• 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

Wakeforest22890 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, we have courts. No, they don't make laws. They interpret the laws.
 
DeacMan said:
LOL. If this was about "public health" the government would pay for this directly.
Click to expand...

That has always been step #2 after this designed fail plays itself out. This is too poorly thought out to have been a serious attempt.
 
jhmd2000 said:
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.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? And are you Ted Olsen or something?
 
At the core of the idiocy of corporations being people is the question, "Why isn't the corporations itself, the senior management and chief engineers from GM for multiple counts of depraved indifference murder over the deaths they knew would occur due to the ignition problem?"

A corporation can't be a person for some things and not for others. If they can commit manslaughter or murder and not go to jail or lose their rights to be a corporations, how can they be "people"?
 
Only about closely held corporations, eh:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/03/politics/obamacare-contraception-college/

"he court decision staying enforcement in the Wheaton case only gives the school a pass until the matter is decided by lower courts.
Still, it represents an important victory for those objecting to the socially-charged requirement and follows a similar high court ruling last year for a religious charity, the Little Sisters of the Poor.
The mandate stemmed from a compromise between the Obama administration and religous-based non-profits like hospitals and faith-based universities that oppose birth control.
It would make contraceptives available under the Affordable Care Act with no co-pay but give those entities a work-around through health plans written by third parties.
Three justices sharply dissented from Thursday's decision, including Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan.
"It is not the business of this court to ensnare itself in the government's ministerial handling of its affairs in the manner it does here," Sotomayor said."
 
PhDeac said:
This is about private business intervening in public health.
Click to expand...

I would agree with you if there weren't equally viable bc alternatives available and covered. Just because they are ignorant about what various contraception methods actually do doesn't mean they are compromising the public health in any way. I'm far more scared of the anti vaccine idiots than these bible thumpers.
 
You're thinking about just this case not the broader implications like with vaccines. What happens when a Christian run business says they don't want family plans to include vaccines?
 
PhDeac said:
You're thinking about just this case not the broader implications like with vaccines. What happens when a Christian run business says they don't want family plans to include vaccines?
Click to expand...

I'll take the precedent set by blessing the peccadillos of a closely held business preferences as to the style of birth control methods they choose to fund over the precedent of say, the individual mandate. One is a paradigm shift, the other is a benign annoyance at best.
 
A couple of questions:

What do you think the SCOTUS will do when a closely held company with Muslim owners ask for an exemption?

Now that the corporate veil has been pierced re: religion, why can't it be pierced for civil suits or other lawsuits?
 
What lawsuits or civil rights issues do you have in mind that people generally would use religious beliefs as a veil?
 
Do you understand what the corporate veil is?

If a corporation can be a person for religious matters, why can't they be a person for other matters?

What do you think those who support the HL decision will say about a Muslim company getting the same break? Or a Wiccan?
 
No offense, RJ, but there's a whole bunch of people on here that understand the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil pretty darn well. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the Hobby Lobby case.
 
Deacon923 said:
No offense, RJ, but there's a whole bunch of people on here that understand the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil pretty darn well. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the Hobby Lobby case.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe some offense.
 
Deacon923 said:
No offense, RJ, but there's a whole bunch of people on here that understand the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil pretty darn well. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the Hobby Lobby case.
Click to expand...

923, I've seen several people say things like this one:

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com...-things-both-ways/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

"Burt Neuborne of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School, a co-author of one of the amicus briefs filed in support of the government’s contraception mandate, foresees possible consequences to this “piercing of the corporate veil” that recall an old adage: Be careful what you wish for.

If owners indicate that they are not entirely separate from their corporation — by denying corporation employees’ birth control coverage based on their personal religious beliefs — the case could be made in future state-court litigation that they have waived their right to be shielded from responsibility for corporate financial liabilities."

It's not that RJ is saying this. All I'm doing is reporting what several others have said could happen.

Your beef isn't with RJ. It's with the guy from the Brennan Center and others.
 
Fine. I don't think Neuborne knows what he's talking about. There is no chance that the owners of a company like hobby lobby would be held personally liable for the obligations of their corporation merely because of these contraception decisions. That is like saying that because the owners of Ben & Jerry's, before they sold out, decided to run their business based on their personal environmental and social justice ethics, should be held liable for their company's debts.

Piercing the corporate veil varies by state, but generally requires a finding that the corporation itself was a sham and an alter ego of its owner (a finding that generally requires commingling of the corporation's assets with the owners), and generally also requires the further finding that the corporation was intentionally used as an instrument to perpetrate a fraud or other bad act. It's really, really hard to do, and I find the idea that the owner's beliefs on contraception (which have been blessed by SCOTUS itself) are going to even be considered seriously in the analysis.
 
I understand what you're talking about RJ I'm legitimately curious what types of lawsuits are going to have the corporate veil pierced from this case?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top