The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

You're talking kind of like one of those aggressive police officers everybody hates. You want to arrest those undesirables before they commit the crime, because their type is obviously violent and about to do something terrible.

Well, I suppose I deserve that personal attack after I called you naive. Please continue.

It doesn't work that way. If someone expresses speech, and then commits a crime, you don't get to justify a ban on that type of speech on the ground of preventing that crime. That's JIMGA authoritarian stuff.

Another strawman. That is ABSOLUTELY NOT what I'm saying.

In the video evidence I reference, the POV is generally a clinic escort walking next to the victim, and the threats being made by the "counselors" to the victim are made in real time and are not hypothetically worded. But I see you're already there....

Harassment itself can be a crime of course, if the statute is constitutional and doesn't cover protected speech. And that's often a contested issue - harassment and stalking statutes are challenged all the time on First Amendment grounds. Because it's such a grey area, there's always an argument that can be made. But nowhere, in none of those cases, is regular, non-threatening conversation, like asking someone where they're going, offering assistance, etc., EVER going to constitute harassment, in any of those statutes. Now, if it's done over and over again, even after the victim asks them to stop, than sure, that type of speech might not be protected, and might be subject to bans in constitutional statutes. The MA ban went way beyond that though.

And this is where the Court diverged from common sense, IMO. This type of activity, even from the so-called "counselors" has a consistent modus operandi that, again, seeks to confuse / misdirect / intimidate someone already in a compromised emotional state from doing something they had made up their mind to do. The remedy the court suggested (but, critically, only sort of, and with much caveats) is no remedy in that it requires a high level of evidence, a lucky break at court, and a victim willing to testify who (as in rape cases) is statistically unlikely to do so.

The MA law, IMO, was an attempt to just remove the chance of the situation happening (as stated by the law enforcement officers Roberts himself quoted).

Now, if the law was being abused in the ways you & Imran suggested it could have been (but for which no evidence indicates it was), you'd have a point.


Again, this (the "counselors") isn't just speech. It's a clear, consistent, and unambiguous process aimed towards a particular goal. This isn't some guy approaching you on a train platform to tell you about chemtrails. This is about people using a tried-and-true method to prey upon other people. The fact that the court either can't or won't see that and rule accordingly is what is wrong, IMO.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

How is it a strawman to claim that you were saying the liberal justices aren't liberal - because that's exactly what you were trying to imply.

But that's not the strawman you created:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Go ahead and call Ginsberg a conservative justice and prepare to be laughed at, or called a far left loon.

I'm not claiming Ginsberg is/was a conservative justice. You're painting me as someone who would. That's a deceitful way of building your argument.

We can agree to disagree as to whether Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer and Ginsburg are moderate justices, which is what I'd claim.

Only if your rankings basically indicate that there have been no "liberal" justices aside for Justices Brennan and Marshall since the mid 1970s, which is a bit of a foolish opinion.

Well, that is what I'd claim. I'd admit there have been left-of-center justices, but certainly no one "Liberal" as the term is typically used in the common discourse of the past 20-30 years.

Welcome to the wonderful world of anti-harassment law. No one is preventing Massachusetts from enacting narrowly tailored anti-harassment laws that do not curtail the free speech rights to protest.

And as I've said before, due to the challenging of enforcing and prosecuting harassment, it's not a great option. Maybe you agree by saying "welcome to the wonderful world...". But, of course, if that's the case, don't you think that's a little sad we can't come up with a better solution in this great democracy of ours?

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Again, this (the "counselors") isn't just speech. It's a clear, consistent, and unambiguous process aimed towards a particular goal. This isn't some guy approaching you on a train platform to tell you about chemtrails. This is about people using a tried-and-true method to prey upon other people. The fact that the court either can't or won't see that and rule accordingly is what is wrong, IMO.

You're getting closer to the actual definition of harassment, so why not require the state to actually prove that intent for each defendant, like they have to do for other intent-based crimes, instead of just assuming whoever is there necessarily has that criminal intent?

