Hobby Lobby wins Supreme Court Case.

[Dan H.]

Washington (CNN) - Some corporations have religious rights, a deeply divided Supreme Court decided Monday in ruling that certain for-profit companies cannot be required to pay for specific types of contraceptives for their employees.

The 5-4 decision based on ideological lines ended the high court's term with a legal and political setback for a controversial part of President Barack Obama's healthcare reform law.

It also set off a frenzied partisan debate that will continue through the November congressional elections and beyond over religious and reproductive rights.

All five conservative justices appointed by Republican presidents ruled in favor of closely held for-profit businesses -- those with at least 50% of stock held by five or fewer people, such as family-owned businesses -- in which the owners have clear religious beliefs.

Contraceptives or abortion?

Both corporations -- Conestoga Wood Specialties of Pennsylvania and Hobby Lobby, an Oklahoma-based arts-and-crafts retail giant -- emphasize their conscientious desire to operate in harmony with biblical principles while competing in a secular marketplace.

They argued the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, violates the First Amendment and other federal laws protecting religious freedom because it requires them to provide coverage for contraceptives like the "morning-after pill," which the companies consider tantamount to abortion.

"The companies in the cases before us are closely held corporations, each owned and controlled by members of a single family, and no one has disputed the sincerity of their religious beliefs," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion.

The four liberal justices appointed by Democratic presidents, including the high court's three women, opposed the ruling as a possible gateway to further religious-based challenges that limit individual choice and rights.

I was really hoping Hobby Lobby would lose this case. Thoughts?

[luciusfunk]

Glad they won.

[shades]

Justice Roberts said all along with a ((wink)) when he was cornered into allowing the debacle known as Obamacare to pass through with the made up truth that it was a "tax" rather than the unapproved legislation that it is, that if the fine unassuming Americans forced to buy someone else something would simply bring it to them in pieces he would help dismantle it brick by brick, Which is what this latest ruling was. Only the beginning. Obama made two very big mistakes in regard, thinking that the people paying the bills didn't have both hands on their wallets, and pretending that he could pay for a 100 pound pile of shit with a 2 pound bag of money.

When you try and get something done through hook and crook ultimately it will catch up with you.

[AxlisOld]

Anything that interferes with the ACA is fine with me. Fuck that shit.

[arnold layne]

I want Universal Healthcare. If I give up a fucking quarter of my paycheck, you're goddamn right I want to express where I want that fucking money to go.

Better that then sending thousands of troops to get their legs blown off in some shithole halfway across the globe.

[Georgy Zhukov]

I want Universal Healthcare. If I give up a fucking quarter of my paycheck, you're goddamn right I want to express where I want that fucking money to go.

Better that then sending thousands of troops to get their legs blown off in some shithole halfway across the globe.

Only to have them die waiting in line for treatment.

[Dan H.]

I want Universal Healthcare. If I give up a fucking quarter of my paycheck, you're goddamn right I want to express where I want that fucking money to go.

Better that then sending thousands of troops to get their legs blown off in some shithole halfway across the globe.

Only to have them die waiting in line for treatment.

Well, the whole 'waiting in line' thing is a little exaggerated.

[downzy]

To those glad that Hobby Lobby won the argument, be weary if one day you arrive to work and your company has suddenly found God (or Muhammed, or Yahweh, or Buddha, or Vishnu). Because apparently your company's religious rights now trump your own individual rights.

I also find it funny that some in this thread are rejoicing that this decision means an end, or hindrance, of the ACA. It does not. It simply means that corporations are no longer responsible for stipulations within the ACA as a result of religious objections. But who do your think is going to pick up the slack? As Lawrence Tribe over at Slate points out: "The converse irony is that, if the court permits HHS to extend the nonprofit exemption, the effect of Hobby Lobby will be more Americans receiving more of their health care coverage from the government—making Justice Alito perhaps the world’s least probable enabler of incremental steps toward single-payer insurance!"

