If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   As the Supreme Court prepares to hear the Obamacare/birth control case tomorrow, its conservative justices are faced with a dilemma: support the religious right, or support laws which shield corporations from liability?   (salon.com) divider line 256
    More: Fail, Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, obamacare, moral dilemma, religious values, racial identity, hypocrisy, conservatisms  
•       •       •

2463 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Mar 2014 at 6:07 PM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



256 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-24 03:47:53 PM  
When have the conservative powers that be ever supported the religious right over corporations?
 
2014-03-24 03:49:14 PM  
There is only one true religion:  Money


and fried chicken!
 
2014-03-24 03:55:34 PM  
Remember those sweet, warm New England summers? Remember sipping lemonade underneath a shady tree? Remember when you hit that pedestrian with your car at the crosswalk and then just drove away? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
 
2014-03-24 04:21:54 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Remember those sweet, warm New England summers? Remember sipping lemonade underneath a shady tree? Remember when you hit that pedestrian with your car at the crosswalk and then just drove away? Pepperidge Farm remembers.


LOL.
 
2014-03-24 04:22:24 PM  
Elections only have consequences when Democrats lose
 
2014-03-24 04:24:54 PM  
Throughout this entire debate, I've always been confused by the basic issue. There seems to be 2 ways to phrase this issue, in terms of religious rights.

1) The corporation itself has rights based on religious beliefs held by the corporation, and you determine those beliefs by looking to the religious beliefs of the controlling shareholders.

2) The corporation doesn't have its own religious beliefs. Rather, the religious rights of individuals include the right to own stock in a corporation and direct such corporation's actions such that they comport with your religious beliefs.

Do we know which claim is being asserted? Both?
 
2014-03-24 04:24:55 PM  
It's going to be an interesting case. How far does corporate religious identity go?

The courts have long held that if you enter the markelace, then you have to live by the rules of the marketplace. And the rules are secular.
 
2014-03-24 04:28:15 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: Elections only have consequences when Democrats lose




They have consequences when the democrats win, either. Sadly it's the same consequence.
 
2014-03-24 04:36:16 PM  
If they rule in favor of "religious freedom" , would't that open up the USA to "Sharia Law" which everyone is so against?
 
2014-03-24 04:36:58 PM  
Scalia doesn't have that dilemna, subby.  He'll just flip a coin and then select whatever citations he wants that support the result.
 
2014-03-24 04:39:03 PM  
I'm sure they have already made a decision.
 
2014-03-24 04:42:23 PM  
The Amish have to put reflectors on their buggies, they objected but they lost their case.

If the Amish can be forced to put reflectors on their buggies, then I dont see how Hobby Lobby and these other religios people can win.
 
2014-03-24 04:44:31 PM  

vernonFL: The Amish have to put reflectors on their buggies, they objected but they lost their case.

If the Amish can be forced to put reflectors on their buggies, then I dont see how Hobby Lobby and these other religios people can win.


I forgot about that case, but having grown up in SEPA I was definitely familiar with it.
 
2014-03-24 04:45:48 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: It's going to be an interesting case. How far does corporate religious identity go?

The courts have long held that if you enter the markelace, then you have to live by the rules of the marketplace. And the rules are secular.


But losses, those are to be shared with the public, right? And since the public is overwhelmingly Christian, all corporations are thus to be held by Christian standards--well, except for that whole, no withholding pay or not owning property into perpetuity, which is Old Testament, and those people were crazy. Which is why our corporations should be able to own people. Because. Jesus.
 
2014-03-24 04:50:57 PM  

hubiestubert: Darth_Lukecash: It's going to be an interesting case. How far does corporate religious identity go?

The courts have long held that if you enter the markelace, then you have to live by the rules of the marketplace. And the rules are secular.

But losses, those are to be shared with the public, right? And since the public is overwhelmingly Christian, all corporations are thus to be held by Christian standards--well, except for that whole, no withholding pay or not owning property into perpetuity, which is Old Testament, and those people were crazy. Which is why our corporations should be able to own people. Because. Jesus.




I think we should follow the laws golf the old testament and ban shrimp and bacon. Then bring in the new testament ban on usiary.