Edit: I don't know everything this particular lady did, but if I'm the prosecutor, and she's charged with talking to these people with the intent to harass them, I just might be able to make that case to the jury, who are allowed to infer intent from conduct. Even if she doesn't straight-up threaten them, if there's enough circumstantial evidence there, if police find graphic pamphlets on her, and if we can get in her prior conduct under 404(b) (using her prior conduct as evidence of her intent in this case), that might fly. The Mass statute doesn't even require that intent though. It criminalizes all speech in that area, as well as passive, silent protest. It assumes everyone has a criminal intent. It assumes every abortion protester intends to commit criminal harassment. The government can't silence people on the justification that their "type" commits crimes.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Well, that is what I'd claim. I'd admit there have been left-of-center justices, but certainly no one "Liberal" as the term is typically used in the common discourse of the past 20-30 years.

I dunno where you have been, but President Obama is consider a liberal in the "common discourse" and is more moderate than the Liberal 4. Who, btw, have been called the Liberal 4 by common discourse for a while.

But I will then restate: Go ahead and call Ginsberg anything but a liberal justice and prepare to be laughed at, or called a far left loon.

(I would hasten to add, that no one is really simply a moderate by itself - they are either a moderate conservative or a moderate liberal - they are after all members of a party on one side or the other. Saying that, even calling Ginsberg center-left, as opposed to left, is amusing)

And as I've said before, due to the challenging of enforcing and prosecuting harassment, it's not a great option. Maybe you agree by saying "welcome to the wonderful world...". But, of course, if that's the case, don't you think that's a little sad we can't come up with a better solution in this great democracy of ours?

What makes you think that I think we need a "better solution"? Freedom of speech is one of our most important rights. It is something that the United States values above most others and can result in a bit of "free speech fundamentalism", but that's a source of pride, not shame. In curtailing free speech, it should be something that takes at least a little bit of effort to do. The challenges of enforcing and prosecuting harassment is there to preserve one of our most important rights - just as the challenge of getting warrant before searching our cell phone is put in place to defend our Fourth Amendment rights (and some are likely to say that's not a great option, read the FOFC thread on that case, but I'd disagree).

That being said, I think you are overstating the challenges of proving harassment as well as completely ignoring perfectly valid anti-harassment laws that some states already have. Molson pointed out to you the NY State's law spoken of in a positive light in the opinion, which you said was interesting and then have completely ignored subsequently.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

You're getting closer to the actual definition of harassment, so why not require the state to actually prove that intent for each defendant, like they have to do for other intent-based crimes, instead of just assuming whoever is there necessarily has that criminal intent?

Edit: I don't know everything this particular lady did, but if I'm the prosecutor, and she's charged with talking to these people with the intent to harass them, I just might be able to make that case to the jury, who are allowed to infer intent from conduct. Even if she doesn't straight-up threaten them, if there's enough circumstantial evidence there, if police find graphic pamphlets on her, and if we can get in her prior conduct under 404(b) (using her prior conduct as evidence of her intent in this case), that might fly. The Mass statute doesn't even require that intent though. It criminalizes all speech in that area, as well as passive, silent protest. It assumes everyone has a criminal intent. It assumes every abortion protester intends to commit criminal harassment. The government can't silence people on the justification that their "type" commits crimes.

But, molson, prosecuting harassment is so 'onerous' that even the passive silent protesters should have their free speech curtailed... or so the argument apparently goes.

[sterlingice]

Since they pretty much have the rights of people at this point, at what point can we start arresting whole corporations or, at least, their boards, and throwing them in jail.

Also, if my religion says to me that other races are inferior, is there anything in today's or other rulings that prohibit my company from bringing back whites only and blacks only water fountains?

SI

[rowech]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Since they pretty much have the rights of people at this point, at what point can we start arresting whole corporations or, at least, their boards, and throwing them in jail.

Also, if my religion says to me that other races are inferior, is there anything in today's or other rulings that prohibit my company from bringing back whites only and blacks only water fountains?

SI

The case is very limited in its scope and applies specifically to this situation only. That said, what you wrote is exactly where my mind went.

I would also be curious if a Hobby Lobby employes people who have divorced. Should they not? Do they hire only Christians?

I do believe at some point, the whole "corporations are people" is going to lead to some unintended consequences.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by rowech

The case is very limited in its scope and applies specifically to this situation only. That said, what you wrote is exactly where my mind went.

I would also be curious if a Hobby Lobby employes people who have divorced. Should they not? Do they hire only Christians?

I do believe at some point, the whole "corporations are people" is going to lead to some unintended consequences.