Conservatives better enjoy their 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court while they can. Justices Scalia and Kennedy are only are few years from 80. Assuming Hillary wins the Presidential election 2016 (which, isn't that big of an assumption), there's a good chance we'll see a Supreme Court with a healthy liberal majority.

Edited July 1, 2014 by downzy

[luciusfunk]

[Johnny Drama]

I want Universal Healthcare. If I give up a fucking quarter of my paycheck, you're goddamn right I want to express where I want that fucking money to go.

Better that then sending thousands of troops to get their legs blown off in some shithole halfway across the globe.

Yeah you tell em, Arnie.

[shades]

the SJC appointment process is without a doubt one of the strangest dynamics of American politics. A lifetime appointment by the sitting President.

someone neglected to mention the most overtly liberal SJC maybe ever, little miss Ruth Bader and the fact that she is also 80+. This senile crackpot is still writing about women's suffrage in her dissent letters, it's 2014 Susan B Anthony.

Liberals better hope Hillary wins, with Scalia, Kennedy, and Ruth the nut all to be replaced by the next president at some point.

All the talk about the GOP not having a viable candidate for 2016, I would find it more troubling not haven woken up to the fact that the left is putting all their eggs in the Hillary basket very early on. She may not even run and if she does she has more baggage than American Airlines.

Whats plan "B", Joe Biden?

Hillary imo is not only not fit for the office, she is already a Saturday night live caricature with endless punchlines, a dangerous entry into presidential politics.

This ruling alone does not mean the end to the ACA, but it is a brick. remove one brick at a time and it will cave in on itself.

Edited July 1, 2014 by shades

[downzy]

No, the main foundation was the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Once that was upheld two years ago, the ACA isn't going anywhere. Sure, the court can nip and tuck at the sides, but the heart of the ACA isn't going anywhere.

And like I mentioned before Shades, the Hobby Lobby decision only requires that for-profit organizations can object to certain forms of medications or operations based on religious objections. It says nothing on whether the government can then fill that void. Which is exactly what's going to happen. And hence the irony: the decision puts greater onus on the government to provide medical services.

I do agree that lifetime appointments are rather absurd. Though I'm against direct elections for Supreme Court positions, I think a twenty year window should be sufficient to buffer Supreme Court Justices from the whims of the populace.

And yes, Hillary is going to run, and she's going to win. The "baggage" Republicans keep on hanging their hopes on means nothing to the general electorate.

[shades]

means nothing to what "general electorate"? the segment that voted for hope and change?

that's funny

I think a lot of Americans that fell for that schtick have wizened up a little. The economy is not rolling along as promised, involvement in the middle east is

not winding down as promised, If one of those released Gitmo bargaining chips the left released pops up in a terror report like I am predicting they will

the incompetence label will be her anchor to drag around on behalf of the administration.

Hillary out and out lied about Benghazi and that's not going away despite the left wishing it away. At best she was incompetent at the wheel.

Her book is flopping, and with that I believe the whole Clinton love affair thing has lost more of the allure than you think.

She's coming off as an arrogant old biddie with a sense of entitlement.

We'll see, I'm looking forward to the process.

[downzy]

means nothing to what "general electorate"? the segment that voted for hope and change?

that's funny

I think a lot of Americans that fell for that schtick have wizened up a little. The economy is not rolling along as promised, involvement in the middle east is

not winding down as promised, If one of those released Gitmo bargaining chips the left released pops up in a terror report like I am predicting they will

the incompetence label will be her anchor to drag around on behalf of the administration.

Hillary out and out lied about Benghazi and that's not going away despite the left wishing it away. At best she was incompetent at the wheel.

Her book is flopping, and with that I believe the whole Clinton love affair thing has lost more of the allure than you think.

She's coming off as an arrogant old biddie with a sense of entitlement.

We'll see, I'm looking forward to the process.