Then we shall see how religious these motherfarkers are.
 
2014-03-24 04:51:41 PM  
 
2014-03-24 05:33:26 PM  
Wouldn't it be nice if we had single payer healthcare and didn't have to deal with this argument?
 
2014-03-24 05:57:57 PM  
No matter how they rule, something relevant to this case is going to spark droves of religious people into a massive spontaneous support event for Hobby Lobby.  I'm off to buy stock in craft glue and glitter.
 
2014-03-24 06:09:20 PM  

maudibjr: There is only one true religion:  Money



For the night is dark and full of debtors?
 
2014-03-24 06:10:37 PM  
Business trumps religion in the GOP.  Just don';t say it out loud.
 
2014-03-24 06:13:36 PM  
img.gawkerassets.com
 
2014-03-24 06:14:02 PM  
mindcemetery.net

"But the religious right was the corporation the whole time!!"
 
2014-03-24 06:14:23 PM  

vernonFL: The Amish have to put reflectors on their buggies, they objected but they lost their case.

If the Amish can be forced to put reflectors on their buggies, then I dont see how Hobby Lobby and these other religios people can win.


Hobby Lobby gets Lebanon Levi as an enforcer.

/explodingbuggy.gif
 
2014-03-24 06:18:09 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Remember those sweet, warm New England summers? Remember sipping lemonade underneath a shady tree? Remember when you hit that pedestrian with your car at the crosswalk and then just drove away? Pepperidge Farm remembers.


Pepperidge Farm remembers, but Pepperidge Farm ain't just gonna keep it to Pepperidge Farm's self free-of-charge.

Maybe you go out and buy yourself some of these distinctive Milano cookies, maybe this whole thing disappears.
 
2014-03-24 06:18:54 PM  
I'll just leave this here, from billmoyers.com:

It is four years since the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision struck down the limits on how much money corporations and unions can spend in federal elections. A number of legal watchdogs have been keeping close tabs on the repercussions. In an essay in Politico Magazine, Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, describes how super PACs, social welfare groups and corporations poured more than $1 billion into the 2012 election cycle; with $300 million of those dollars from undisclosed sources.

As another entry on that pages states, money is PROPERTY not SPEECH.

The SCOTUS will side with global corporations. If we could get corporations drunk and knock them up, we could get health care options for abortion.
 
2014-03-24 06:19:17 PM  

maudibjr: There is only one true religion:  Money


and fried chicken!


When Jesus drove the moneychangers from the Temple, the Chief Priests and Scribes should have retaliated with an armed cohort backed by government forces and...

...oh wait...
 
2014-03-24 06:19:51 PM  
I'll buy the bullets if the SC will ice themselves.

/NSA approved!
 
2014-03-24 06:20:46 PM  

DamnYankees: Throughout this entire debate, I've always been confused by the basic issue. There seems to be 2 ways to phrase this issue, in terms of religious rights.

1) The corporation itself has rights based on religious beliefs held by the corporation, and you determine those beliefs by looking to the religious beliefs of the controlling shareholders.

2) The corporation doesn't have its own religious beliefs. Rather, the religious rights of individuals include the right to own stock in a corporation and direct such corporation's actions such that they comport with your religious beliefs.

Do we know which claim is being asserted? Both?


I'm pretty sure it's 1.

My understanding is that it stems from citizens united. If a corp can have 1st amendment free sppech, why not 1st ammend religion?

Answer: because corporations aren't alive and don't have beliefs.
 
2014-03-24 06:22:49 PM  
dl.dropboxusercontent.com

**Those in the above image represent corporate legal-persons.
 
2014-03-24 06:23:28 PM  

maudibjr: There is only one true religion: Money


God Money I'll do anything for you
God Money just tell me what you want me to
God Money nail me up against the wall
God Money don't want everything he wants it all
 
2014-03-24 06:30:59 PM  
It is absolutely jaw dropping that a legal fiction to smooth the running of businesses could be interpreted to give a company the right to influence elections and elected representatives under the guise of their Freedom of Speech, so I'll not be the least bit surprised if they rule companies also have the right to be assholes on religious grounds.
 