Real telling that they limited it only to contraceptives - not anything that you know...a man might need.

Fuckers.

[sterlingice]

I love the slight of hand of trying to claim this is limited in scope by saying this is only for "closely held" corporations, which means 90%+ of all companies.

SCOTUSBlog has me thoroughly confused about this case:

Here is a further attempt at qualification: This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs
by Amy Howe

Here is more qualification: It does not provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.
by Amy Howe

Justice Kennedy write to respond, in part, to Ginsburg's characterization of the majority opinion, saying that it "does not have the breadth and sweep ascribed to it by the respectful and powerful dissent."
by krussell


The first reactions from other news sources overread Hobby Lobby significantly. The Court makes clear that the government can provide coverage to the female employees. And it strongly suggests it would reject broad religious claims to, for example, discriminate against gay employees.
by tgoldstein

How does it not provide a shield? The precedent set basically says "bring us every challenge you want about the case". It feels like they went out of their way to say "hey, this isn't a broad exemption" over and over because they know it's a broad exemption. But does saying it over and over functionally make it true for future challenges? I would think you could just point to this case and argue the precedent was set.

SI

[Suburban Rhythm]

Can't wait for the first corporation to declare itself Muslim. I'd assume they'd get the same treatment.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

How does it not provide a shield? The precedent set basically says "bring us every challenge you want about the case". It feels like they went out of their way to say "hey, this isn't a broad exemption" over and over because they know it's a broad exemption. But does saying it over and over functionally make it true for future challenges? I would think you could just point to this case and argue the precedent was set.

SI

Right, I don't see how The Court could later rule against someone else bringing a similar suit about something they don't want to cover because of their religious beliefs without establishing that some religious beliefs are valid to be held in the US while others are not.

[rowech]

Will corporations now all have to declare a religion? I can't imagine how many new religions are formed in the coming months to get around different aspects of things.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

SCOTUSBlog has me thoroughly confused about this case:

The last point is that there is an alternative - the same one the HHS provided to religious non-profits - the government will mandate the insurers provide coverage at a lower cost sharing.

Which is also the reason to limit it to contraception. There is a clear alternative - meaning the government's argument of narrow tailoring can't really stand.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The last point is that there is an alternative - the same one the HHS provided to religious non-profits - the government will mandate the insurers provide coverage at a lower cost sharing.

Which is also the reason to limit it to contraception. There is a clear alternative - meaning the government's argument of narrow tailoring can't really stand.

Not surprised to see you in favor of this.

[ISiddiqui]

Who says I am?

I'm not sure how I'd rule on the corporations' right to RFRA part. HOWEVER, if one rules that closely held corporations can be subject to the protections of the RFRA, it seems that its a win for the corporations - there is a less restrictive alternative which means the government's solution is not narrowly tailored.

Anyways, this is EXACTLY what's going to happen when you condition health insurance on companies' providing it for you. It is really clear that in order to avoid these sort of conflicts, insurance should be based on covering individuals, not employees. Whether you want to do single payer (my preference) or individual tax credits, that's a far superior way than tax credits for companies and fines if they don't cover.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Big whoop. It's a tiny win over a tiny point in a sea of unspeakably bad rulings.

Pardon me if I don't go looking for champagne.

[sabotai]

SCOTUSblog's twitter feed has been hilarious today. (A lot of people thinking that SCOTUSblog = SCOTUS sending them tweets. Hilarity ensues.)

[CraigSca]

ISIS showing off its five year plan: Twitter / Third_Position: #ISIS Roadmap: The goal of ...

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Real telling that they limited it only to contraceptives - not anything that you know...a man might need.

Fuckers.

Dude, they're called condoms...they're not that expensive.

[Edward64]

Pretty senseless to me. If Hamas did it (and its not as if they are disclaiming the accusations against them) I don't really see the aim. Its not as if they needed to provoke Israel as the peace process had broken down already.

Missing Israeli teens found dead in West Bank - CNN.com

Hebron, West Bank (CNN) -- Tensions between Israel and Hamas ratcheted up Monday after the bodies of three Israeli teenagers, kidnapped this month, were found in the West Bank.

Israel, in no uncertain terms, blames the disappearances and deaths on Hamas.