This is the shit the general electorate doesn't care about. Republicans keep bringing Benghazi up, but guess what, the rest of the country has moved on. The only people who care about what happened in Benghazi are those who wouldn't vote Democrat anyway. The numbers don't lie. 44 percent of voters think that Benghazi is a big enough deal to hurt Hillary. But that's less than the number of people who voted for Romney in 2012.

Even if Hillary were, for some inexplicable reason, not to run, Republicans would still have a tough time winning in Presidential elections when turnout is higher (funny how the more people who turn out to vote, the worse Republican chances are - must be why they support restrictive voting laws). Demographics is becoming determinative. The Republican base of old, angry, white people is dying off. The youth are continually voting liberal, minority populations are increasingly being scared off by Republican's anti-immigrant current, and cases like Hobby Lobby will motivate even more women to vote against candidates they perceive as anti-women. California, New York, Pennsylvania are all solidly Democrat states, with Virginia, Colorado, and New Mexico becoming less and less competitive. And if demographic trends continue, Texas could start turning blue in the next couple of elections.

Funny how Americans re-elected a guy you feel ran on a "schtick" the first time around.

Edited July 1, 2014 by downzy

[Facekicker]

What is even funnier is watching Americans fighting over two cheeks of the same arse and each thinking their "side" is better than the other.

[shades]

http://www.isidewith.com/poll/403337781

[Facekicker]

Shades I do remember you spouting on here religiously in the past that polls were meaningless.

[shades]

they are,

but I especially liked this one

seem Asians like her though

Edited July 1, 2014 by shades

[downzy]

http://www.270towin.com/2016-polls/2016-general-election-matchups/

Not a single potential Republican candidate polls better than Clinton.

Here's a good summary on how fucked Republicans are for 2016:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/09/gop-s-biggest-2016-problem-clinton-s-numbers-among-white-voters.html

Edited July 1, 2014 by downzy

[downzy]

Shades I do remember you spouting on here religiously in the past that polls were meaningless.

Shades likes the one poll that agree with his position. The multitude of others that indicate how far off his prognosis is are, in his eyes, simply wrong.

It's this kind of thinking that left many Republicans shocked that Obama won re-election so easily in 2012. They couldn't believe what 99 percent of the polls were telling them. They had to be wrong.

As usual, reality has a nasty habit of shocking the deluded.

[foghat43]

To those glad that Hobby Lobby won the argument, be weary if one day you arrive to work and your company has suddenly found God (or Muhammed, or Yahweh, or Buddha, or Vishnu). Because apparently your company's religious rights now trump your own individual rights.

Hmmm....no offense downzy, but it's hard to take your concern for individual rights seriously...collectivists/liberals like yourself don't seem to have a problem with trumping individual rights when it suits your agenda. What about my individual right to NOT purchase health insurance if I don't want to? Or my individual right to keep the fruit of my labor rather than being forced to subsidize someone else's healthcare? Or what about the rights of the people who were told "if you like your doctor/policy you can keep them"? Or the individual rights of a business owner to decide what benefits his plan will/will not pay for? Your credibility regarding the defense of individual rights is laughable.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Companies are not people. So the Supreme Court shouldn't be protecting them.

[downzy]

To those glad that Hobby Lobby won the argument, be weary if one day you arrive to work and your company has suddenly found God (or Muhammed, or Yahweh, or Buddha, or Vishnu). Because apparently your company's religious rights now trump your own individual rights.

Hmmm....no offense downzy, but it's hard to take your concern for individual rights seriously...collectivists/liberals like yourself don't seem to have a problem with trumping individual rights when it suits your agenda. What about my individual right to NOT purchase health insurance if I don't want to? Or my individual right to keep the fruit of my labor rather than being forced to subsidize someone else's healthcare? Or what about the rights of the people who were told "if you like your doctor/policy you can keep them"? Or the individual rights of a business owner to decide what benefits his plan will/will not pay for? Your credibility regarding the defense of individual rights is laughable.

Companies are not people. So the Supreme Court shouldn't be protecting them.

