Hobby Lobby or How I Chose God Over Country

[guido911]

I seriously suggest folks watch and listen to Laurence Tribe in the video clip at the bottom of this blog post. He is NO right winger.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/30/video-lefty-law-prof-tired-of-msnbc-mindlessly-bashing-the-roberts-court-as-pro-corporation/

[guido911]

You gave me nothing to think about Guido.  

I was attempting to point out the hypocrisy of complaining about an "activist" judiciary when you don't like what they do, but saying nothing when there is truly activist rulings. Activist define as changing things that have always been - and analyzing the logic underpinning that decision.  So you linked me to a thread whereby I state the same thing?  Kudos!

Here's the deal:  Hobby Lobby has never gone to church.  It has never been baptized.  It doesn't fight with temptation.  It not only has no belief in God, it has no beliefs at all.  Its entire purpose for existing is to make money while shielding its owners from liability.  It is legally a separate and distinct entity from its owners - THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT OF A CORPORATION.  I utterly do not understand the logic behind the ruling and I have not heard anything that sounds logical about it.

Don't celebrate too much Guido.  This ruling does NOT say that liberal Christian views rule (Catholics are relatively liberal Christians), it says corporations can have religious beliefs.  Muslims, Fundamentalists, whomever get the same rights to force their religious beliefs through their corporations.


Conan:

Corporations are now for-profit enterprises that can not die, can not be imprisoned, can spend infinite to influence politics and can adopt "religious beliefs" such that they can ignore whatever Federal laws they want.   I hereby declare myself a pacifist and wish to NOT pay the portion of income taxes that goes to the military, spying, or the police state? Cool?

Hey GM... I hear you admit to negligently killing at least 13 people and hiding it for ten years - I assume you will be going to jail for the rest of your life?  Come on... Corporations are people too!  

Again, I need to review the the opinion itself to see what the logic is and what the actual impact will be.  I will withhold further comment until I have read the opinion.

You need to read the opinion as you are plainly guessing as to what was written.  You also need to listen to the Tribe video I posted above.

[cannon_fodder]

You are right, as stated repeatedly I need to read the opinion to speak intelligently.  I will try to post a summary of the issues tomorrow.

I tried to watch the video.  While waiting for the advertisement it occurred to me that the source is "hot air" and the video is entitled something about "lefty professor" and relates to an ancillary topic about the Court not being pro-corporation.  Thus, I respectfully decline.   Incidentally, every decision from this Court is pro-corporations  (from control of the government, to religious rights, to union busting)... mindless or not may be debated.  I am not interested in the deviation at this time nor do I wish to review mass opinions on the topic.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I seriously suggest folks watch and listen to Laurence Tribe in the video clip at the bottom of this blog post. He is NO right winger.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/30/video-lefty-law-prof-tired-of-msnbc-mindlessly-bashing-the-roberts-court-as-pro-corporation/

SCOTUS has been wrong many times - and they are continuing the wrong now.  Has nothing to do with right or left - it has to do with defining a corporation - a creation by statute of the state - as a human being (one of "the people" talked about so much in the Constitution). 

How about YOUR personal opinion.... do you believe a corporation is a "person" ??

Simple, straight up, yes or no question counselor...  Yes, or no??

[guido911]

You are right, as stated repeatedly I need to read the opinion to speak intelligently.  I will try to post a summary of the issues tomorrow.

I tried to watch the video.  While waiting for the advertisement it occurred to me that the source is "hot air" and the video is entitled something about "lefty professor" and relates to an ancillary topic about the Court not being pro-corporation.  Thus, I respectfully decline.   Incidentally, every decision from this Court is pro-corporations  (from control of the government, to religious rights, to union busting)... mindless or not may be debated.  I am not interested in the deviation at this time nor do I wish to review mass opinions on the topic.

That's why I said to watch the video. It's between an MSNBC talking head and Tribe--Law Prof, Bush v. Gore, etc. The point of the blog post I guess was to note how even lefties are sick of framing the Roberts Court as mere corporatists. Truth is, I didn't read the blog anyway. It was written by Allahpundit, who is more of a moderate to right blogger as opposed to a winger.

[Ed W]

So does this mean that a Muslim business owner is now free to forbid lunch breaks and coffee breaks, and turn off the soda machine and the water fountain during Ramadan?

[sgrizzle]

So does this mean that a Muslim business owner is now free to forbid lunch breaks and coffee breaks, and turn off the soda machine and the water fountain during Ramadan?

No

[TheArtist]

  I don't find this ruling as troubling as some seem to.  As someone who has a corporation, I can see that you can instill your corporation with a sense of it having qualities of a person.  You create an image of it, a "personality" it's beliefs and aspirations, a set of "we will do this and behave in this way towards others"  "we aim to have this or that impact on society, our city, our customers, our friends, etc." etc. etc.  I also see our country as a tapestry or "stew" of different cultures, religions, beliefs etc. and I find it interesting and informative to see and experience those differences.  

I assume there are differences set out in law between what a "corporate/person" and a "human being/person" is though I do not know what those differences are.

