Yes, yes, you’re a meager talent who has hitched his star to the S.S. Bricker. I understand why someone who hasn’t read the thread might want to subordinate their opinion to whatever someone they respects thinks, but in this case, not a great choice.
So, boiled down, if the proper black robed authority tells me that a legal abstraction is a person, then I am obliged to accept it. Happily, I am not obliged to believe it, because, of course, it is perfect nonsense. Similarly, if they tell me that sincerity can be determined as a matter of fact, again, I am required to accept the perfectly ridiculous.
To parapharse Twain, there’s nothing really wrong with that, except that it just ain’t so. It is using the rational to subvert the reasonable, it is the process by which truth is supplanted by truthiness. If all nine justices don their blackest robes, their most somber demeanor, and intone with gravity that unicorns run wild and shit rainbows… No, no, they don’t, they can’t, because they aren’t.
And every volume of case law, every sophistic legalistic rationalization known to personkind will not make it so. The Emperor is buck naked, his shriveled little peanut bobs pathetically beneath his distended belly, and there is no majesty there.
Without the concept of corporate personhood, it’s unlikely you would have a computer with which to post that opinion. The fact that you stubbornly cling to the foolish idea that corporate personhood is nonsensical, is one of those times when a lefty is ignorant of the way the real world works.
Having said that, the Black Robed Ones are not the final say on this particular issue, and I find it hard to believe that you haven’t understood that yet. Congress could reverse this ruling by simple legislation. No constitutional amendment needed. Had Congress not passed the RFRA (by near unanimous action), court precedent would rule against HL.
Oh, is that why the majority opinion had that phrase in it, the one that says “This is fucking stupid, and degrades respect for the very law that we are sworn to serve, but we don’t have any choice about that. Therefore, even though we must rule as we do, we heartily endorse Justice Ginsberg’s urging to Congress to undo this ridiculous situation”?
So, when you are finished fashioning your dunce cap to crown my brow, perhaps you will point that part out to me?
I recognize the usefulness of legal fictions, just as I recognize the value of, say, negative numbers for purposes of calculation. But that does not mean I have a negative one dollar bill in my pocket.
Similarly, I can easily understand how the legal fiction of corporate personhood is useful, just as credit and collective investment is useful, even necessary. But to grossly exaggerate that fiction to the point of pretending that corporations are actual people, that they think, shit, fuck and worship…please. Almost certainly, I am not as smart as I think I am, but thank the Goddess, I am not as dumb as *you *think I am.
You are, of course, entirely welcome to continue in that opinion, as it does not mean shit to a tree. And somewhat less to me.
Revenant Threshold, I said to [Lobohan**:
And he replied:
See?
No matter how often he reads that he does get to decide what they view as sinful, he simply doesn’t – can’t – comprehend that. He unfailingly returns to his claim that it isn’t sinful, by his lights. Which are the correct ones, he thinks, to decide if their conduct is sinful. He gets to decide, not them. And no force in ten universe can sway his understanding.
Even the dissent agrees that Hobby Lobby’s exercise of religion is burdened, you idiot. Not one judge on the Supreme Court, or any of the inferior courts that handled this case, agrees with your dopey view. The dissent would have ruled against Hobby Lobby because in their view the RFRA did not apply to for-profit companies. Not one of the dissenters said that Hobby Lobby’s conduct shouldn’t be considered sinful because this didn’t burden their exercise.
No, think it’s a conceptual problem, a combination of extreme hostility towards religion and a quasi-Aspbergerish inability to comprehend.
Does the corporation The Roman Catholic Diocese of Richmond have religious exercise rights that are protected by law?
How about the corporation Temple Rodef Shalom?
And I have a problem with that. Sure, they can state what they believe to be sinful, and that can’t be challenged. But I don’t think they should get to define what is and is not burdensome.
And the thing is, I practice the same religion as Hobby Lobby. Granted, I’ve changed my opinion on abortion, but, prior to that, I was right there with them. So I think of exactly what I could do to avoid being burdened, and I think that, since we have essentially the same beliefs, what I could do is exactly what they could do.
I think I’ve laid it out before, but I’m not sure, since I often delete posts if I don’t think they fit. But I believe they had the choice of learning more about the subject and convincing themselves that the items were not abortifacients (at least not all four of them). I believe they had the choice to make sure the coverage for these methods came from the empolyees portion of the insurance, meaning they were paying for it. Heck, they even had the choice of trying to go to court for the right to only cover these drugs when it was clear they were not being used as abortifacients.
It is my interpretation that they made this much more burdensome on themselves than it really was. And that is why I object to allowing the religious person to determine the level of religious burden. They have a vested interest in making things seem worse than they are in order to win the case. There must be some sort of judgment on the burden itself.
And while I find it admirable that they increased pay to make up for it, it still doesn’t fix the problem. It is not the ability to purchase certain birth control that is the problem. It is the ability to purchase full birth control coverage. You cannot get this coverage by itself, and the increase of their own personal minimum wage does not make up for the two or three fold increase in getting non-employer based insurance that will cover it.
So if someone needs one of these four birth control methods but can’t afford it, they are just out of luck. Sure, the Court said they could use the same structure as the non-profits, but that’s not baked into the law and it will likely never pass our deadlocked congress.
I just hope those affected can themselves file suit for not getting the coverage the ACA entitles them to. But your arguments seem to indicate this would not work.
I’ll note you still haven’t addressed my arguments. Just waved a flabby arm and dismissed them.