"Hamas will pay," said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri warned against escalation, saying that if Netanyahu "brings a war on Gaza, the gates of hell will open to him."

The three bodies were found northwest of Hebron, according to the Israeli military, which said they were still in the process of being identified.

[Edward64]

Let's see what Obama comes up with. The southern border, illegal immigration is a tough one but hope he does something for legal immigration. IMO its in our national interests to keep highly educated foreigners in the country.

Obama to take executive action on immigration - CNN.com

Washington (CNN) -- It's their fault, President Barack Obama said Monday in blaming Republican inaction on immigration reform for escalating problems including a surge of undocumented children crossing the border from Mexico.

At a hastily scheduled Rose Garden appearance, Obama said the top House Republican -- Speaker John Boehner -- told him last week that the chamber's GOP majority will continue blocking a vote on a Senate-passed immigration bill.

In response, Obama said he was starting "a new effort to fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own, without Congress."
:
:
Conservative Republicans oppose the Senate plan passed last year with support from both parties support because it includes a pathway to legal status for immigrants living illegally in the United States.

They also fear that such a reform measure would bolster already strong Democratic support among Hispanic Americans, the nation's largest minority.

For his part, Boehner said Monday that Republicans don't trust Obama to enforce laws they might pass.

"Until that changes, it is going to be difficult to make progress on this issue," he said in a statement after Obama spoke. "The crisis at our southern border reminds us all of the critical importance of fixing our broken immigration system."

[miked]

The senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill that got 68 votes (nearly unheard of in this decade). The house refuses to bring it for a vote (Where it would likely pass) because it would make Hispanics happy and they mostly vote democrat. What can a president do when a chamber won't vote on a bill that would pass?

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by rowech

Will corporations now all have to declare a religion? I can't imagine how many new religions are formed in the coming months to get around different aspects of things.

Each corporation gets to choose a Founder Belief, two Follower Beliefs, and an Enhancer Belief. If they play their cards right they may also get a Reformation Belief.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by miked

The senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill that got 68 votes (nearly unheard of in this decade). The house refuses to bring it for a vote (Where it would likely pass) because it would make Hispanics happy and they mostly vote democrat. What can a president do when a chamber won't vote on a bill that would pass?

I know it sucks and I agree but that's the system. They're not going against any laws by doing it. They are crapping on the spirit of it. That said, Obama can't just do whatever he wants -- and that is by design.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Edward64

They also fear that such a reform measure would bolster already strong Democratic support among Hispanic Americans, the nation's largest minority.

I'd figure the conservative nature of the Hispanic culture would be something the Republicans would be able to connect with, but the immigration thing is what swings the support to the left.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I'd figure the conservative nature of the Hispanic culture would be something the Republicans would be able to connect with, but the immigration thing is what swings the support to the left.

The immigration thing?

You mean where tens of thousands of children alone will be pouring across our southern border this year alone for citizenship? And with no end in sight for future illegal entry? I'm all for amnesty, but we have to turn off the massive swell of illegal entry first right? What happened to that part of the discussion? Can it really just be ignored? It's a little more complicated than just "winning the Hispanic vote". Aren't there some long-term problems associated with breaking our immigrant quotas year in and year out by thousands of percent that we need to address before we go rushing out to win the Hispanic vote?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The immigration thing?

You mean where tens of thousands of children alone will be pouring across our southern border this year alone for citizenship? And with no end in sight for future illegal entry? I'm all for amnesty, but we have to turn off the massive swell of illegal entry first right? What happened to that part of the discussion? Can it really just be ignored? It's a little more complicated than just "winning the Hispanic vote". Aren't there some long-term problems associated with breaking our immigrant quotas year in and year out by thousands of percent that we need to address before we go rushing out to win the Hispanic vote?

Wasn't what I meant. Just was commenting the Republicans' concerns on the voting patterns of Hispanics and where they're falling to win them.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by rowech

Will corporations now all have to declare a religion? I can't imagine how many new religions are formed in the coming months to get around different aspects of things.

You know some company run by an anti-vaccine nut is going to do this.

Even better, maybe a CEO who is a Christian Scientist can come up with his own take on health i surance.

I still don't get how what someone spends their compensation on infringes on anyone's religious beliefs. When can they tell me I can't use my check to go to the titty bar?

