Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
Lolli.. I feel ya.. lots of times in the last 20 years observing our nation's political system I have had exactly the same experience.
Bruce.. I love your posts. Spot on!
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
Rather, they exist by implication, which leads to an amusing anecdote.
JEleazarian, question for you:
Do you think these attempts to piecemeal rewrite the Constitution using implicit rulings have the potential of one day rendering the Constitution only partially valid in a way that strictly reflects a given political viewpoint at a particular historical moment?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Once again the Supreme Retards place the rights of corporations above citizens' rights. This time by allowing an employer's religious beliefs to materially affect an employees rights granted by the United States.
So how is that wrong here?
What difference does it matter if its religious beliefs or personal beliefs?
Which right was taken away? She still has the ability to receive contraception's.
|
|
Lollie
Social climber
I'm Lolli.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 1, 2014 - 12:35pm PT
|
Ward Trotter,
thank you for your advice. I will carefully consider it.
I did study the American Constitution when I went to high school though, didn't you? American History too, btw. It was compulsory.
I'm not quite sure why you consider facts propaganda? Are you saying they did not take that decision? Or is it that discriminating rulings which does conflict with the constitution should be carried out quietly and sneaky, and revealing them is propaganda?
I also appreciate your concern, but it did not ruin my day. Happily I'm not affected by nutty religious fundamentalist's womenhating decisions* over here, but I do feel for my friends who will be affected. Both men and women, as nobody's an isle isolated from the either sex.
*(Note, I do not consider normal persons who are religious nutty nor fundamentalist. Some obviously are though.)
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
John
The First Amendment explicitly protects the free exercise of religion Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.... This can be and has been interpreted in a many different ways.
note the conjunctive "or"
It clearly means more than "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" was intended.
In my humble knowledge of Constitutional history, the first clause "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means the Congress cannot give an advantage to one religious belief over another in law.
Burwell v Hobby Lobby gives a clear advantage of HL over it's employees based upon HL's (a rather dubious form of corporation) religious belief by disallowing a government benefit.
It has also frequently in modern times been interpreted that the government may not recognize any religion. But that's for a different discussion (Crosses (Christian) in gov't buildings: NO. In God We Trust (generic) on our money:YES)
I find your Blackmun anecdote very amusing!
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
She still has the ability to receive contraception She is discriminated against because she doesn't have the same right to be compensated by the government as a woman working for a different employer who also subscribes to the ACA.
Most Christian Fundamentalists (and many other religious conservatives) don't want any contraceptive coverage for women (note that men are OK).
That's why so many conservatives are making a point about this. Do you think they give a piss about HL itself? They don't want the ACA to provide contractive coverage period.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
Happily I'm not affected by *nutty religious fundamentalist's womenhating decisions over here,
Glad to hear it. But your comment above better reflects the propaganda line, not the facts.
That much is obvious.
Rule of thumb: whenever you repeat "woman-hating" you are doing someone's propaganda work.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
reflects the propaganda line, BS
it's Lollie's personal and rational opinion.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Ward, that is exactly the problem. In standard canons of statutory construction, an explicit provision takes precedence over a general one. Thus, if an explicitly enumerated right clashes with an implied one, the explicit one should prevail. Otherwise, the Constitution loses its binding effect.
The standing issue to which I allude, though, makes the majority holding in the Hobby Lobby case rather difficult for me. If Hobby Lobby were a sole proprietorship, the standing issue is easy. With a corporate plaintiff, however, how can we say a non-religious corporation has religious beliefs? If the shareholders merely sell their shares, have they not escaped the actions about which they complain, and still received full economic value for their business?
I understand the majority opinion, and I absolutely concur that the enoumerating right to free exercise trumps any right to have your employer pay for a fringe benefit, but I, like Ginsburg, have trouble with the breadth of its reach. I predict that future holdings will likely limit this case to its facts.
John
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Disallowing a government benefit?
THE MORNING AFTER PILL??????????????????????????
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
It's discrimination. Another War on Woman decision.
It's such a incomprehensible decision I first thought it was a joke.
Hey Lollie, what part of the decision couldn't you comprehend?
If you could focus your inability to comprehend it somewhat, that would allow me and anyone else posting here who is at least somewhat knowledgeable about American law to try to help you.
(No guarantee that we'll succeed, but it's worth a shot.)