I know they may think it’s sinful, since by definition, they’re delusional. I, however, argue that their practice of their religion is not in the least put upon by their compensation being used in a way they don’t like.
Consider that you haven’t addressed that their money wages can similarly be used to sin. Yet they aren’t upset about that. If they really thought that compensation that can be used to sin was a deal-breaker, they’d close up shop. And then the scrapbooking community would fall into ruin, sadly.
I’ve said several times that I think the court errs too much on the side of religion, what with ceremonial deism and other such rubbish. I doubt any of them would take issue with HL’s over-wrought sense of religious offense.
We will never, ever, fashion an utterly rational legal framework on the question of religion, because the very object is irrational. I do not mean that in a derogatory sense, simply that by its very nature, it is not subject to proof and evidence.
Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to re-asses our notions of corporation to distinguish between those which exist for business, and those which exist for religion? isn’t that more or less what they were stumbling towards with distinctions between non-profit corporations and others?
We are left with muddling through, with mutual accommodation and a willingness not to be a dick about our shit, not to afflict others with our religious views. We are welcome to persuade, to witness, to argue, of course. But why should one group of our citizens be afflicted with needless expense just because their employer thinks differently? What other rights are we going to surrender in order to get a paycheck?
We do this shit all the time, we allow the Amish to drive their buggies on public roads, we accept, we accommodate. But we also have the right to insist that they put reflective tape on their vehicle, so as not to risk the well-being of others. And, IIRC, the Amish have mostly accepted this, they accommodate us with the same mutual regard that we accommodate them.
And, of course, the bleeding obvious: that since i don’t accept your assumptions, I am not obliged to wriggle out of your logic trap. You may boogie in the end zone to your heart’s content, but the ball is still back here.
Nonetheless, if you are obliquely urging that we strip religious entities of corporate personhood, I think that a radical notion, but I am willing to listen to your arguments for that.
I have no idea if they think RFRA is a fucking stupid law or not. Maybe some think it’s terrific and some think it’s a shame. That has nothing to do with what I posted. I’m at a loss as to why you think it would be. Justices affirm laws that I think are stupid all the time, mainly because our Legislators are in the habit of passing stupid laws.
I don’t think your as stupid as these post imply, but you keep posting stupid stuff, and I can only judge from that. Do you think Congress does NOT have the authority to exempt certain corporations from certain of its laws and regulations? Do you really think it’s beyond the pale to read the plain text of the law and interpret it thusly, knowing that Congress can chance it if it so wishes?
I’m not sure why you’re addressing this to me. My concern was that you seemed to be pointing to a belief in religious absurdity as reason for this behaviour on Lobohan’s part, not questioning whether Lobohan was doing as you say. I still don’t see any particular reason to bring that opinion up as a contributing factor above anything else. “I can’t see anything else that it could be” is a reason that can be applied to any opinion at all.
**Bricker:
**
By the way, by all available evidence, contraception and family planning are very popular. I am given to understand from a legal scholar of impeccable credential that the popularity of a thing is a powerful testimony to its legitimacy.
I await your abject surrender “with the calm confidence of a Methodist with four aces.”
Do you know what Ms Ginsberg thinks? I do, she told me what she thinks. Is the majority somehow powerless to avail themselves of her opportunity?
Wait a second, if I accept the authority of Congress to do stupid stuff, that means I accept that stupid isn’t stupid? Huh? Da fuq? For a libertarian, you have quite a spicy dash of authoritarianism in your picante sauce.
No, you don’t know if she thinks RFRA is a good law or not. You know what she thinks of the majority opinion. But even still, I see no reason that justices need to weigh in on the brilliance or stupidity of a law. THat’s not their job.
No. You need to accept that if Congress does something stupid (but constitutional) on purpose, it’s not the role of the judicial branch to correct them. It’s entirely conceivable to me that Congress meant this law to mean what Roberts, et al, are saying it means. And if Congress thinks otherwise, they can fix it. Apparently, Congress doesn’t. So, I’m thinking Roberts got it right.
I am first and foremost a democrat (small “d”). That means I have to accept the fact that I’m going to disagree with a lot of laws that my esteemed fellow Americans think are terrific.
Buying contraception is very popular, and it’s legal.
Yes. It was legal before, during, and after the Hobby Lobby decision.
When asked if they want to get free stuff, people usually say “YES”. Not surprising.
However, on this particular issue, the reality is not clear:
Both are not for profit religious organizations. Hobby Lobby is not.
You don’t get to bitch about people drawing a line between for-profit corporations and religious organizations when you’re drawing a line between closely held and not closely held corporations. Both sides are drawing lines. The one drawn between for-profits and non-profits is the much better, more reasoned, and more in line with the clearly stated intent of RFRA.
It’s just harder to get for some people.
Which, if I recall your Voter ID position correctly, ain’t no thing.
Their job also is to weigh in on the intent of the law. There is extremely scant evidence that RFRA was intended to extend religious liberty rights to for-profit corporations.
Alito wrote the majority opinion. And the fact that RFRA specifically states what the purpose of its enactment was, and nowhere does it mention extending religious liberty rights to for-profit corporations, makes it pretty clear that was no its intent. Ginsberg has the better argument there.
Very few disagreed with RFRA, because a vast majority of them never thought that it would be extending religious liberties to for-profit corporations.
It’s not a problem with disagreeing with the law. It’s a problem of the law having an effect that no one thought to even agree, yet alone disagree about.