[ISiddiqui]

Though, as the opinion stated, it depends if there is a less restrictive means of achieving the compelling governmental interest. I'm not sure there is for anti-vaccines or Christian Scientist beliefs. Contraceptives already had an alternative for the religious non-profit folks.

And I think it was more of a direct pay. As in, indirect pay is ok, but direct pay makes 'em squeamish. Though, its all fair if the insurance company is forced to provide free contraception (that is what this is about, btw), they raise rates on the Plan itself.

[miked]

I don't understand why an IUD is "abortion" but not a birth control pill, they both achieve similar things. Some women can't take the pill, and IUD is pretty effective but expensive.

Also, interesting to know that Hobby Lobby gets most of their goods from China, so funding IUDs is apparently morally repugnant, but buying sweatshop stuff to resell and supporting horrible, morally repugnant Chinese companies is being a good Christian.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

You're getting closer to the actual definition of harassment, so why not require the state to actually prove that intent for each defendant, like they have to do for other intent-based crimes, instead of just assuming whoever is there necessarily has that criminal intent?

Or, again, why not pursue a common-sense buffer-zone solution that vastly decreases the likelihood of harassment and violence without realistically infringing on rights? After all, that appears to be the thinking behind both the political "free speech zones" and the 252-foot buffer zone the Supreme Court has for itself.

I understand that you both are arguing (correctly) that the buffer zone just flat out contradicts with the first amendment. But there are many areas in the United States where physical presence (and so, by extension, speech) is not allowed, due to safety concerns.

If the Court had at least acknowledged those safety concerns (and acts of actual violence) and given more than just a "maybe, but no promises" to the idea of more narrow language, then maybe I'd have less of a problem with it.

But as it stands, the decision simply reads as a statement of dry technicalities completely divorced from both common sense and an understanding of what happens in the real world.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I dunno where you have been, but President Obama is consider a liberal in the "common discourse" and is more moderate than the Liberal 4. Who, btw, have been called the Liberal 4 by common discourse for a while.

After twenty years of turning "liberal" into a pejorative term, it's now a meaningless term for categorizing political stances. And you're smart enough to know this.

As the two charts I posted indicate, if you were to plot those judges (or even Obama) on any reasonable spectrum of political stances, including that of the U.S. populace itself, they would all show up much closer in striking distance to "moderate" than any of the other Justices save possibly Kennedy.

Prove me wrong.

What makes you think that I think we need a "better solution"? Freedom of speech is one of our most important rights.

Pre-meditated harassment with the implicit (and sometimes explicit) threat of violence is not free speech.

That being said, I think you are overstating the challenges of proving harassment as well as completely ignoring perfectly valid anti-harassment laws that some states already have. Molson pointed out to you the NY State's law spoken of in a positive light in the opinion, which you said was interesting and then have completely ignored subsequently.

After that I did some reading, much of what seemed to indicate that while those things are true about the anti-harassment laws, they also didn't necessarily make it easier to prosecute said behavior.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm not sure how I'd rule on the corporations' right to RFRA part. HOWEVER, if one rules that closely held corporations can be subject to the protections of the RFRA, it seems that its a win for the corporations - there is a less restrictive alternative which means the government's solution is not narrowly tailored.

Via SCOTUSblog, I learned that the U.S. Code's "Dictionary Act", explicitly defines a corporation as a person:

the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

Thus they are absolutely entitled to the protections of the RFRA. So this ruling should not be a surprise.

What should be a surprise, however, is the majority's belief that this ruling will be interpreted narrowly, as on the contrary based on this precedent, it should be pretty straightforward for any company to do anything (that's otherwise legal) based on religious or other beliefs. I would put money on retroviral drugs for AIDS sufferers being next. Maybe insulin for type 2 diabetes sufferers?

Of course, the other interesting thing here is the decision to have one person's "rights" trump another's, as both a company and a woman (per the law) are people. The power of the employer trumps, in this instance at least (though in many others as well).

Anyways, this is EXACTLY what's going to happen when you condition health insurance on companies' providing it for you. It is really clear that in order to avoid these sort of conflicts, insurance should be based on covering individuals, not employees. Whether you want to do single payer (my preference) or individual tax credits, that's a far superior way than tax credits for companies and fines if they don't cover.

