And the Ruling Is.....

[JoeB131]

In the waning hours before the Supreme Court is set to rule on the Hobby Lobby case, and Obamacare's abortion mandate, what do you predict they will rule? Me? Well, I think they will rule against Hobby Lobby, and I would love to be wrong. I predict a 5-4 ruling against Hobby Lobby. Not because I want them to, but because I have a bad feeling about this entire case. Though, the oral arguments did sound promising, that didn't mean much when they upheld Obamacare. But let me repeat, I WANT to be wrong.

SCOTUS should rule against Hobby Lobby because Corporations are not people and can't have religious beliefs. Clearly, the can of worms that would get opened here would create a lot of chaos. Can your employer deny you coverage for a blood transfusion because the owners are Jehovah's Witnesses? Can they deny you coverage for anti-viral drugs to treat your HIV because they disapprove of homosexuality?

Shit, man, an employer could declare himself a Christian Scientist and deny all health coverage.

Also, the rank hypocrisy of Hobby Lobby goes beyond the pale. They were already paying for these drugs before ACA. Not to mention they buy 93% of their merchandise from China, where they have the "one child" policy and co-erced abortions.

As for the Harris v. Quinn case, I predict a 5-4 ruling in favor of the plaintiff. I believe that just because a certain field in the public sector is unionized, it doesn't mean that you can force someone who has a profession in said field to associate with you and make them pay dues. That's where government is wrong. I can understand the First Amendment argument here. She has a right to not associate with public sector unions in the state of Illinois. Moreover, I think the contract that the SEIU Healthcare Illinois-Indiana made with the state violates the First Amendment altogether and is unconstitutional. This case has the potential to kill unions altogether, if the court rules in favor of Pamela Harris. And it will most likely overturn the L] decision of 1977.

So, what say you?

I'm not sure if the SUpreme Court wants to potentially invalidate every union contract every state has with its state workers. that would be too far of a leap.

 

[rightwinger]

5-4 against Hobby Lobby with Roberts the deciding vote

How do corporations have religion? Corporations are formed to create legal protection for the owner. Now, how does a corporation have the religion of the owner?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Either way, we will get to see how emotional our USMB nutters are. There will be no poise.

 

[JoeB131]

5-4 against Hobby Lobby with Roberts the deciding vote

How do corporations have religion? Corporations are formed to create legal protection for the owner. Now, how does a corporation have the religion of the owner?

Exactly the point.

We don't send the CEO of companies to prison for what their companies do, because of the said protection of Corporate Law.

The Hobby Lobby case would throw all that out the window.

 

[Freewill]

In the waning hours before the Supreme Court is set to rule on the Hobby Lobby case, and Obamacare's abortion mandate, what do you predict they will rule? Me? Well, I think they will rule against Hobby Lobby, and I would love to be wrong. I predict a 5-4 ruling against Hobby Lobby. Not because I want them to, but because I have a bad feeling about this entire case. Though, the oral arguments did sound promising, that didn't mean much when they upheld Obamacare. But let me repeat, I WANT to be wrong.

My thoughts at is that after their last ruling that the SCOTUS will throw the other side a small bone. They will narrowly rule that companies that are largely run by the owners, as are both plaintiffs, can invoke their right to freedom of religion and not pay for birth control Which will effect a lot of women but not nearly what it could. Of course most companies would much rather pay for birth control and abortions then pay the huge cost of actually having a baby. If they rule this way I am seeing maybe 7-2.

As for the Harris v. Quinn case, I predict a 5-4 ruling in favor of the plaintiff. I believe that just because a certain field in the public sector is unionized, it doesn't mean that you can force someone who has a profession in said field to associate with you and make them pay dues. That's where government is wrong. I can understand the First Amendment argument here. She has a right to not associate with public sector unions in the state of Illinois. Moreover, I think the contract that the SEIU Healthcare Illinois-Indiana made with the state violates the First Amendment altogether and is unconstitutional. This case has the potential to kill unions altogether, if the court rules in favor of Pamela Harris. And it will most likely overturn the Abood v. Detroit Board of Education decision of 1977.

So, what say you?

Not real familiar with the second case but it sounds as if someone is suing because they are forced to pay dues while working in a union shop. What I think they will rule is she doesn't have to pay dues for the Unions involvement in political action groups. Whether a state is an open or closed place of work is up to the state's to decide. The federal government, post office, is an open shop. What that means is that the Union still decides the contract and all the employees live under that contract and the Union represents all those working there but not everyone belongs to the union. In that case the person does not pay any dues. Not sure of the quality of their representation.

Assuming I am right about this, and sorry not interested enough to read up on it, I am thinking if they rule that the right to unionize is well established and the states set the rules for whether open or closed then there really isn't anything for the SCOTUS states to decide. 7-2. The person always has the freedom to work elsewhere.

 

[Freewill]

5-4 against Hobby Lobby with Roberts the deciding vote

How do corporations have religion? Corporations are formed to create legal protection for the owner. Now, how does a corporation have the religion of the owner?

