• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

Junebug said:
This is a gross mischaracterization of the argument. The argument is that by signing the form they are, by law, authorizing their TPA to provide something they have a religious objection to. You may disagree that that's protected by RFRA, but don't make the argument out to be something it isn't.

And where are you getting this idea that nonprofits won't have any obligation to self identify? Even if the SCOTUS sides with them, it could very easily require them to self identify through another method.

At this point, this is a lot of hyperventilating over very little. Breyer didn't even join Sotomayor's dissent.
Click to expand...

They order requires them to self-identify to the HHS. But that would leave the government to identify their TPA and notify them which is a cumbersome expansion of the administrative process and may not even be feasible.

And I think the hypothetical from the Seventh Circuit illustrates why the idea that they are authorizing the TPA is not correct. The law is what requires the TPA to provide coverage, regardless of the form. But even if you think that point is debatable, I can't see how it is considered a clear enough legal issue to justify the Supreme Court granting an injunction that has been withheld by the lower courts
 
Last edited:
"The high court ruling in the Wheaton appeal said those who object only have to inform the government "in writing that it is a nonprofit organization that holds itself out as religious and has religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services," rather than sign government form."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/04/politics/supreme-court-women/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

IRS scandal about the targeting of non-profit organizations with religious objections is a certainty.
 
And will be another fruitless withhunt by Joe McCarthy. Jr., Issa.
 
Just to make sure I've got the outrage correctly, you guys are mad that Hobby Lobby's refusal to pay for some types of birth control that they find objectionable to their sincerely held beliefs is too intrusive into the lives of their at-will employees, who are nonetheless able to a) choose from the 16 remaining types of birth control they will pay for, b) to purchase their preferred methods on the open market, or c) find an employer that will pay for their preferred methods, right?

The regulation of certain types of medicine within a certain type of care is too intrusive, is that it? What are we talking about, $16.00 a month out of pocket?

But the individual mandate (regulation of all types of care all of the time, imposing several dozen orders of magnitude in out of pocket expenses in an involuntary arrangement) isn't an issue, and people should just quietly take direction from The State about all of their health care? Are we only upset when we enter voluntary contracts about how health care, but if the government intrudes into our health care imposing ten times the burden in an involuntary arrangement, suddenly we all put down our "My Body, My Choice, Your Invoice" protest signs and just take our proverbial medicine?
 
Last edited:
Seems like most of the "outrage" about what this decision could mean to future challenges, rather than the specifics of this case.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Just to make sure I've got the outrage correctly, you guys are mad that Hobby Lobby's refusal to pay for some types of birth control that they find objectionable to their sincerely held beliefs is too intrusive into the lives of their at-will employees, who are nonetheless able to a) choose from the 16 remaining types of birth control they will pay for, b) to purchase their preferred methods on the open market, or c) find an employer that will pay for their preferred methods, right?

The regulation of certain types of medicine within a certain type of care is too intrusive, is that it? What are we talking about, $16.00 a month out of pocket?

But the individual mandate (regulation of all types of care all of the time, imposing several dozen orders of magnitude in out of pocket expenses in an involuntary arrangement) isn't an issue, and people should just quietly take direction from The State about all of their health care? Are we only upset when we enter voluntary contracts about how health care, but if the government intrudes into our health care imposing ten times the burden in an involuntary arrangement, suddenly we all put down our "My Body, My Choice, Your Invoice" protest signs and just take our proverbial medicine?
Click to expand...

Nailed it! It's really simple when you think about it.
 
DeacinBama said:
Seems like most of the "outrage" about what this decision could mean to future challenges, rather than the specifics of this case.
Click to expand...

Yes. Let's all get and stay mad about imaginary events.
 
ONW said:
Nailed it! It's really simple when you think about it.
Click to expand...

Not much of a denial on your part. Would you like a do-over that ends in a substantive distinction this time? Why is paving over all health care choices cool but entering voluntary contracts about a subset of a subset the end of days?
 
DistrictDeacon said:
Is getting mad about them better or worse then basing you entire belief system around them?
Click to expand...

I suppose it depends on your belief system, doesn't it?

If you think the world should operate on the premise that women shouldn't read, drive or appear in public unaccompanied (the actual War on Women) because a crazy man might have said so thousands of years ago, that's a bad thing.

If you believe that you have a spiritual duty to go to India and heal the sick and hungry, I'm cool with that.
 
DeacinBama said:
Definitely nothing to see here. SCOTUS jurisprudence has no use for precedent.
Click to expand...

You guys who are both untrained and new to Constitutional law interpretation might want to take note that the RFRA isn't exactly a new statute: Bill Clinton signed it into law. But again, please apply it to the facts as they exist: someone distinguish why the individual mandate is not an intrusion, but the Hobby Lobby decision is the end of the world. This should be an easy distinction if you think I am incorrect. Let's hear it, doctors.
 
Let's try to stay on your earlier point, to wit, these "imaginary" events. Are you contending that the HL decision is sui generis and will have no impact on future court decisions, even at lower levels?
 
DeacinBama said:
Let's try to stay on your earlier point, to wit, these "imaginary" events. Are you contending that the HL decision is sui generis and will have no impact on future court decisions, even at lower levels?
Click to expand...

I'm not scared by the blossoming power of the day manager at a store full of plastic trains in a strip mall. If I can't convince him to pay for my preferred method of birth control, I have tons and tons of options. If I can't convince other people to pay for my stuff for free, I can always buy it.

My options are a lot less vast when the IRS orders me to spend 10x that amount because they think it is best. If I liked my old health insurance policy, I am no longer allowed to buy it, oft-repeated warranties to the contrary notwithstanding.
 
So, help me out. Was that a yes or no? I'm really not in a castle-storming mood this morning.
 
jhmd must have really enjoyed his vacation. This thread has already moved past his arguments to what the Court did after the decision.
 
I was under the impression that as a general employee at a Hobby Lobby store that you might not necessarily have jobs lining up to take you when you exercise your overwhelming power of leverage that the average employee is able to generate in the at-will employment model.
 
DeacinBama said:
So, help me out. Was that a yes or no? I'm really not in a castle-storming mood this morning.
Click to expand...

It is fairly simple: if you are concerned about intrusions into health care choices and Supreme Court precedent (and I see no evidence you actually are), I would prioritize them in order of their severity.

Getting upset about HL but not about the individual mandate requires toggling one's outrage past the breaking point of credibility. By analogy, Hobby Lobby refusing to pay for the full menu of your a la carte birth control options is your neighbor expanding his deck by 20 inches over the property line (it's minor and resolvable). The individual mandate is the city claiming your lot by eminent domain and forcibly re-locating you. Big to small, people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top