# Reach of Sibelius v. Hobby Lobby? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 21, 2014, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201 "2014-03-21T01:54:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 30
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/581 "2014-06-30T17:16:04Z")
[Highlights from Ginsburg’s dissent.](http://www.salon.com/2014/06/30/here_are_the_highlights_of_justice_ginsburgs_fiery_hobby_lobby_dissent/) ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/582 "2014-06-30T17:17:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Where’s the sig? Just as an FYI, SDMB policy is that a sig only be shown once per thread. [Cite.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7697069#post7697069) ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/583 "2014-06-30T17:26:01Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Yes, but a publicly traded corporation doesn’t really have a license to go around adopting religious beliefs (unless for business purposes) because of its duty to stockholders. Under that theory, a publicly held corporation shouldn’t be donating to charitable causes because of that same duty. I’m with **Richard Parker** , here. I don’t see how the logic of the opinion doesn’t also apply to publicly traded corporations. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/584 "2014-06-30T17:30:15Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > Just as an FYI, SDMB policy is that a sig only be shown once per thread. [Cite.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7697069#post7697069) That’s interesting, especially since I don’t know any setting to control this. When I post from Tapatalk, every post gets the signature; when I post from a browser, none do. Although the link says ‘recommended’ I certainly wouldn’t want to be part of any pushing of boundaries, so **stpauler** , let’s agree that the terms of the bet are fulfilled when you post one signature per thread between now and December 30th, 2014. Suits? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/585 "2014-06-30T17:32:05Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [Highlights from Ginsburg’s dissent.](http://www.salon.com/2014/06/30/here_are_the_highlights_of_justice_ginsburgs_fiery_hobby_lobby_dissent/) She should immediately resign from the Court and run for Congress, so that she would be in the proper governmental role to implement her vision of what the law should be. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/586 "2014-06-30T17:33:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > She should immediately resign from the Court and run for Congress, so that she would be in the proper governmental role to implement her vision of what the law should be. No! She should resign on January 21, 2017. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/587 "2014-06-30T17:39:12Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Shhhh, not so loud. > > Seriously though, as a religious person myself, I cannot wrap my mind around the idea that a corporation can hold religious beliefs, sincere or not. _Especially_ a for-profit company. I hope the ruling touches upon the question of a corporation having a religious objection to women not keeping their heads covered or other “religious freedoms” that are infringed upon by government regulations. Would a business closely held by a Christian Scientist be allowed to not provide any medical healthcare at all? > > I’m looking forward to hearing more details about this decision. In the 1780s a lot of things that we do today in a corporate form were basically only done by individuals; when it becomes almost necessary to incorporate in order to do things that were previously individual endeavors I can’t see why we’d allow the government to trample on rights that individuals could previously exercise solely because our society has changed such that such individual actions are now often undertaken within a corporate legal entity. It’s liberals who are usually the biggest advocates of a “living constitution” that is supposed to recognize realities like this. I think it’s been well argued already, but all the “what if” stuff would be subject to further cases/litigation. Most likely there is not a five justice majority on such a sweeping interpretation or this ruling itself would have been more sweeping. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/588 "2014-06-30T17:39:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > She should immediately resign from the Court and run for Congress, so that she would be in the proper governmental role to implement her vision of what the law should be. Judges interpret the law. Clearly judges can disagree on what the proper interpretation should be. How is she any different from any other justice on the Supreme Court in this regard? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/589 "2014-06-30T17:44:25Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Most likely there is not a five justice majority on such a sweeping interpretation or this ruling itself would have been more sweeping. In the past this logic has not held true. Quite frequently dissents will paint majorities as being sweeping because of the logic or reasoning, and the majority will disagree citing their statement of the holding, and then a few years later the dissent is proven right when the majority adopts the more sweeping view as compelled by the earlier “narrow” decision. Here’s Scalia in _Windsor_ on this phenomenon: > [@](#): > > The penultimate sentence of the majority’s opinion is a naked declaration that “[t]his opinion and its holding are confined” to those couples “joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State.” Ante, at 26, 25. I have heard such “bald, unreasoned disclaimer[s]” before. Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 604. When the Court declared a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy, we were assured that the case had nothing, nothing at all to do with “whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.” Id., at 578. Now we are told that DOMA is invalid because it “demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects,” ante, at 23—with an accompanying citation of Lawrence. It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress’s hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will “confine” the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/590 "2014-06-30T17:44:37Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > No! She should resign on January 21, 2017. 🙂 [Hmmm…](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/05/19/waiting-for-ruth-bader-ginsburg-to-retire-keep-waiting/) > [@](#): > > The U.S. Supreme Court provides one of the more ironic dynamics in politics: people calling for the retirement of justices with whom they agree. Pressure to retire has been directed at Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer by some who fear that the 81- and 75-year-old justices will not survive a potential Republican presidency that begins in 2017. Some want Ginsburg and Breyer to retire before the end of Barack Obama’s second term, or possibly even sooner, in case Democrats lose control of the Senate in the midterm election. But the behavior of past justices indicates that this pressure may be for naught. Justices rarely hasten their retirement. I don’t wish ill-health (or worse) on anyone. But I cannot say I’d be too perturbed if a Republican wins in 2016 and sometime in the next four years Ginsburg finds that she needs to retire. With a GOP-controlled Senate coming this fall, it may be too late now for her anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/591 "2014-06-30T17:48:49Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > In the past this logic has not held true. Quite frequently dissents will paint majorities as being sweeping because of the logic or reasoning, and the majority will disagree citing their statement of the holding, and then a few years later the dissent is proven right when the majority adopts the more sweeping view as compelled by the earlier “narrow” decision. No one on the SCOTUS is “compelled” to do anything in how they rule on cases. > [@](#): > > Here’s Scalia in _Windsor_ on this phenomenon: Yeah but that’s Scalia, whose mind indeed might lead him (in fact it has many times) to respect previous rulings even when he might personally disagree with them. But Scalia wouldn’t be the swing vote in say, a case about whether a Jehova’s Witness owned company could deny blood transfusion coverage in its insurance plans, it’d be Kennedy/Roberts–who are a lot less likely to rule based on legal precedent and a lot more likely to rule based on their personal opinions on the matter. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/592 "2014-06-30T17:54:22Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > No one on the SCOTUS is “compelled” to do anything in how they rule on cases. No one is holding a gun to their head and muttering “_stare decisis_ motherfucker!” But Justices generally want to be seen as consistent, and to treat like cases alike. That’s the whole point of the rule of law. So when there is little factual basis for distinguishing an earlier case, it will tends to be followed. Of course, Justices can invent factual bases or just outright overturn prior precedent. But that happens less often than you seem to imply. > [@Martin Hyde](#): > > Yeah but that’s Scalia, whose mind indeed might lead him (in fact it has many times) to respect previous rulings even when he might personally disagree with them. But Scalia wouldn’t be the swing vote in say, a case about whether a Jehova’s Witness owned company could deny blood transfusion coverage in its insurance plans, it’d be Kennedy/Roberts–who are a lot less likely to rule based on legal precedent and a lot more likely to rule based on their personal opinions on the matter. I disagree with your opinion that Roberts and Kennedy don’t know how to be judges but that Scalia does. I don’t think there’s any factual basis for it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/593 "2014-06-30T17:56:46Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Judges interpret the law. Clearly judges can disagree on what the proper interpretation should be. How is she any different from any other justice on the Supreme Court in this regard? Justices that believe the written law is what they should be following are, in my view, to be highly preferred to justices that seek to use the law to shape social policy to their preferred ends without much concern for the text of the law. Back in the nineteenth century, Congress passed a law: > [@](#): > > …it shall be unlawful for any person, company, partnership, or corporation, in any manner whatsoever, to prepay the transportation, or in any way assist or encourage the importation or migration, of any alien or aliens, any foreigner or foreigners, into the United States, its territories, or the District of Columbia, under contract or agreement, parol or special, express or implied, made previous to the inportation or migration of such alien or aliens, foreigner or foreigners, to perform labor or service of any kind in the United States, its territories, or the District of Columbia. The Holy Trinity Church hired one E. Walpole Warren, of London, England, to enter into its service as rector and pastor; they paid his way across the sea, an act that they conceded violated the express words of Congress’ law. BUT, said the church, hold on. This wasn’t meant to keep out pastors. Granted, the text does so, but that’s just not right. And the Supreme Court agreed: > [@](#): > > But, beyond all these matters, no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation. The commission to Christopher Columbus, prior to his sail westward, is from ‘Ferdinand and Isabella, by the grace of God, king and queen of Castile,’ etc., and recites that ‘it is hoped that by God’s assistance some of the continents and islands in the ocean will be discovered,’ etc. The first colonial grant, that made to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584, was from ‘Elizabeth, by the grace of God, of England, Fraunce and Ireland, queene, defender of the faith,’ etc.; and the grant authorizing him to enact statutes of the government of the proposed colony provided that ‘they be not against the true Christian faith nowe professed in the Church of England.’ The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I. in 1606, after reciting the application of certain parties for a charter, commenced the grant in these words: ‘We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet Government; DO, by these our Letters-Patents, graciously accept of, and agree to, their humble and well-intended Desires.’ > . > . > . > These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation? See what they did there? They simply decided that the text of the law didn’t matter. They substituted their idea of what was right --a Christian nation – for the secularly-neutral language Congress actually passed. That’s not what I want our judges to do. I want our judges to understand that the written text of the law is what they must use. If there’s a flaw, it’s for Congress to correct. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/594 "2014-06-30T17:58:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > She should immediately resign from the Court and run for Congress, so that she would be in the proper governmental role to implement her vision of what the law should be. That’s the role she is in **now.** ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/595 "2014-06-30T17:59:23Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I disagree with your opinion that Roberts and Kennedy don’t know how to be judges but that Scalia does. I don’t think there’s any factual basis for it. Scalia knows how to be the kind of judge I think we should have, more so than Roberts or Ginsburg. There is no “kind of judge” mandated by law, of course. But I want judges that understand that they are not legislators. I want judges that don’t want to make new social policy. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/596 "2014-06-30T18:00:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Scalia knows how to be the kind of judge I think we should have, more so than Roberts or Ginsburg. > > There is no “kind of judge” mandated by law, of course. But I want judges that understand that they are not legislators. I want judges that don’t want to make new social policy. **Martin Hyde** was suggesting that Scalia makes more of an effort to abide by the logic and holdings of earlier decisions than Roberts and Kennedy. I don’t think that’s true. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/597 "2014-06-30T18:01:57Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That’s the role she is in **now.** That is, of course, the fundamental conflict between our views. I don’t believe a Supreme Court (or any) judge should see his or her role as that of shaping social policy. They should decide the law based on the law, not guided by how they want things to turn out. They should be the umpires of the game, applying the rules that Congress writes for them without caring which side wins. If we learned that an umpire had a strong interest in seeing one team win, we’d lose confidence in that umpire’s calls against (and for) that team, wouldn’t we? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/598 "2014-06-30T18:03:08Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > **Martin Hyde** was suggesting that Scalia makes more of an effort to abide by the logic and holdings of earlier decisions than Roberts and Kennedy. I don’t think that’s true. Agreed. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/599 "2014-06-30T18:05:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That is, of course, the fundamental conflict between our views. I don’t believe a Supreme Court (or any) judge should see his or her role as that of shaping social policy. They should decide the law based on the law, not guided by how they want things to turn out. They should be the umpires of the game, applying the rules that Congress writes for them without caring which side wins. The existence of that “conflict of views” you have with others comes from others’ recognizing and respecting the existence and purpose of the Constitution. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > If we learned that an umpire had a strong interest in seeing one team win, we’d lose confidence in that umpire’s calls against (and for) that team, wouldn’t we? [And we do.](http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2014/06/30/supreme-court-confidence-gallup-poll/) ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/600 "2014-06-30T18:08:10Z")
(posting this here because it’s a sincere question that I don’t think deserves its own thread). How does this ruling affect a business to exclude coverage for any sort of medical care that goes against its “sincerely held religious beliefs”? Is any aspect of health care fair game? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201.md?page=29) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201.md?page=31)