Now this, this is something with which I couldn't agree more.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Contraceptives already had an alternative for the religious non-profit folks.

Serious question, as I think I've missed this in the coverage, but what was the alternative here you were talking about?

[JPhillips]

Chalabi? For fuck's sake.

At first championed by the Bush administration’s neoconservatives as a potential leader of Iraq, Ahmad Chalabi ended up persona non grata, effectively barred from the wartime American Embassy here. Now, in an improbable twist of fate, Mr. Chalabi is being talked about as a serious candidate for prime minister. He has also been back to the embassy.

[Coffee Warlord]

SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS LITTLE CAESAR’S RIGHT TO FEED CHRISTIAN EMPLOYEES TO LIONS

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

After twenty years of turning "liberal" into a pejorative term, it's now a meaningless term for categorizing political stances. And you're smart enough to know this.

Every single publication out there, including liberal ones, characterize Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor as the "Liberal four". To state that mainstream view is that they are not liberal, but instead moderate is to completely miss the boat, IMO.

As the two charts I posted indicate, if you were to plot those judges (or even Obama) on any reasonable spectrum of political stances, including that of the U.S. populace itself, they would all show up much closer in striking distance to "moderate" than any of the other Justices save possibly Kennedy.

And that's the problem right there. These aren't 'political stances'; these are legal stances. You, yourself, even point out that corporations are considered 'persons' under the law, even if people think that's so utterly horrible, that's what the law actually says.

In addition, while there are folks that argue that we have to elect so and so to prevent judges like Scalia on the bench, there are equal amounts of folk who run on platforms saying we need to elect so and so that we can put strict constructionists like Scalia and unlike Ginsberg (ESPECIALLY after the ACA decision).

Serious question, as I think I've missed this in the coverage, but what was the alternative here you were talking about?

Religious non-profits can "opt-out" of directly covering contraception (or small sector of contraception they consider abortifacents, which aren't really, but it doesn't matter for these purposes), BUT the insurer is required to cover those services at the same cost sharing rate (ie, free).

Justice Kennedy, in his concurrence, suggested that there was nothing to prevent this being the rule for these religious profit companies - and it wouldn't really require any Congressional action as the the opt-out for religious non-profits was an HHS rule.

This alternative also allowed for a less restrictive means to fulfill the compelling governmental interest.

Oh, and I know that in the Dictionary Act, corporations are under the definition of 'person', but there usually is some limit as to how far that can go (here it stopped at closely held corporation).

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Religious non-profits can "opt-out" of directly covering contraception (or small sector of contraception they consider abortifacents, which aren't really, but it doesn't matter for these purposes), BUT the insurer is required to cover those services at the same cost sharing rate (ie, free).

Ah yes, I was aware of this (having worked for a major insurer in the not so distant past). For me, the main problem with this is that it's not going to scale real well if a lot of "closely-held" companies take advantage of it.

Oh, and I know that in the Dictionary Act, corporations are under the definition of 'person', but there usually is some limit as to how far that can go (here it stopped at closely held corporation).

Closely-held corporation isn't much of a stop, though, given the size of some of those corporations. But, whatever, it'll be interesting to see what further individual rights erode in favor of corporation rights as a result of this ruling.

[Autumn]

As Ginsburg wrote in her dissent, this would not be a popular opinion if it is extended to Christian Scientists refusing to pay for blood transfusions, or Scientologists refusing to extend coverage for antidepressants, etc., etc. I understand there isn't the opt-out situation available there, but I think the comparison makes pretty obvious that the only reason anyone is okay with this is because it's centered on an issue there is serious dissent on, and therefore only stands up with its backers because they like what it says, not because they believe in the fundamental principle.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Autumn

As Ginsburg wrote in her dissent, this would not be a popular opinion if it is extended to Christian Scientists refusing to pay for blood transfusions, or Scientologists refusing to extend coverage for antidepressants, etc., etc.

I expect these things to be at least tried, along with possibly the retroviral drugs (for AIDS) and insulin for type 2 diabetes. The argument I'd make is that the government should pick these things up as well.

If this then led to the end of employer-provided health insurance (and subsequent meaningful and supported expansion of the ACA - no guarantee with this Congress) I'd actually welcome it.

[Solecismic]

I have a lot of trouble with this exception, because when you agree to employ an American, you agree to support that American's Constitutional rights.