The question may become, if a person is forced to pay for abortion and birth control. Which could have far reaching implication if the SCOTUS rules no. What about those who buy into Obamacare? But let's say they rule just on if a company has to supply birth control to its employees. What if there was a small company run by Muslims. Say an owner and two employees, would the owner be required to supply BC and Abortion against their strongly held religious beliefs? That, simply, is what the SCOTUS is going to decide.

 

[JoeB131]

5-4 against Hobby Lobby with Roberts the deciding vote

How do corporations have religion? Corporations are formed to create legal protection for the owner. Now, how does a corporation have the religion of the owner?

The question may become, if a person is forced to pay for abortion and birth control. Which could have far reaching implication if the SCOTUS rules no. What about those who buy into Obamacare? But let's say they rule just on if a company has to supply birth control to its employees. What if there was a small company run by Muslims. Say an owner and two employees, would the owner be required to supply BC and Abortion against their strongly held religious beliefs? That, simply, is what the SCOTUS is going to decide.

Which is why they will decide against Hobby Lobby.

If health care is part of your compensation package, it's considered payment.

a person is not forced to pay for health care, a company is. While the GOP is in love with this idea of Corporate personhood, it really has some very problematic legal implications.

Can a stockholder be jailed for his company's toxic waste dumping?

 

[Newby]

5-4 against Hobby Lobby with Roberts the deciding vote

How do corporations have religion? Corporations are formed to create legal protection for the owner. Now, how does a corporation have the religion of the owner?

You answered your own stupid question.

 

[Freewill]

5-4 against Hobby Lobby with Roberts the deciding vote

How do corporations have religion? Corporations are formed to create legal protection for the owner. Now, how does a corporation have the religion of the owner?

The question may become, if a person is forced to pay for abortion and birth control. Which could have far reaching implication if the SCOTUS rules no. What about those who buy into Obamacare? But let's say they rule just on if a company has to supply birth control to its employees. What if there was a small company run by Muslims. Say an owner and two employees, would the owner be required to supply BC and Abortion against their strongly held religious beliefs? That, simply, is what the SCOTUS is going to decide.

Which is why they will decide against Hobby Lobby.

If health care is part of your compensation package, it's considered payment.

a person is not forced to pay for health care, a company is. While the GOP is in love with this idea of Corporate personhood, it really has some very problematic legal implications.

Can a stockholder be jailed for his company's toxic waste dumping?

Ah forced, always the key word with liberal mandates. It seems to me that HL is pretty serious about this subject, enough so to go to the SCOTUS. So one would think that it is a pretty strongly held belief of the company owners and the owners do run the company. What they did in the past in not really relevant. First I don't know if they did pay for abortion and BC that is just what the left is saying. But if they did it might have just been because they just never thought about it before. Passage of Obamacare and the FORCING them to now buy coverage that the government is FORCING them to accept brought the subject to a head.

 

[rightwinger]

5-4 against Hobby Lobby with Roberts the deciding vote

How do corporations have religion? Corporations are formed to create legal protection for the owner. Now, how does a corporation have the religion of the owner?

The question may become, if a person is forced to pay for abortion and birth control. Which could have far reaching implication if the SCOTUS rules no. What about those who buy into Obamacare? But let's say they rule just on if a company has to supply birth control to its employees. What if there was a small company run by Muslims. Say an owner and two employees, would the owner be required to supply BC and Abortion against their strongly held religious beliefs? That, simply, is what the SCOTUS is going to decide.

You are either a corporation or you are not

If you want to run your business as a family business, then do so

But if you choose to incorporate to provide your family legal protections from the decisions that you make then you can't claim that the corporation has the ethical and religious values of the family

You can't hide behind a corporation when it hurts you and claim individual rights when it helps you

 

[Freewill]

5-4 against Hobby Lobby with Roberts the deciding vote

How do corporations have religion? Corporations are formed to create legal protection for the owner. Now, how does a corporation have the religion of the owner?

Exactly the point.

We don't send the CEO of companies to prison for what their companies do, because of the said protection of Corporate Law.

The Hobby Lobby case would throw all that out the window.

Bernie Madoff would be very interested in knowing about how CEOs don't go to jail.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Ah forced, always the key word with liberal mandates. It seems to me that HL is pretty serious about this subject, enough so to go to the SCOTUS. So one would think that it is a pretty strongly held belief of the company owners and the owners do run the company. What they did in the past in not really relevant. First I don't know if they did pay for abortion and BC that is just what the left is saying. But if they did it might have just been because they just never thought about it before. Passage of Obamacare and the FORCING them to now buy coverage that the government is FORCING them to accept brought the subject to a head.

If Hobby Lobby were that serious about Abortion being evil, they'd stop buying shit from China, where Abortions are coerced under the ONe Child Policy.

They don't give a fuck about principle.

 

[rightwinger]

[

Ah forced, always the key word with liberal mandates. It seems to me that HL is pretty serious about this subject, enough so to go to the SCOTUS. So one would think that it is a pretty strongly held belief of the company owners and the owners do run the company. What they did in the past in not really relevant. First I don't know if they did pay for abortion and BC that is just what the left is saying. But if they did it might have just been because they just never thought about it before. Passage of Obamacare and the FORCING them to now buy coverage that the government is FORCING them to accept brought the subject to a head.

