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