These days, we're too caught up in the notion that corporations are breathing organisms, both evil and exploitative and religious, sensitive, caring. When in reality they are just tax structures created to handle the bridge between investors and creators.

Health care is a vague and vast world. It includes everything from preventative advice to cancer treatments. Obamacare tries to be everything to everyone, was written by lobbyists without even a read from any of the legislators who passed it, and is filled with implementation problems and politically-motivated delays.

I think the Court got this one wrong. But we need to move away from employer-provided health care. I think the Democrats realize this, though they've chosen a very cynical vehicle for moving in that direction.

[JPhillips]

Today's decisions make it pretty clear that the ruling applies to all contraceptive coverage, not just those in the Hobby Lobby case.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Though, as the opinion stated, it depends if there is a less restrictive means of achieving the compelling governmental interest. I'm not sure there is for anti-vaccines or Christian Scientist beliefs. Contraceptives already had an alternative for the religious non-profit folks.

And I think it was more of a direct pay. As in, indirect pay is ok, but direct pay makes 'em squeamish. Though, its all fair if the insurance company is forced to provide free contraception (that is what this is about, btw), they raise rates on the Plan itself.

I read the opinion and it just seems like a lot of mental gymnastics to differentiate from vaccines and other stuff. It honestly read like "contraceptives are different just cuz".

[flere-imsaho]

Hobby Lobby's 401K plans contain funds that invest in contraceptive makers, including the company that makes "Plan B", amongst others.

It's surprising that a company that obviously cares so much about these things would not have taken the relatively-common option to request so-called "faith-based" funds that would avoid those kinds of companies.

[NobodyHere]

Sorry if I don't get too upset that a company invests in mutual funds.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I read the opinion and it just seems like a lot of mental gymnastics to differentiate from vaccines and other stuff. It honestly read like "contraceptives are different just cuz".

By 'mental gymnastics' you mean the legal standard of review for strict scrutiny?

Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I read the opinion and it just seems like a lot of mental gymnastics to differentiate from vaccines and other stuff. It honestly read like "contraceptives are different cuz we're Catholic men".

Fixed.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Sorry if I don't get too upset that a company invests in mutual funds.

whoooooooooooooooooooooosh!

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Hobby Lobby's 401K plans contain funds that invest in contraceptive makers, including the company that makes "Plan B", amongst others.

It's surprising that a company that obviously cares so much about these things would not have taken the relatively-common option to request so-called "faith-based" funds that would avoid those kinds of companies.

So employees can use their wages to invest in mutual funds that invest in contraceptive companies. Those employees can also use their wages to buy contraception or have abortions.

(Edit: Or at least, they could invest their money that way, now that this has become a thing, they'll probably take that option away from employees and only offer more expensive "special" funds.)

But regardless, isn't it kind of the point of the First Amendment and RFRA to protect religious freedom, which includes how you want to express your religious beliefs? I know there's this idea that if you have one religious or spiritual value you have to have all of them, but the First Amendment and RFRA certainly don't require that. And it's not something the government claimed either. This case is really just a statutory application question. And I haven't broken down the statute at all so I really have no idea if it applies. But I'm not a fan of the whole side-discussion about whether "corporations have rights", as if this is some brand new idea. Imagine a world where they didn't. Where the government should just censor or shut down corporations or non-profits they didn't like. And even if the First Amendment allowed the government to do whatever they wanted to corporations or non-profits, the legislature could certainly still provide statutory rights.

I'm sure I mentioned the same sentiment a few pages ago but it's interesting to see how heels are dug in on this, where there's so much public angst over 4th Amendment, we want that to be as strong as possible, but there's also this angst and sentiment to scale back the 1st and 2nd Amendments. I guess it's totally consistent to have that view, or the opposite one, it's just interesting that both of those sides see the other as playing fast and loose with the constitution, and both sides accuse the other of being primarily focused only on the desired end result.

