Skip to comments.Pin drop! Obama lawyer stuns Supreme justice
Posted on 03/25/2014 9:03:08 PM PDT by Beave Meister
In a dramatic moment at the Supreme Court Tuesday, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli told justices that U.S. business owners have no religious freedom to reject government mandates forcing them to cover abortions.
Justices and lawyers also sparred over whether businesses actually have religious freedom and whether striking down the Obamacare mandate makes women second-class citizens.
The notable abortion exchange between Verrilli and Justice Anthony Kennedy came during oral arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius, two cases linked by the companies owners objecting to the Department of Health and Human Services requirement that businesses fully cover the contraception costs for their employees. That mandate includes coverage of abortafacient drugs, also known as the morning-after pill.
Family Research Council Senior Fellow for Legal Studies Cathy Ruse was in the gallery during oral arguments and said that was the most remarkable moment in the court session Tuesday.
This was actually the most exciting part of the oral argument this morning, when Justice Kennedy asked the governments lawyer, So under your argument, corporations could be forced to pay for abortions, that there would be no religious claim against that on the part of the corporation. Is that right? And the governments attorney said yes, Ruse said.
You could hear a pin drop, and I think that stunned Justice Kennedy. Since hes always the swing vote, you want to stun him in a way that pushes him over to your side of the column, she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at mobile.wnd.com ...
Kennedy is irrelevant...all they need is Roberts, and he’s already in the bag.
I think I’ll change my vacation plans to the last week of the court calendar. I’m tired of this crap.
Roberts should resign for reasons of “health.” It’s profoundly dishonorable for him to allow himself to be blackmailed on every issue this way.
“Kennedy is irrelevant...all they need is Roberts, and hes already in the bag.”
I know why you say that, but why do you think he’s turned out so different than anticipated?
Why are Muslims EXEMPTED? Isn’t it because of their religion? Can’t Hobby Lobby et al claim they should be exempt for the same reason?
The government lawyer is correct. Corporations have no religious freedom, because they are creations of the government - not God.
Human beings have religious freedom. Human beings working together in a business have religious freedom.
But a corporation? That’s a paper person - and that’s what all these laws address.
Watching the entire population of the country refuse to grapple with this difference and constantly get smacked by the very thing they refuse to acknowledge is depressing as hell.
Blackmail, or he was a Trojan Horse....
Either way, there is NO logic to his ruling upholding Obamacare...NONE.
I get what your saying but can you explains Citizens United then in this context where freedom of speech is accorded to corporate personhood?
Citizens United Sept 2009:
“Chief Justice Roberts disagreed: A large corporation, just like an individual, has many diverse interests. Justice Antonin Scalia said most corporations are indistinguishable from the individual who owns them.
Yes they sure can. I dont’ know if they’re going to get a favorable ruling though. I have no faith in the SCOTUS. We’re beyond politics now I think.
That was in 2009, before he turned.
These are the guys who’ve been complaining that “wingnuts” were misinterpreting Obie’s “you didn’t make that” speech, right.
before he was turned
One of the most successful lines of attack against these Constitutionally enumerated rights has been to restrict their coverage in various incremental ways. Examples of this are rife... when head-on attempts to eliminate the right to bear arms came to grief, the incrementalists went after particular catagories of firearms, particular types of gun accessories, particular types of ammunition, etc.
Another attack of this type has been to restrict the venues in which the First Amendment could operate. This started (it can be argued) with the famous "shouting fire in a crowded theater" formulation of Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v. United States.
In the last few decades, the left has succeeded in setting up precedents for the idea that the Freedom of Speech -- arguably the most revered of all the rights we are guaranteed by the Constitution -- ceases to operate the moment a person passes through the doors of a business. A group of businessmen gives up their right to speak freely in the public square, apparently because of the possibility that their financial means might make it possible for them to purchase a particularly powerful megaphone.
The restriction of this freedom does not apply to the management of labor unions, or of large philanthropies, or (it goes without saying) to members of the various media organizations and members of the government.
In its decision in the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court dealt a blow to this back-door movement to restrict our freedoms, but the Left is not giving up. They feel an instinctive drive to control speech in the public square, at least when that speech comes from directions that they think will inconvenience them.
