• 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

jhmd must have really enjoyed his vacation. This thread has already moved past his arguments to what the Court did after the decision.

Do tell. "The Court" has already acted, citing its own precedent? In a week?
 
"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. "

Because the first was ruled to be a tax and the second exempts religious groups from providing aspects of said tax with a nebulous distinction between closely-held corporations and other corporations that may or may not be upheld in the future?
 
tumblr_lo6smqL4st1qakh43o1_500.gif
 
"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. "

Because the first was ruled to be a tax and the second exempts religious groups from providing aspects of said tax with a nebulous distinction between closely-held corporations and other corporations that may or may not be upheld in the future?

So if we colored an intrusion onto a Constitutionally-protected liberty (free exercise) as the tax that we insisted it wasn't on the campaign trail, suddenly we just paint over the Constitutional protections? Statutes now trump the Constitution? Scissors now beat rocks? Why don't I think that you would be comfortable with that ad hoc outcome in virtually any other context?
 
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.

If we had a Constitutional protection for your retail job, your point would be hard to counter. We don't.

We do have Constitutional protections for free exercise.
 
If we had a Constitutional protection for your retail job, your point would be hard to counter. We don't.

We do have Constitutional protections for free exercise.

I didn't say it trumped it, I said that it's a ridiculous argument to act like there are always jobs out there for everybody who wants one.
 
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?

You take compliments and winning very poorly.
 
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.

involuntary celibacy doesn't cost anything
 
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.

Preach on brother. I often think of birth control when I look at my neighbors deck and call a surveyor...I mean if pregnancy isn't minor and resolvable what is? Amirite HAHA!!!
 
I didn't say it trumped it, I said that it's a ridiculous argument to act like there are always jobs out there for everybody who wants one.

Employment security seems like an odd responsibility to put on the judicial system.
 
Could Hobby Lobby fire someone for not being a Christian? Apparently they can force people to participate in company religious activities.

Let's say an employee defined their beliefs as "atheist" on Facebook. Could Hobby Lobby fire them for that based on the grounds that employing an atheist goes against their religious beliefs?
 
Could Hobby Lobby fire someone for not being a Christian? Apparently they can force people to participate in company religious activities.

Let's say an employee defined their beliefs as "atheist" on Facebook. Could Hobby Lobby fire them for that based on the grounds that employing an atheist goes against their religious beliefs?

No. Discrimination of the type described in your hypo, especially in hiring practices, is clearly illegal. That's not the same thing as refusing to pay for someone else's preferred method of birth control, especially when doing so would be against a sincerely held religious belief and when they are willing to pay for equally effective methods that are not in violation of those same beliefs. Courts balance equities all the time. It's hard to ignore the wide variety of substitute means available in the HL case.
 
No. Discrimination of the type described in your hypo, especially in hiring practices, is clearly illegal. That's not the same thing as refusing to pay for someone else's preferred method of birth control, especially when doing so would be against a sincerely held religious belief and when they are willing to pay for equally effective methods that are not in violation of those same beliefs. Courts balance equities all the time. It's hard to ignore the wide variety of substitute means available in the HL case.

So how is that not employment security?
 
So how is that not employment security?

The Court can prevent unlawful discrimination by enforcing discrimination claims under applicable law. That is meaningfully different than negotiating contractual terms of employment, especially when the employer is willing, able and ready to accommodate the employee's needs.

Do you guys really care about the federal government intervening in private health care choices? When did you grow a boundary on that issue? If so, you are four years late to the party.
 
This is about private business intervening in public health.
 
This is about private business intervening in public health.

How, exactly? By resisting being forced to pay for procedures they find repugnant, immoral and in violation of the free exercise of their religion? How is Hobby Lobby prohibiting its employees from finding these methods on the open market?

eta: I'm not immune to the argument that the employees have a right to contraception, and the evidence is neither is Hobby Lobby. They remain willing to pay for over a dozen different alternative methods. My employer, for instance, provides me with choices on my health care plan, and there are aspects of my health care they do not cover (maybe I should decry the fake war on redheads...). I'm also free to buy those optional coverages on the open market. Is there any evidence that HL does not sincerely believe these methods are against their faith? IMHO, they lose this case if they aren't willing to provide choices about substitute methods. The evidence is overwhelming that they are.

Their belief in the opposition to these methods is sincerely held (both subjectively and objectively), and if history is indication, far more sincerely held than the critics of the HL opinion's newfound belief in private health care choices (which have shifted rather dramatically since the passage of ACA).

eta #2: Just this week Target announced its policy to respectfully request that its customers not bring firearms into their facility. Even though that policy does not stem from a sincerely held religious belief, it seems to me that they share Hobby Lobby's discretion to exercise business judgment in a way that they feel is best. When they err, the market will take notice.
 
Last edited:
No, it isn't. It is basic contract law. Not that I blame you for looking places other than this Executive branch for job creation.

Basic contract law? Yeah, it was accepted after the Wood treatise (or at least around the period, embodied by the Wood treatise) proposed that it was already accepted by the courts. Decisions after that cited the piece. Don't act as if this never came up in the context of the judicial branch creating it in part.
 
Back
Top