[shades]

Hmmm....no offense downzy, but it's hard to take your concern for individual rights seriously...collectivists/liberals like yourself don't seem to have a problem with trumping individual rights when it suits your agenda. What about my individual right to NOT purchase health insurance if I don't want to? Or my individual right to keep the fruit of my labor rather than being forced to subsidize someone else's healthcare? Or what about the rights of the people who were told "if you like your doctor/policy you can keep them"? Or the individual rights of a business owner to decide what benefits his plan will/will not pay for? Your credibility regarding the defense of individual rights is laughable.

you can't reach him kid,

he's been drinking the cool aid far to long.

His clueless, arrogant, and closed minded views on every topic he responds to should warrant his own thread locked out to everyone else.

I find it most curious that liberals compare Hillary's polling numbers to ALL other possible GOP candidates, the forest for the trees is Hillary is all they got, and when that goes bad, and it's going bad day by day by day what is their plan B? Joe Biden? It's the party of goofs right now, the entire world is laughing at Obama and like Bush in 2006,

anyone running on the Democratic ticket will be forever linked to the lat 8 years known as the Obama disaster. Hillary is Obama light just like McCain was Bush light.

[downzy]

Hmmm....no offense downzy, but it's hard to take your concern for individual rights seriously...collectivists/liberals like yourself don't seem to have a problem with trumping individual rights when it suits your agenda. What about my individual right to NOT purchase health insurance if I don't want to? Or my individual right to keep the fruit of my labor rather than being forced to subsidize someone else's healthcare? Or what about the rights of the people who were told "if you like your doctor/policy you can keep them"? Or the individual rights of a business owner to decide what benefits his plan will/will not pay for? Your credibility regarding the defense of individual rights is laughable.

you can't reach him kid,

he's been drinking the cool aid far to long.

His clueless, arrogant, and closed minded views on every topic he responds to should warrant his own thread locked out to everyone else.

I find it most curious that liberals compare Hillary's polling numbers to ALL other possible GOP candidates, the forest for the trees is Hillary is all they got, and when that goes bad, and it's going bad day by day by day what is their plan B? Joe Biden? It's the party of goofs right now, the entire world is laughing at Obama and like Bush in 2006,

anyone running on the Democratic ticket will be forever linked to the lat 8 years known as the Obama disaster. Hillary is Obama light just like McCain was Bush light.

Shades, we disagree on all things politics, but understand the reason you can't "reach" me (btw, I'm not a kid - in my mid thirties) is that I don't accept arguments based on unsubstantiated claims, hyperbole, and ad hominem. You claim I'm clueless, despite the fact that I have several degrees on these matters. It's not that I'm closed minded, it's that I don't accept arguments that are divorced from reality that are sourced from individuals who repeatedly get things wrong.

And that's where you come in. Almost everything you write on politics has been proven wrong or based on your opinion that is almost impossible to validate. You claimed that the ACA would be a disaster, that nobody would sign up for it, that people wouldn't pay for their premiums once they signed up. And yet all of those predictions are unequivocally wrong. The data doesn't lie. You also claimed that Obama wouldn't be re-elected. Wrong again. You're akin to Dick Cheney who made predictions on Iraq and now wants to be taken seriously.

Hillary isn't the only candidate the Democrats have (Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Gov. Martin O'Mailey, Sen Kirsten Hillibrand, etc.), but Hillary takes the lion share of the attention. And the reason for that is she's the likely nominee. And until the GOP can put up one candidate that can come close to Hillary in likely voting polls, the GOP will continue to be a minority party with respect to the presidency. Moreover, the country is becoming more liberal, less white, and more tolerant. Unless the GOP moderates its positions on reproductive rights, immigration, and the welfare state (ie. not trying to kill it), they will not win a Presidential election.

And getting back to the topic at hand, the Supreme Court will turn dramatically liberal over the next eight years with a Democrat in the White House. The gains achieved by conservatives in the last 20 years will be short-lived. It's happened before, especially if you look at the history of the court from the 1890s to the late 1930s.