There's a lot of disinformation about the scope of this decision, so I hope you actually read the opinion yourself before declaring it be "incomprehensible."
I'm still waiting for Dr. F to apologize for propagating the myth that this decision applied to Walmart. No one who read the decision (as opposed to reading liberal propaganda) would say that (at least if they understood what they read).
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
With a corporate plaintiff, however, how can we say a non-religious corporation has beliefs? Do you know if this point was breached in the majority opinion? Or in the various precedents?
I would be interested to know what you think after reading that opinion, if you have the time.
it's Lollie's personal and rational opinion.
That's not how she characterized it . She called it " the facts"
The facts are normally considered an objective appraisal ---not an "opinion"
What do see as "rational" in the use of the term "woman-hating" in this context?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Ward, the reason the majority limited its holding to "close corporations" was precisely because of that point. A publicly traded corporation differs from one with only one family of shareholders. I understand the reason for the court's distinction. If I organize a family business as a corporation -- which a great many are -- I still feel like it's me doing the business.
Again, my problem is in limiting the scope of that holding. As one example, Paramount Farming is one of California's largest agricultural companies, and it has a single shareholder, namely a trust from the family one one lawyer. (His name is known, for those who care, but I see no reason to get into that here). If that one lawyer objected to abortion on grounds of conscience, the consequence to the corporations employees would be much more far-reaching than those to Hobby Lobby's employees. Do we still say his freedom of conscience controls?
It's a tough issue. As we say in the law, hard cases make bad law. Despite the screaming on this thread, this was a hard case.
John
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
BLU
get a grip
the issue is whether HL can deny a government mandated benefit to an employees based upon religious differences. Remember, it is specifically their religious belief that the HL "corporation" are claiming. If the same woman worked for my corporation, she'd have full benefits.
The issue is government supplied benefits. HL has the right to not subscribe to HCA if they object.
how can we say a non-religious corporation has religious beliefs? That is indeed a bizarre interpretation. Of course the conditional clause is "closely held corporation" which is only defined in IRS tax law as far as I can find.
And after all "corporations are people" Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 2010
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
Ward
She called it " the facts" do you think when I say "Christian Fundamentalist Whackos", I'm claiming a fact?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Most Christian Fundamentalists (and many other religious conservatives) don't want any contraceptive coverage for women
And you cite this from where?
Please think about it, Health care is suppose to take care of you when something goes wrong. Like an injury, for pete's sakes! Contraceptive medicine is to try and predict an outcome from an extra curricular activity.
If they got acme, let'em get acme medicine!
Going with that logic i should be able to get my caffine paid for by insurance!
BTW, i'm very much opposed to men receiving viagra
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"And you cite this from where?"
It's incredibly easy to illustrate the clear, obvious bias that our society & politics have against women's empowerment over their own bodies, vs. the empowerment that is only reinforced for men.
It's a LOT harder to show a trend of events that supports the idea that women have received equal empowerment, however. Feel free to give some clear examples...I'm open to hearing them.
This decision is sickening, and America should be deeply ashamed of how the current SCOTUS has undermined the very nature of equality and liberty for all.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
do you think when I say "Christian Fundamentalist Whackos", I'm claiming a fact?
If you are using the term to characterize the SCOTUS ruling you are not using it as a relevant fact.
|
|
rmuir
Social climber
From the Time Before the Rocks Cooled.
|
|
The Majority Decision: Supreme Court Injustices. White, Catholic, conservative men; the lot of them. Of course, that had nothing to do with it.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
And after all "corporations are people" Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 2010
I was waiting for someone to make that argument. Citizens United was, after all, not exactly the first case to give corporations rights under the First Amendment. You may want to check out New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, decided by that reactionary Warren court, among many others. Or try to take away property from a corporation without complying with the Fifth and, if applicable, Fourteenth Amendments.
I consider the Citizens United organization similar to, say, the Pilgrim Armenian Congreation Curch ("PACC"), which is a California religious corporation. PACC is really an organization of individuals united by a common idea, in this case theology. Citizens United was also an organization united by a common idea -- in that case political ideology. In both cases (Citizens United and PACC), the corporation is really individuals acting in concert to perform duties explicitly protected by the Constitution.
Hobby Lobby, in contrast, is an association of individuals organized to conduct commerce, which is an activity without First Amendment protection. The mere fact of corporate existence, in a vacuum, is not enough to make a determination of the corporation's constitutional rights.
John
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!