may be a form of birth control, but it is not a contraceptive preventing pregnancy.”
Not true, Vanilla Man. Some of these drugs are used to regulate things like hormones as well, these are not solely birth control drugs, although that may be the most common use for them. My girlfriend just started on Mirena, which was one of the drugs in contention here, not for “ending pregnancy”, but to help clear up some other health issues. If any male thinks these drugs are just used for to end/terminate pregnancies, no offense, you need to think outside your small box a bit more often. Or maybe stop thinking you obtained a PhD in Pharmacy Sciences.
- hisgirlfriday - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 11:22 am:
@MOON
This case had nothing to do with abortion. That you think birth control and abortion are the same thing shows you know nothing about basic science and you completely discredit yourself as a poster.
- OldSmoky2 - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 11:24 am:
History provides ample evidence that the Supreme Court gets it very wrong sometimes, as in the Dred Scott and Plessy decisions. I think there will come a time when this decision will fall into that category.
- MOON - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 11:25 am:
V MAN
No, I am not pro-choice; however the current laws allow females to exercise their choice regarding this matter.
Unlike many others including you, I accept responsibilities for my actions and if the result is pregnancy I would not resort to killing a fetus
- MOON - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 11:29 am:
HIS GIRL
Enough of your nonsense. Read my posts as well as the court decision. The 4 methods not to be covered by insurance deal with aborting a fetus.
- hisgirlfriday - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 11:35 am:
@Moon
I have posted zero nonsense. I am sorry that my posting facts upsets you, but I will continue to post facts in this thread for the sake of continuing discussion about this important case. Another fact: a fertilized egg is not a fetus.
- Amalia - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 11:40 am:
Moon, enough of your lack of understanding of the “Full Alito,” that is, not just the Hobby Lobby decision, but the rulings on Tuesday in the other cases that clarified that the application could go way beyond the things to which Hobby Lobby objected. a corporation can have a religious objection that goes beyond Hobby Lobby, which is problematic itself, but the further applications, including the instruction on cases in courts below still in play, is much greater.
- Upon Further Review - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 11:47 am:
I am saddened to see the Catholic bashing begin in earnest with certain postings. Five justices are Catholic — imagine that!
Our Constitution prohibits religious tests for officials.
In order to be purists, should we repeal laws proscribing theft, perjury and homicide because those topics are referenced in the Ten Commandments? Such statutes have religious underpinnings too.
Asking a woman to pay $5 to $10 per month for her own contraceptives is a war on women?
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 12:04 pm:
Best summation of those upset with a ruling I’ve heard:
Feminists: “Stay out of my bedroom!”
Hobby Lobby: “Will do, I’m leaving, just grabbing my wallet on my way out.”
Feminists: “No, the wallet stays, sexist.”
- MOON - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 12:16 pm:
ANONYMOUS 12:04 PM
A great an accurate summation.
- hisgirlfriday - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 12:27 pm:
@Upon Further Review:
There are SIX Catholic jurists on the Supreme Court. Not 5. I did not bash Catholics by pointing out the majority was 5 Catholic males. I simply stated my opinion that their Catholic beliefs were what prompted their holding rather than the law. And given that these men specifically precluded employers from using the holding to get out of limiting coverage of blood transfusions showed they only cared about seeing Catholic doctrine on contraception protected, not all religious doctrine pertaining to health insurance.
As for no religious test, that has to do with elections not judicial appointments. And it has been apparent for the last 30 years that there is absolutely a religious test for Republican appointees to the Supreme Court: conservative Catholics get an advantage over all other possible GOP nominees in the hopes that they will rule in the way the Court did in Hobby Lobby.
- ArchPundit - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 1:10 pm:
===Clearly Hobby Lobby provided contraceptive coverage for those wishing to prevent pregnancy. What it did not provide for, was drugs which ended pregnancy, and were not contraceptives. Pro-abortionists need to recognize that abortion may be a form of birth control, but it is not a contraceptive preventing pregnancy.
This is factually incorrect with the possible exception of the copper IUD. The first problem with the Hobby Lobby case is that Plan B and ella are nothing, but a larger dose of a ‘normal’ birth control pill. The function of Plan B and ella is
1) Stop the release of an egg by the woman
2) Increase the mucous in the cervix creating a barrier
or in very rare cases
3) may prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. So can caffeine, smoking, etc and the problem with calling it an abortificient is that pregnancy is
A) defined as after the implantation
B) there is no strong evidence that preventing implantation happens regularly.
Essentially, Plan B and ella are no different than standard birth control pills except in the size of a dose. If a woman is pregnant already, Plan B doesn’t do anything.