If Hobby Lobby were that serious about Abortion being evil, they'd stop buying shit from China, where Abortions are coerced under the ONe Child Policy.

They don't give a fuck about principle.

They want to force their values on their employees not their suppliers

Legally, they can buy their products from anyone they want, for any reason they want. But low price seems to be the determining condition

 

[Freewill]

[

Ah forced, always the key word with liberal mandates. It seems to me that HL is pretty serious about this subject, enough so to go to the SCOTUS. So one would think that it is a pretty strongly held belief of the company owners and the owners do run the company. What they did in the past in not really relevant. First I don't know if they did pay for abortion and BC that is just what the left is saying. But if they did it might have just been because they just never thought about it before. Passage of Obamacare and the FORCING them to now buy coverage that the government is FORCING them to accept brought the subject to a head.

If Hobby Lobby were that serious about Abortion being evil, they'd stop buying shit from China, where Abortions are coerced under the ONe Child Policy.

They don't give a fuck about principle.

Why stop at China? Wouldn't HL have to cloister themselves on a Mountain top and do no business with anyone? After all most companies are not going to make this stand. Most would rather pay for abortion and BC instead of the much more expensive delivery of a newborn. Why is it that the liberal left is so all or nothing? If HL is allowed to not provide abortion or BC, so what? People just don't work for the company. People don't frequent that company that is all that needs done. What we don't need is the government FORCING anything, especially you being forced to accept that gay marriage is not a right, or anything else you strongly oppose.

 

[Freewill]

[

Ah forced, always the key word with liberal mandates. It seems to me that HL is pretty serious about this subject, enough so to go to the SCOTUS. So one would think that it is a pretty strongly held belief of the company owners and the owners do run the company. What they did in the past in not really relevant. First I don't know if they did pay for abortion and BC that is just what the left is saying. But if they did it might have just been because they just never thought about it before. Passage of Obamacare and the FORCING them to now buy coverage that the government is FORCING them to accept brought the subject to a head.

If Hobby Lobby were that serious about Abortion being evil, they'd stop buying shit from China, where Abortions are coerced under the ONe Child Policy.

They don't give a fuck about principle.

They want to force their values on their employees not their suppliers

Legally, they can buy their products from anyone they want, for any reason they want. But low price seems to be the determining condition

NO, they are not forcing anything onto anyone. People are free to leave and work elsewhere. What if it was found out that the company's CEO was a pedophile and that he was forcing every employee to join him for a video session. Regardless of the legality of doing that what should be the response of the workers? That's right walk out.

Maybe you don't work in a corporate setting but guess what, the values of the company are forced upon their employees every single day.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I think it will 5-4 for Hobby Lobby.

Quinn: I have no issue with either way.

 

[JFK_USA]

I bet they rule in favor of Hobby Lobby. The drugs in question are only necessary when people are completely irresponsible. And people should have to pay out of pocket for those drugs because the government shouldn't cover avoidable stupidity.

And we have a right to be "completely irresponsible" if we want to. It's that pesky freedom thing.

 

[Freewill]

5-4 against Hobby Lobby with Roberts the deciding vote

How do corporations have religion? Corporations are formed to create legal protection for the owner. Now, how does a corporation have the religion of the owner?

The question may become, if a person is forced to pay for abortion and birth control. Which could have far reaching implication if the SCOTUS rules no. What about those who buy into Obamacare? But let's say they rule just on if a company has to supply birth control to its employees. What if there was a small company run by Muslims. Say an owner and two employees, would the owner be required to supply BC and Abortion against their strongly held religious beliefs? That, simply, is what the SCOTUS is going to decide.

You are either a corporation or you are not

If you want to run your business as a family business, then do so

But if you choose to incorporate to provide your family legal protections from the decisions that you make then you can't claim that the corporation has the ethical and religious values of the family

You can't hide behind a corporation when it hurts you and claim individual rights when it helps you

HL is run by a family unlike most corporations. HL is not doing anything illegal nor underhanded, your implication is absurd.

 

[Freewill]

I bet they rule in favor of Hobby Lobby. The drugs in question are only necessary when people are completely irresponsible. And people should have to pay out of pocket for those drugs because the government shouldn't cover avoidable stupidity.

And we have a right to be "completely irresponsible" if we want to. It's that pesky freedom thing.

No you don't. You do not have the right to start shooting in a movie theater. You don't have the right to drive a POS car. You don't have the right to speed down the road. YOU are expected to NOT act irresponsible, where in the hell do you get your ideas?

 

[jillian]

I bet they rule in favor of Hobby Lobby. The drugs in question are only necessary when people are completely irresponsible. And people should have to pay out of pocket for those drugs because the government shouldn't cover avoidable stupidity.

When the court finds a law unconstitutional it is not "rewriting" the law, it is applying constitutional principles TO the law.