Also would be interested to know what the differences are between the rights of a "person" in the US and a "Citizen" of the US.  I suppose that all citizens are persons, but not all persons are citizens?  Thus for example just because you're a person in the US does not mean you can vote, for you must be a person and citizen to do so.   Then it must also be that just because a corporation can be considered a "person" in the US again within some limited definition, that corporation does not have the same rights as a citizen of the US?  

[BKDotCom]

I can see that you can instill your corporation with a sense of it having qualities of a person.  You create an image of it, a "personality" it's beliefs and aspirations, a set of "we will do this and behave in this way towards others"

Imaginary friends don't have rights.  

[BKDotCom]

If a corporation goes bankrupt, is that murder?

[guido911]

So does this mean that a Muslim business owner is now free to forbid lunch breaks and coffee breaks, and turn off the soda machine and the water fountain during Ramadan?

That's exactly what the Supreme Court was saying in the Hobby Lobby case...

[guido911]

 I don't find this ruling as troubling as some seem to.  As someone who has a corporation, I can see that you can instill your corporation with a sense of it having qualities of a person.  You create an image of it, a "personality" it's beliefs and aspirations, a set of "we will do this and behave in this way towards others"  "we aim to have this or that impact on society, our city, our customers, our friends, etc." etc. etc.  I also see our country as a tapestry or "stew" of different cultures, religions, beliefs etc. and I find it interesting and informative to see and experience those differences.  

I assume there are differences set out in law between what a "corporate/person" and a "human being/person" is though I do not know what those differences are.

Also would be interested to know what the differences are between the rights of a "person" in the US and a "Citizen" of the US.  I suppose that all citizens are persons, but not all persons are citizens?  Thus for example just because you're a person in the US does not mean you can vote, for you must be a person and citizen to do so.   Then it must also be that just because a corporation can be considered a "person" in the US again within some limited definition, that corporation does not have the same rights as a citizen of the US?  

If you are interested, here is a link to a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on the subject of corporate personhood and citizenship that I think is easy to read and enlightening. It's an 125 year old decision, but you would never know from reading it.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/125/181/case.html

[TheArtist]

Imaginary friends don't have rights.  

Corporations aren't imaginary, they exist and were given rights, despite what any of us think about that matter.

[TheArtist]

If you are interested, here is a link to a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on the subject of corporate personhood and citizenship that I think is easy to read and enlightening. It's an 125 year old decision, but you would never know from reading it.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/125/181/case.html

It appears to me that what might have helped was a new "term" that could be used instead of "person".  Person in this legal context may mean one thing, but in our common everyday use mean another and what is confusing is that both definitions/meanings have overlapping "meanings" in this legal context.  For example the decision mentions that corporations have the same legal right to "hire", as a person could, they have the right to rent an office in another state, make contracts, as you or I could, etc.  The word "person" was used in this legal context of rights to mean certain things in the context of commerce and as given in previous declarations, but we in our everyday usage of the word person understandably find it difficult to then discern where to draw the line, especially when so many of the rights and actions of both understandings overlap.

Perhaps an amendment to the constitution might have been added which elucidated a new set of rights solely for corporations, using a different term than "person".  But, it was a simple matter to step back in a strictly logical fashion and see that ok, "persons" have these rights to do this and that and then see that a corporation should have those particular rights as well, but most people aren't strictly logical and giving corporations the term "person" would understandably lead to "rights-creep" and a muddling confusion over time as different laws are made in the future pertaining to "corporation, artificial persons" and "human, natural persons".

It is interesting to note as I suspected that "citizens" and "persons" have a different set of elucidated rights under the constitution.  


(...that in this particular it was in conflict with the clause of the Constitution mentioned, that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. But the Court answered that corporations are not citizens within the meaning of the clause; that the term "citizens," as used in the clause, applies only to natural persons, members of the body politic owing allegiance to the state, not to artificial persons created by the legislature, and possessing only such attributes as the legislature has prescribed;
[/color]  

That line in red seems to be key in this discussion.

(Under the designation of "person" there is no doubt that a private corporation is included. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution. As said by Chief Justice Marshall: "The great object of a corporation is to bestow the character and properties of individuality on a collective and changing body of men.")[/i]

This and other comments makes it appear to me that citizens and persons are treated differently, that "citizens" have a greater set of rights, under the constitution, above those of mere "persons", or in this instance "artificial persons".  And conversely this subset of "persons" can have all manner of legal restrictions placed upon them that you could not place on a "natural person" or a "citizen".

[heironymouspasparagus]

Corporations aren't imaginary, they exist and were given rights, despite what any of us think about that matter.

By statute, they were given one set of privileges - by reactionary, activist judiciary, they have been granted Life status!  So, it really does mean that SCOTUS not only feels itself the arbiter of all law (which they ARE under the Constitution) but also are God-like enough to grant life to inanimate tools created - supposedly - for the advancement of society and the common good!

IF there was to be no benefit to the common good, then why create the construct??   Again - goes to rich people getting their servants (Congress) to write laws for them....as always.

This is one of those classic, "founders spinning in their graves" moments....