2014-03-24 06:31:05 PM  

PanicMan: DamnYankees: Throughout this entire debate, I've always been confused by the basic issue. There seems to be 2 ways to phrase this issue, in terms of religious rights.

1) The corporation itself has rights based on religious beliefs held by the corporation, and you determine those beliefs by looking to the religious beliefs of the controlling shareholders.

2) The corporation doesn't have its own religious beliefs. Rather, the religious rights of individuals include the right to own stock in a corporation and direct such corporation's actions such that they comport with your religious beliefs.

Do we know which claim is being asserted? Both?

I'm pretty sure it's 1.

My understanding is that it stems from citizens united. If a corp can have 1st amendment free sppech, why not 1st ammend religion?

Answer: because corporations aren't alive and don't have beliefs.


Yep.  It's a multi-pincher attack.  The efforts to exempt businesses from anti-discrimination statutes due to belief is important here, too.  They're trying to get to the point where corporations and their leaders can legally refuse to pay taxes, serve certain kinds of people, or obey laws they deem 'unconscionable'.  Don't think the end of the recent Arizona law is the end of efforts at that end.

Thanks to ALEC, this shiat is never going to end.
 
2014-03-24 06:31:13 PM  

maudibjr: There is only one true religion:  Money


and fried chicken!


^^^

Since they have no fear of losing reelection, its all about the cash. And fried chicken.
 
2014-03-24 06:31:29 PM  
It's like Sophie's choice for assholes.
 
2014-03-24 06:50:31 PM  

Target Builder: It is absolutely jaw dropping that a legal fiction to smooth the running of businesses could be interpreted to give a company the right to influence elections and elected representatives under the guise of their Freedom of Speech, so I'll not be the least bit surprised if they rule companies also have the right to be assholes on religious grounds.


I'd so like to see a smackdown to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.

I think I could vote blindly for any candidate that promises to deal with that decision.
 
2014-03-24 06:51:24 PM  

PanicMan: 'm pretty sure it's 1.

My understanding is that it stems from citizens united. If a corp can have 1st amendment free sppech, why not 1st ammend religion?

Answer: because corporations aren't alive and don't have beliefs.


Actually no - as the case does not involve the first amendment.

The case actually arises from a statute written in an attempt to overturn a prior Scalia opinion limiting religious expression.  Under federal law, the language of the statute at least applies to both natural persons and corporations.  

Citizens United has nothing to do with it per se.
 
2014-03-24 06:58:10 PM  
Amazing, someone in the media actually farking noticed the elephant in the room of this case, which is that if they rule in Hobby Jobbie's favour then they are opening the door to personal liability and responsibility of corporate owners for their corporations. The people pushing this think they can have their cake and eat it, but they can not. If they win this then they are going to get absolutely hammered in future, and yet they do not see it coming at all.
 
2014-03-24 06:58:27 PM  
FWIW, my understanding of a veil is a piece of cloth that obscures the face but not the voice.

If so, it is "reasonable" for shareholders to speak from behind a veil, but not be seen. So speaking only of the writing, I think Salon's Beutler's metaphor isn't quite what it would be nice if it were.

And that said, if the majority shareholders direct a company to comply with policy X, the company's directors are required to comply with policy X.

Based on my totally not being a lawyer of any sort or having any idea of what is going on here, it seems reasonable that Scalia et. al., could determine for Hobby Lobby's "religious principles" without contradicting their belief toward limited liability and shareholder responsibility.

The real problem is Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.
 
2014-03-24 06:59:22 PM  

RoyBatty: And that said, if the majority shareholders direct a company to comply with policy X, the company's directors are required to comply with policy X.


Not if the direction is illegal.
 
2014-03-24 06:59:36 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: As another entry on that pages states, money is PROPERTY not SPEECH.


Money is a force multiplier that allows people to get their message out. If you honestly believe that the framers only expected your ability to talk out loud to be covered by the first amendment, sure fine i suppose.

But if you think they meant that people would have the ability not only to make messages with their bodies, but also to run off broadsheets, post signs, and print books, then you admit that money is an essential element of the right to speak.
 
2014-03-24 07:00:48 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-24 07:01:05 PM  

RoyBatty: The real problem is Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.


