Posted on 03/26/2014 2:25:40 PM PDT by NYer
FYI ping!
They should have filed the original suit against Kagan as well. She helped author the law and this might have helped to get her to recuse herself. Not likely, but possible.
The rule does not force the employees (workers is such a Communist word) to pay for their employers to keep a baby...
The Roberts court is full of crooked Kangaroos.
The real can of worms is what right does the government have to mandate any product?
the next complaint would be about vaccinations, blood transfusions, and a whole host of other medical and non-medical services that a company or its owners might find religiously objectionable.
When and where did the government get the authority to stick a needle in you and tell you have no choice but to like it.
We are slaves! Some people are just to stupid to understand that.
ROFL. Oxymoron much?
A "moderate" liberal? Isn't that the same thing as a moderate Muslim?
For those trying to understand this whole thing, this is the most important quote. Notice Justice Scalia rejecting the interests of "third-parties"? Do you understand that those "third-parties" are YOU? Non-corporate human beings, people with rights, including religious rights, are the third-parties Scalia is saying have NO interests in this matter.
That's because this is a CORPORATE POLICY MATTER, between the government and its corporations. And the ONLY criteria is the best interests of the STATE - not human beings with rights, and not even the interests of corporations per se. Rather, ONLY the interests of the State in how it will be best served by what it allows and commands corporations to do.
That's it - that's ALL of it. I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying that there aren't a huge number of objections to this system - moral, religious, Constitutional, etc. I'm just saying that's how it actually IS. Thatls what Hobby Lobby's own attorney is trying to convince the Court - that it is in the best interests of the STATE to let Hobby Lobby have the "privilege" (because corporations have no rights) to claim a religious exemption.
You can't fight what you don't understand. So FIRST understand this corporate legal-sleight-of-hand. THEN you can fight it and get real changes in the system.
SCOTUS ping.
Can the court just send it back to Congress for an actual vote?
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
That's incorrect. Scalia was pointing out that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not consider third parties at all. RFRA applies only to the party claiming religious freedom and the federal government (not the States, just the feds.).
Verrilli asserted that SCOTUS must consider the negative impacts upon third parties who are not claiming religious freedom and who are not the federal government. Scalia called BS on that.
**Early in the argument, Justice Kennedy asked non-committally how the Court could avoid the constitutional issue of the mandate’s impact on the right to freely exercise religion. Clement said it would be easy, and relying only on a federal law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, would clearly favor a corporate exemption to the mandate.**
BTTT!
Verrilli asserted that SCOTUS must consider the negative impacts upon third parties who are not claiming religious freedom and who are not the federal government. Scalia called BS on that.
LOL, I would remind you that most people in the country - and apparently on FR, too - believe that what the SCOTUS is ruling on is whether Christians (actual human people) working for business have to pay for abortions through Obamacare.
They do NOT understand that this is a corporation privilege issue.
So from their point of view, they are inculded as one of the "third parties" Scalia indicated that have no standing. Again, this is important because these people believe their interests are the focus of this case.
You’re confused. Corporations are made up of people.
Regardless, the “third parties” to which Verrilli and Scalia were both referring are entities outside of either the federal government or the party who claims their constitutional rights are being violated.
Regardless, the “third parties” to which Verrilli and Scalia were both referring are entities outside of either the federal government or the party who claims their constitutional rights are being violated.
These issues are not a matter of debate - they are matters of legal fact. Corporations are NOT "made up" of "peopl"e - corporations are legal fictions created wholly by the government under and treated are limited persons by the courts. PEOPLE can choose to work for corporations, but they do not "make it up." All the workers may die, and a trust may be used to pay for the legal representation and taxes paid by this PAPER entity, and the courts will treat it just the same. That is a fact.
And that is also why the "third parties" referenced by Verrilli and Scalia are outside of these proceedings - because those people, in and of themselves without corporate status, have no standing in a corporate proceeding (which this is).
I'm not trying to belligerent here - these are legal definitions. And they explain why this hearing can take place at all.
I bet you also believe that corporations actually pay taxes instead of human beings.
All the workers may die,
This case is not brought by workers. It is brought by owners of a corporation, who are human beings.
Again, the question before the court is whether or not the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) permits a corporation to refuse to pay for contraceptives because the corporation's owners (who are human beings) have a right to exercise their religion without being substantially burdened by the federal government.
In case you're still confused, the corporation's owners claim that they, as human beings, are exercising their religion by objecting to contraceptives.
Verrilli argued that in order to answer the question presented, the court must consider the negative impacts upon "third parties." Scalia rightly pointed out that the wording of RFRA does not mention the concept of a third party. Under RFRA, there is the federal government (doing the burdening) and the person claiming to be burdened. There are no other parties to consider in answering the specific question before the court.
I’m “confused” - but you think a corporation is NOT a separate entity under the law from the people who work for it.
It’s not that I care that you’re wrong, but you don’t have to add your confusion to those reading your posts.
Unless, of course, that’s the point of your posts.
I’m done wasting my time with your fantasies about the law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.