Edit: I also think it's interesting that Hobby Lobby is such a generally employee-friendly company. It doesn't fit the narrative that this really isn't about religion and that they're only trying to save a buck (which I guess is the point that's implied by the 401(k) thing). Their starting wage is higher than Costco's - $14/hour minimum wage across the board. There's this contraception issue, but the government is going to have to fill the gap on that so employees won't really be implicated. (And not all contraception are implicated, only the more controversial, plan-b type drugs are - Hobby lobby didn't have any objections to 16 other contraceptive drugs.) The bigger practical downside for a lot of people I think would be the general Christian culture - the prayers at orientation and team meetings, etc. Of course, all the people who don't think corporations have rights would, I guess, be OK with the government banning that, but fortunately that's not in the cards.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm sure I mentioned the same sentiment a few pages ago but it's interesting to see how heels are dug in on this, where there's so much public angst over 4th Amendment, we want that to be as strong as possible, but there's also this angst and sentiment to scale back the 1st and 2nd Amendments. I guess it's totally consistent to have that view, or the opposite one, it's just interesting that both of those sides see the other as playing fast and loose with the constitution, and both sides accuse the other of being primarily focused only on the desired end result.

There's much public angst over the 4th amendment? You mean that one that probably covers things like the government looking at our metadata, groping us in airports, or doing warrantless wiretaps? Where there's been a little bit of public outcry and nothing of substance done?

Also, what scaling back of the 2nd amendment? Last I saw, gun restrictions have been substantially rolled back in the last decade.

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

There's much public angst over the 4th amendment? You mean that one that probably covers things like the government looking at our metadata, groping us in airports, or doing warrantless wiretaps? Where there's been a little bit of public outcry and nothing of substance done?

Also, what scaling back of the 2nd amendment? Last I saw, gun restrictions have been substantially rolled back in the last decade.

SI

Sure, NSA and TSA stuff, police conduct generally. People have very hard and fast ideas about what the 4th Amendment actually restricts, even where courts haven't agreed, or haven't faced these issues yet.

And lots of people WANT to scale back the 2nd Amendment, they've just been absolutely terrible at it, and instead have driven the largest gun industry sales boom in history.

And the first Amendment, I believe the popular buzz word now is that the Court is "fetishizing" the First Amendment. Can you imagine those same people saying that about the 4th Amendment in any context ever? If there's a 4th Amendment issue, the law doesn't matter, precedent doesn't matter, they're on the side the cops and government are not. But if it's about contraception or abortion or religion, shit, lower the hammer. And these things aren't inconsistent from a policy perspective, but I think it gets inconsistent when either side portrays itself as the one who is focused on the constitution and the law, and portrays the other side as the one who only cares about end-results. Everyone's focused on end results. It's extraordinarily difficult to take yourself completely out of that and have truly legal opinions, and make truly legal determinations. Judges are supposed to be able to do that, but they're only human too. I try to do that, but like everyone, it's a lot easier to do with cases you aren't vested in.

[Suburban Rhythm]

One of these is a few months old, but still good

Hobby Lobby Stones Gay Employee to Death

Hobby Lobby Fires Employee For Divorcing Husband

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

Sure, NSA and TSA stuff, police conduct generally. People have very hard and fast ideas about what the 4th Amendment actually restricts, even where courts haven't agreed, or haven't faced these issues yet.

And lots of people WANT to scale back the 2nd Amendment, they've just been absolutely terrible at it, and instead have driven the largest gun industry sales boom in history.

And the first Amendment, I believe the popular buzz word now is that the Court is "fetishizing" the First Amendment. Can you imagine those same people saying that about the 4th Amendment in any context ever? If there's a 4th Amendment issue, the law doesn't matter, precedent doesn't matter, they're on the side the cops and government are not. But if it's about contraception or abortion or religion, shit, lower the hammer. And these things aren't inconsistent from a policy perspective, but I think it gets inconsistent when either side portrays itself as the one who is focused on the constitution and the law, and portrays the other side as the one who only cares about end-results. Everyone's focused on end results. It's extraordinarily difficult to take yourself completely out of that and have truly legal opinions, and make truly legal determinations. Judges are supposed to be able to do that, but they're only human too. I try to do that, but like everyone, it's a lot easier to do with cases you aren't vested in.

Could it be possible that the encroachments on, say, the 4th amendment are much more egregious than those on the 1st amendment and thus putting these together would be a false equivalency. Arguably, the first amendment has been strengthened recently with corporate money equaling free speech (which wasn't true 5 years ago) whereas we have had a significant number of fairly strong challenges to the 4th amendment.

SI