Even if you believe that pregnancy begins at fertilization which ignores the fairly high probability that a fertilized egg will not implant, it’s important to note that any number of lifestyle choices from caffeine to alcohol to smoking can cause an egg to not implant though chromosomal irregularities is the most likely reason. About half of fertilized eggs never make it to the point where a woman misses a menses.
The scientific misunderstanding of this issue is almost as bad as people claiming this only affects 4 forms of birth control. The Supreme Court sent out notices to the lower courts to review all challenges to contraception coverage in light of this ruling and nothing in this ruling limits the finding to contraception or any other medical coverage mandated by regulation.
- Amalia - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 1:20 pm:
“The scientific misunderstanding of this issue is almost as bad as people claiming this only affects 4 forms of birth control. The Supreme Court sent out notices to the lower courts to review all challenges to contraception coverage in light of this ruling and nothing in this ruling limits the finding to contraception or any other medical coverage mandated by regulation.”
YES!!!!!!!!!
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 1:24 pm:
This case had nothing to do with abortion.
Completely not true. Hobby Lobby provided contraceptive coverage. It objected to the four forms of non-contraceptive coverage which would terminated human life.
As to those contending that the aborticants were not used to abort human life, but intended as a hormone therapy, that doesn’t change the fact that the drug is an aborticant, and regulated as such.
And to those interested in MSNBC’s interview with Larry Tribe:
Link.
- ArchPundit - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 1:36 pm:
===As to those contending that the abortifcants were not used to abort human life, but intended as a hormone therapy, that doesn’t change the fact that the drug is an abortifacent, and regulated as such.
What changes the fact is that it isn’t a fact.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
The FDA treats Plan B, ella and the chemical IUD as contraceptives so I have no idea where you get this notion that they are regulated like abortifacients. The are not abortifacients by either the medical definition or the definition that fertilized egg is somehow a pregnancy.
In addition, nothing in this ruling is limited to those four contraceptive methods. So again, I don’t know where you get that notion, but it is incorrect.
- ArchPundit - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 1:38 pm:
To clarify, the copper IUD is also contraceptive, but is known to stop implantation at higher rates so in that case Hobby Lobby didn’t have the science completely wrong–just mostly wrong.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 1:38 pm:
You really have to believe in conspiracy theories to see a threat beyond what the Court clearly says in its decision regarding the very popular 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Tribe says in his interview that using the Act to contest government mandates which effect an individual’s freedom of religion isn’t new. Hobby Lobby is not the first to use the Act to contest a government mandate. So far, since 1993, we have not seen the Act used to eliminate coverage of contraceptives. It is over 21 years old.
The Federal Government overstepped here when it mandated abortion coverage to be paid for by an organization’s insurance. The Federal Government is capable of providing abortion coverage without cost to women without going this route. The Supreme Court makes it quite clear that the Act states that in situations such as the one brought to it for this decision, that the Federal Government failed to take action which would exempt those finding this type of birth control immoral, in order to satisfy the law.
If the Feds want to give everyone a free abortion, they can do so. They just can’t force those who recognize abortion as the ending of a human life, to pay for it if they have a clear and public position opposing abortion due to religious belief.
- ArchPundit - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 1:44 pm:
===The Federal Government overstepped here when it mandated abortion coverage to be paid for by an organization’s insurance.
Restating something that is untrue does not make it true. See above for what Plan B and ella do in particular. You do not understand the science.
Furthermore, nothing limits this decision to contraception even. It would apply to any coverage mandated by regulation (a mandated law would be a different case because of RFRA status). There is not magical way to differentiate between contraception and any other covered medical treatment that might be objected to by someone’s religion.
- persecuted - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 2:07 pm:
People do have the choice to simply not work for any company whose practices they do not have agreement.
- unbelievable - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 2:11 pm:
” If the Feds want to give everyone a free abortion, they can do so. They just can’t force those who recognize abortion as the ending of a human life, to pay for it if they have a clear and public position opposing abortion due to religious belief.”
There is no way to convince people who believe that contraception is equivalent to abortion that their belief is wrong. No matter how many facts you tell them, they just won’t believe it. This is another example of how bitterly divided we are in this country. There is simply no equivalent to this situation for men. Not one. They don’t have to be concerned with the religious views of anyone other than themselves for reproductive health care decisions they make. They just don’t. And it doesn’t matter if you sling the word feminist as a weapon or man hater or whatever you say to make a legitimate policy disagreement seem emotional rather than legal or fact based.
These five male Supreme Court justices have made it clear that while I don’t have to ask my father or husband for birth control, I now have to ask my boss.