There was nothing BUT logic. Cold, hard, rigid, legal logic. Which the ENTIRE country has refused to study.
Because hey, slander is so much easier than actually learning something.
all business exists for the benefit of the state, then.
time to start the revolt if they win. can’t live free under such a wicked, twisted government.
we’ll make some extra needed changes to the constitution to prevent such tyranny from occurring again. no justices for life. term limits on all fed offices. no alphabet agencies with any power to create regs with the power of law. no hundreds of thousands of armed federal agents. back to dc limits for them.
Can indeed have it both ways - because corporations are given privileges that are based SOLELY on the needs of the State. If those privileges imitate rights, fine. If they don't - fine too. But the consistancy of corporate rulings has nothing to do with their comparison to rights - only to State needs. So you're making a false comparison.
corporations are not inanimate objects, they are owned and run by people. And those people have opinions and beliefs that should be safe from government coercion
And the Court ruled in Citizens United that corporations have free speech rights vis-a-vis campaign contributions.
Is it a stretch that the Court might also rule that corpoations have freedom of religion? I think not ...
All corporations exist for the needs of the State, because legally they are extensions of the State and find their creation in the State - that's why they can be taxed and regulated BY the State.
But corporations are not businesses. Corporations can DO business, but they ARE created by the State for the purposes of the State. As such, they offer a certain level of indemnification that many people find appealing - and so, in incorporating, they make their deal with the devil.
I'm not denying that evil people use this construction for evil ends. I'm just saying that their is, indeed, a structure to it, and strict rules it follows. And it is voluntary, and it is NOT the same as human beings working together in an UNincorporated business.
Look at your own words - "owned and run by." But WHAT is "owned and run by?" What is that THING that is owned and run? Is it a business?
It is a corporation, a LEGAL ENTITY, that is created to DO business by having human beings own and run it. A corporation is a thing in it's own right, under the law. And it is that thing - and that thing ONLY - that is subject to the laws.
And that means that if people work in order to own and run that thing, and do business THROUGH that thing, then they can be treated as "corporate individuals" and LOSE THEIR RIGHTS - and accept the limitations of corporate privilege and corporate law.
In return, they get a certain level of indimnification from the corporation. That's the deal they VOLUNTEER to accept.
Chief Justice Roberts raised the point that corporations can actually file racial discrimination claims. So he said if a corporation can have a race, why cant it have a religious claim? The governments attorney didnt really have an answer for that, Ruse said."
Here you go:
“U.S. business owners have no religious freedom to reject government mandates forcing them to cover abortions.”
viz- “Bank of Whittier, a tiny community bank in Los Angeles that specializes in financing for Muslims who want to comply with Islamic anti-usury laws that prohibit the paying or charging of interest.
The bank, whose staffers speak more than a dozen languages, markets itself to observant Muslim entrepreneurs trying to stay within the boundaries of Shariah, or Islamic law. Its clients include owners of gas stations, supermarkets, and restaurants.
one law for us, one law for moslems -
This is gonna stop soon like an ice cream truck on an icy road.
all they are are ways of structuring ones business. In many cases for the sole reason of limiting liability.
I see no compelling reason that someone who owns a widget factory who incorporates it has any fewer rights than he would if he ran it has a sole proprietorship.
Yes, it's fascism. So what? That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Think - exactly how are those interests you listed protected? By indemnification, that's how. But think it through - why shouldn't they be fully responsible, personally, for what they do in business? Why not? In fact, under common law, there is absolutely no reason why not, and such people were sued in their personal capacities for harm they did through their businesses.
So the corporation was created to privide that indemnification - and it's mechanism is to be an extension of the incorporated government, owned and operated by private individuals who agree to run it under corporate operation laws and be TAXED by corporate tax laws.
How is that fascism? How is it not, rather a form of fraud, whereby people get to harm others by their work, but not get sued because they wave an incorporation paper at their victims, while people operating the same type of business which doesn't have that piece of paper get sued in their individual capacities? What legal process makes this transformation possible, and legal?
The ver word incorporation MEANS to "bring into the body." Well, into the body of what? The incorporated State, that's what - which then gets the right to tax the incorporated business in return for limited indemnification.
Corporations are collections of individuals uniting to operate a joint business. If individuals do not have the right to act collectively then there are no rights.
