It’s not really relevant, anyway. Employers which are large enough to self-insure are essentially required to outsource health insurance functions, so either they’re paying for insurance which covers birth control or they are paying someone else to administer their own insurance plan.
Indeed. So how would Scalia vote on the issue of taking DNA swabs from people that have been arrested but not convicted?
Think of it from a different direction – can a corporation have a sense of civic or social responsibility?
A corporation can include in its mission statement an implementation of its directors’ sense of civic and social responsibility. But that’s not the same thing as saying that the corporation is entitled to certain rights that are normally reserved for human beings.
Honestly, I think they’ll decide against Hobby Lobby, but not because they want to, but because they can see the potential can-o-worms it would open if corporations could ignore laws they don’t agree with.
Slightly sarcastic, but to me, it seems a Hobby Lobby employee needs to state that it’s part of their religion to use contraception. Then we’d have the corporation’s exercising of religion actually suppressing or interfering with the employee’s right to follow their religion. Who’s religion should take precedent, the corporation’s or the employee’s?
I’d love if someone could dig up a video of Hobby Lobby being baptized into their religion. Dipping their corporate offices under a geyser of holy water…
Incorrect (and I’m not a huge fan of Scalia, aside from reading some of his amusing legal writing). Scalia is a textualist. While he believes that one should research what the reasonable meaning of the words were when the statute was being created (ie, original meaning theory), he is strongly against “intent” inquiries in any form.
While original meaning and original intent sound similar, they are not. Scalia doesn’t care what the founders intended; he cares what a reasonable person in the 1780s would have considered the ordinary meaning of the words to mean. So he’d look at dictionaries from the 1780s, not committee reports.
Yet his career writings repeatedly ignore the entirety of the ninth amendment that gives the people all the rights not specifically mentioned. Scalia says over and over again that people only have the specific rights enumerated. He’s wrong because Madison and Hamilton and Jay said over and over again that a bill of rights wasn’t necessary, the opponents of the constitution said the constitution would not protect those rights unless they were specified, and Madison made a promise to amend to include all the specific rights talked about during those debates and put in the ninth just to be sure. For Scalia to ever conclude that a right was not belonging to the people, he would have to examine it under the light of the ninth amendment, which he does not do. No one does it.
And yes, he can be an amusing writer. But so was Hunter Thompson. That doesn’t mean either should be a judge in our judicial system.
I’m not sure how that invalidates the point. In fact wouldn’t it strengthen it, because Scalia doesn’t care of the original intent of Madison?
The text of the ninth amendment explicitly states the intent.
Scalia takes the position that if a right is not enumerated, that it does not and has never existed. This requires that Scalia ignore the language of the ninth amendment. A “textualist” would be required to deal with the ninth amendment every time someone asserts a non-enumerated right, such as privacy, abortion, etc. Scalia denies that there is a right to abortion or privacy. Yet people knew at the founding that privacy and abortion were things people could expect to do without interference. There was also a right to have a jury decide both the facts and the law in every case. That too is now gone.
You mean like in Maryland v. King 
Scalia read his dissent from the bench, “because of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.”
I am under the impression that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”) already exempts companies that have a bona fide religious reason from requiring coverage. Or is that just an exemption for people from the individual insurance mandate based on their personal beliefs? (It does say this: “No individual health care provider or health care facility may be discriminated against because of a willingness or an unwillingness, if doing so is contrary to the religious or moral beliefs of the provider or facility, to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.”)
It exempts individuals and medical providers. Not insurers or employers.
One thing about Jehovah’s Witnesses is that they are a clearly defined church that has held certain beliefs for more than a passing moment.
As best as I can tell, the beliefs that Hobby Lobby wants protected (that some forms of birth control are OK, but others are abortifacients which they view as immoral and don’t want to pay for) is not formal doctrine of any church (the ‘some forms of birth control are OK’ part clearly distinguishes them from Roman Catholicism, for instance), but rather a fairly recent outgrowth of a more durable opposition to abortion on the part of evangelical Christians.
The thing is, if such informal and potentially transitory beliefs are determined by the Supreme Court to be a shield against having to obey laws that go against those beliefs, I don’t see how even a ‘narrow’ ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby amounts to anything less than a general nullification statute, only with individuals and closely held corporations rather than states doing the nullifying.
For instance, if one person interprets “thou shalt not kill” in a perfectly reasonable way, and refuses to pay taxes for any part of government that kills people (military, CIA, FBI, local police, etc.), how would he not be protected by Hobby Lobby?
Or if another person interprets “thou shalt not steal” in a way that defines taxation as theft, and refuses to pay any taxes at all, how would he not be protected by Hobby Lobby?
I’m failing to see a meaningful distinction here.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that some corporations can hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the new health law requirement that they cover contraceptives for women.
http://news.yahoo.com/justices-cant-employers-cover-contraception-141923713--finance.html
Victory for women-haters everywhere! Yayyyyy!
Well. There we go.
No concurring opinion, though. Still…
You wouldn’t have been awarded any points for the Thomas prediction anyway. 
I am only discovering this thread after the decision, but I always thought that a ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby was inevitable, because the law’s structure and mode of application is weak.
Let us take for granted that the primary reason to own a business is to promote one’s own interests. To require a company to do something against the interests of the owner is wholly illogical, however illogical the owner’s “interests” may be.
Businesses originally offered insurance as a benefit to help attract talented employees. This works in the businesses interest, and it has become a nearly universal norm. Now the government is mandating companies provide insurance, essentially turning them into welfare providers. Healthy employees are generally in the companies interest, but there is no compelling logic that they should be the provider.
Now, the law was written in a politically expedient manner. It includes a provision that requires insurance companies to cover certain preventative care, but did not specify the kinds of care. This was left to regulators. The Obama administration knew that a sizable lobby, including small business owners, would petition hard against any kind of public payment of birth control. So they passed a law with no birth control coverage specifically mentioned, made promises that no one’s religious beliefs would be trampled, and then surprise, still required companies to indirectly pay for birth control coverage after all!
More to the point, the administration knew there was a federal law that required them to not unduly burden people’s religious beliefs, so attempted to craft an extremely tightly woven exception. Surprise for Department of Health Staff, the exception was insufficient, and the justices ruled in the only logical manner, to extend the exceptions to other individuals to not force them to pay for insurance against their consciences through the businesses they owned. The link between business owner and duty to provide insurance is simply too tenuous to burden their religious practice over.
The federal law requires all federal laws and regulations to make broad exceptions for religious objections. The law and policy makers played games to circumnavigate the law through complex regulations, but the end result is the same; the law must carve out exceptions.