Constitution Free Zone

Page 2 of 2  
wrote:

That's your opinion, unsubstantiated by any facts you've presented so far. As far as I am concerned, it's exactly what they ruled.

Which totally ignores the rights of the people, besides the owners, who comprise that company. Alito in his opinion, said "When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people." So it clearly seems some "right" was extended to "some" corporation, albeit allegedly to trickle down to the people that own it.
This is like the Gay Cake matter in some ways: they want the advantages the law grants but not any disadvantages. They incorporated, I assume, for the reason most people do. To use the corporation at least in part as a shield for personal liability. Now they want to confer personal religious feelings to that corporate veil that protects them from personal liability? Sounds pretty damn hypocritical to me.
If they want to enjoy religious protections that individuals do they can form a directly owned business, not a corporate entity. They have a choice. But like the bakers, they want their cake and to be able to eat it too.
As soon as Alito, Scalia and the other in the gang of five leave the bench, look to a number of these laws to be quickly deep-sixed because, in part, of the scathing reactions respected law journals have had to the Court's rulings. Roberts has voted out of the block opposed to Obamacare to avoid being remembered as the Roger Taney of his era (the Dred Scott decision) namely one of the Court's larger idiots of all time.
http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/dred-scott-case
Many believe Taney was the man that got the abolition moving full speed ahead. We're already seeing lots of backlash to Roberts on both sides of the fence. He could be off the bench soon because he's got some sort of strange fainting disease:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?idE08129
Since the SC justices can leave a very sheltered life, should they so choose, it's very hard to actually know if there's a serious threat to his health. If Roberts dies or resigns, guess who picks the next Chief Justice, arbiter of the cases the court chooses to hear?
There are many others who think the Supremes really overstepped their bounds re: religious exemptions for corporate entities.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-in-hobby-lobby- ruling-the-supreme-court-uses-a-fiction/2014/06/30/37663c72-009b- 11e4-8572-4b1b969b6322_story.html
says: <<Ginsburg, in her dissent, wrote: "Until this litigation, no decision of this Court recognized a for-profit corporation's qualification for a religious exemption . . . The exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities. As Chief Justice Marshall observed nearly two centuries ago, a corporation is 'an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law.' . . . Alito's ruling was, Ginsburg said, an "expansive notion of corporate personhood." She invoked the writing of former justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote that corporations "have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires.">>
Apparently now at least some do. So yes, no matter what strictures you or anyone else attempts to apply to this ruling, it did, in fact, allow certain corporations to experience religious convictions, as Ginsburg and many, MANY others have noted is new for the US - where religion has always been defined as a personal, not a for-profit corporate, experience.
The rest of the article explains why Alito had to bend over backwards for his corporate masters. A group of people, by incorporating, can escape personal liability unlike, say, an actual person. We're veering off into very dangerous territory claiming corporations can have religious rights, free speech = money and that Obamacare is some sort of tax. It might take decades to get the Supreme Court back into the realm of sanity.
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And that is anything other than YOUR opinion with even fewer facts since I did, afterall, toss a couple of parts of the actual opinion your way.

All of this has been a balance of differing rights. That is pretty much what the Supremes do.

I would suggest the Gang of Four +1 since Kennedy does tend to wander in and out. (g) You may be correct, although Roberts had to resort to judicial activism (defined by me personally as not only making law up as they go along, but admitting to it in the opinion such as Roe V Wade where the majority acknowledged there was no words in the Constitution backing up what they are doing, but we were able to find a "prenumbra" to justify doing what they wanted to do.) Roberts did the same thing deciding that something was a tax even though both the law and the REcord showed that Congress went through all sorts of parlimentary gymnastics to specifically say it wasn't a tax. Depends on who is President at the time. My concern is that the current climate will mean that only the most bland and less than brilliant judges will get through the serial Borking of any candidate by any president.

Depends on when it happens. Could be Obabm, could be Hillary, could be Bernie, heck could be Trump (okay now I am officially terrified).

And many that think it was absolutely brilliant jurisprudence. Opinions are like... well you know. Besides the only opinion that matters is the one from the Supremes.

And this is personal since it is a closely held company that is reflective of the owners.

Yeah. Corporate masters, they really care what happens to a very small group of people.
--
?Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.?
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The entire UK is a constitution free zone.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tony Hwang wrote:

Most are. It goes 100 miles from the coasts and borders, where most cities are.
--

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.