But I thought that the court had said corporations are people in the Citizens United case.
By that definition, there isn’t a single marriage in the US that isn’t a corporation. As such, why is there spousal privilege?
I know we filed our license with the secretary of state, which made our property community, and gave each other power of attorney over each of us individually.
That’s a company. A not-for-profit company, but certainly a company.
SCOTUS already ruled corporations are entitled to speech the same as any individual citizen. Are we not splitting 1A in half for companies here? You can speak, but not about God?
So, if I took 10 percent of my profit, and gave it to a church, isn’t that a form of speech, same as if I gave my money to a PAC?
Wouldn’t that be looked at by the church as tithing, and thus, prayer?
A sole proprietorship is a form of informal incorporation. So is a partnership and LLC. Each of those terms is described in detail in the tax code, and have specific individual corporate identities and requirements - and tax rates.
But just human beings making and selling products? You will not find that phrase in the tax code.
These terms are the basis of administrative law. Whether you “drive” or “travel” is two different things. Yes, it’s bullsh!t - but it’s how it works. It’s a word game, and a presumption game, and it’s played deadly serious by the government. It’s why cops and lawyers and judges and bureaucrats talk the way they do - so stilted and weird. Notice in the article - the writer says “business.” But what does the Justice ask about in his question? Corporations. Not businesses - corporations.
No, it ruled that they can be treated as persons. And everyone thought that that meant what you said. But a "person" is a human being with corporate responsibilities, and so had been given a different set of privileges from the corporation that they worked for. Citizens United ruled that or the purposes of political involvement, the the corporation can be given the same privileges as a person working in a corporate capacity.
Dense? Yep. But not tangled - very specific.
Stop quoting the left’s parody version of Citizens United. The majority’s reasoning did not depend on the legal fiction that a corporation is a person — only one of the dissenters mentioned the notion of a corporation as a juridical person in a snarky passage attacking the majority’s holding. The majority held that the right of people to engage in political speech is not somehow attenuated or abolished by virtue of the people organizing into a corporation. The right of a corporation to engage in political speech is the right of its shareholders (or members) to engage in political speech. The same ought to apply here: the right of free exercise of religion is not somehow attenuated or abolished by virtue of the fact the natural persons engage in commerce as a corporation.
Thank you for the clarification.
Wrong. Stop quoting the left’s parody version of Citizens United. (Or did you leave off as \sarcasm tag?)
The first thing I did when I saw your comment was check your sign up date.
(that’s not a compliment)
No sarcasm I believed what I wrote. I did have a fellow Freeper explain it to me so I am clear now.
What do you think a corporation is if not human beings working together? My wife and I are a corporation. My brother is one also. I worked for one that consisted of a man and his son. We know lots of corporations like that. Should we be denied the right to practice our religion and follow our conscience because of the legal form we have chosen for our businesses? Even huge corporations are owned by real people. I own shares in Coca Cola, Ford, British Petroleum and others. Are only partnerships, proprietorships and LLCs allowed freedom of religion?
That’s right - getting a marriage license is a form of incorporation. And as to why different corporate forms are given different privileges, it’s simple - because that serves the needs of the State.
A marriage license is actually nothing other than a TAX STATUS. You get one because you want to be able to file in a certain way. In return, your marriage gets incorprated, and you both agree to become vulnerable to any number of associated laws.
Marriage used to be the sole venue of the Church. And even though marriage licenses were given by the government long ago, they were solely for the government to acknowlege the marriage for the purposes of government issues - such as when a Revolutionary War vet got a pension, or a deceased government employee’s wife got a pension. These “marriage licenses” by no means CREATED a marriage - they just ACKNOWLEDGED it.
Since the 14th Amendment, however, and the incorporation of Washington DC in 1874, the government has granted itself the power of corporate creation - and the presumption of corporate creation against human beings.
Game changer, to say the least.
Appreciate the reply. Will adjust my understanding accordingly. You have my thanks.
According to the DOJ, freedom of religion is enjoyed only individuals...and non-profit corporations.
The concept of a corporation existing solely for the benefit of the state was an alien concept to business law prior to the likes of Mussolini and Hitler coming along. The concept was originally conceived so that the business entity could outlive any individual human member, and enter into legally binding contractual agreements just like an individual.