So you don't believe that corporations can own property or can be sued?
 
2014-03-24 07:04:47 PM  

Teiritzamna: TheShavingofOccam123: As another entry on that pages states, money is PROPERTY not SPEECH.

Money is a force multiplier that allows people to get their message out. If you honestly believe that the framers only expected your ability to talk out loud to be covered by the first amendment, sure fine i suppose.

But if you think they meant that people would have the ability not only to make messages with their bodies, but also to run off broadsheets, post signs, and print books, then you admit that money is an essential element of the right to speak.

 
2014-03-24 07:04:51 PM  
Cash will win.
 
2014-03-24 07:08:25 PM  

gaspode: Amazing, someone in the media actually farking noticed the elephant in the room of this case, which is that if they rule in Hobby Jobbie's favour then they are opening the door to personal liability and responsibility of corporate owners for their corporations. The people pushing this think they can have their cake and eat it, but they can not. If they win this then they are going to get absolutely hammered in future, and yet they do not see it coming at all.


Foresight has not been among our corporate masters' virtues for quite some time. If C-level and board of directors types could appreciate the long-term consequences of their actions, the Great Recession would have never happened.
 
2014-03-24 07:09:07 PM  

DamnYankees: RoyBatty: And that said, if the majority shareholders direct a company to comply with policy X, the company's directors are required to comply with policy X.

Not if the direction is illegal.


Good point, but I guess that's what this case is about, isn't it? Is Hobby Lobby breaking the law or not?

Teiritzamna: RoyBatty: The real problem is Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.

So you don't believe that corporations can own property or can be sued?


I don't think that corporations are "persons", or needed to be persons in order to own property or be sued. And I don't think they needed to be persons to own property or be sued prior to 1886. And I certainly don't think the court should have waited 128 years to clear up a decision like that attributed not to a judge but to a court reporter.

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/24/141663195/what-is-the-basis-for-corpor at e-personhood
 
2014-03-24 07:09:12 PM  

twat_waffle: gaspode: Amazing, someone in the media actually farking noticed the elephant in the room of this case, which is that if they rule in Hobby Jobbie's favour then they are opening the door to personal liability and responsibility of corporate owners for their corporations. The people pushing this think they can have their cake and eat it, but they can not. If they win this then they are going to get absolutely hammered in future, and yet they do not see it coming at all.

Foresight has not been among our corporate masters' virtues for quite some time. If C-level and board of directors types could appreciate the long-term consequences of their actions, the Great Recession would have never happened.


Actually, the business community hasn't been very vocal on this issue. As TFA notes, some have even come out against Hobby Lobby. They see the issue here.
 
2014-03-24 07:10:04 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: But if you think they meant that people would have the ability not only to make messages with their bodies, but also to run off broadsheets, post signs, and print books, then you admit that money is an essential element of the right to speak.


Ah so are you switching your argument? That the use of money to further expression is within the ambit of the First Amendment, but now such ability should only be reserved to natural persons?  That when people group together their rights go away?  Because under that rubric the Koch brothers are set, but anyone who doesn't happen to have a few billion cannot band together with other normal folks and try to fight fire with fire.
 
2014-03-24 07:10:23 PM  

RoyBatty: Good point, but I guess that's what this case is about, isn't it? Is Hobby Lobby breaking the law or not?


Well, sort of. There are 2 distinct issues here:

1) Is a corporation entitled to claim religious rights protections.

2) If so, is this particular case a violation of those rights.

The court could certainly decide that corporations do have religious protections, but that in this case they don't apply since its a law of general applicability.
 
2014-03-24 07:12:20 PM  

Teiritzamna: That the use of money to further expression is within the ambit of the First Amendment, but now such ability should only be reserved to natural persons?  That when people group together their rights go away?  Because under that rubric the Koch brothers are set, but anyone who doesn't happen to have a few billion cannot band together with other normal folks and try to fight fire with fire.


There's a fundamental difference between groups organized for the purpose of advocating a position and those that are not. The issue isn't "should groups be able to get together to speak" - of course they can, that was never an issue. The issue is that almost all corporations are not organized for that purpose.
 
Displayed 50 of 256 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report