Religious views justified the bans on interracial marriage, religious views justified slavery, religious views justified segregation. Around the world religious views justify the stoning of women and the denial of education to girls.
How would this case have turned if it were a Muslim religious tenet that sought legal protection in this way?
I am tired of people for whom this will never be a personal issue..yes, I am referring to men, yelling at me that I have nothing to worry about. When I am afforded the same legal protection for the agency over my body that men have…then I will stop worrying.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 2:13 pm:
–People do have the choice to simply not work for any company whose practices they do not have agreement.–
Sigh. Really? How far back do you want to roll the clock?
Here are some old “company practices.”
We don’t serve or hire gays.
We don’t serve or hire blacks.
We don’t serve or hire Italians/Irish/Mexicans or Catholics of any kind.
We don’t serve or hire Jews.
Everybody’s had their turn in the barrel with the “company practices” dodge.
- unbelievable - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 2:17 pm:
Oh and there’s this:
“But Mother Jones reported on Tuesday that the company’s retirement plan has invested millions of dollars in the manufacturers of emergency contraception and drugs used to induce abortions.
Hobby Lobby’s 401(k) employee retirement plan holds $73 million in mutual funds that invest in multiple pharmaceutical companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and abortion-inducing medications.
The companies Hobby Lobby invests in include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes the Plan B morning-after pill and ParaGard, a copper IUD, as well as Pfizer, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs Cytotec and Prostin E2. Hobby Lobby’s mutual funds also invest in two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in their health care policies.”
I thought they had sincerely held religious beliefs.
- ArchPundit - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 2:20 pm:
One other aspect of the entire concept of this probably points to the problem of employer provided coverage in the first place. It’s not Hobby Lobby paying for anything except the labor of their workforce. Employer provided insurance is just another form of compensation. That companies pool their employees together to get better prices is nice, but Hobby Lobby isn’t paying for anything other than labor.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 2:28 pm:
The difference-maker in this ruling is the swapping out of O’Connor for Alito.
It might make a few Senate races a little more interesting.
And I think it will definitely make it harder for a GOP presidential candidate to get the nod for nominating new justices.
Show me a state in which this ruling, together with the GOP House killing any immigration reform, helps a GOP candidate’s bid to add to Romney’s electoral college vote.
The demographics continue to go the other way.
- walker - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 2:32 pm:
It will be interesting to see how the boundaries are set and maintained.
Alito et al took the easy way out and relied on the language of == “will prevail when other means exist” == which means in the Hobby Lobby case: when the taxpayers pick up the tab for the normal health care options specifically denied to their employees. They avoided the much bigger issues of how to expand individual personal religious rights into the actions of a company in the absence of “other means”.
We’ll watch as major boundary questions remain to be explored.
Is Walmart “closely held” for these purposes?
Do the owners have to be a family to have a religious view?
Do the owners have to demonstrate by actions over time that they actually hold the beliefs they claim to apply via a corporation?
Do they agree (with Alito elsewhere) that the majority vote of a board representing stockholders, can establish a “personal religious view” for the corporation? Does everyone in the owning group or family have to hold the same religious views to claim this exemption?
If a company can be a “person” with a protected “individual religious right”, can they pass that right thru to a second company in which their own company holds controlling shares? A substantial number of the largest corporations in the world are effectively controlled by five or fewer stockholders.
I am afraid of the expansion of this and narrow decision. The more we muddy the waters on what is an individual “person,” for the purposes of protected individual rights, the more we can diminish and weaken those fundamental rights. This idea that companies can have and hold individual personal rights, is clearly foreign to the writers of the Constitution. I don’t mind judicial progress, but don’t claim to be anything but “interventionist”, and “liberal” justices, in this expansion in the legal definition of “individual persons” beyond real individuals.
- Amalia - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 2:34 pm:
it’s also sort of sneaky that Alito issued the Hobby Lobby decision on Monday and more lower court advice and comment on Tuesday.
It all relates to the practice of how women now have to interact with employers and health insurance needs and that the application is broader than the 4 items detailed in Hobby Lobby. may be standard protocol, but it’s like the Supreme Court buried the lede.
- vise77 - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 2:40 pm:
I distrust this ruling because it springs from the souls of people who for decades have been part of the Federalist Society cabal. No, I don’t suspect any conspiracy, only that this door will be pushed open further.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jul 3, 14 @ 4:56 pm:
Maybe the GA and Governor, as the majorities of the Illinois corporate entity, can refile and argue that COLAS for pensions violate their corporate individual (Orwell!) adherence to the Biblical injunction against usury?
Ty, call me.