Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby decision due today ...

Post Reply New Topic

Anyone want to opine before the outcome?

Federal government argues:
- The ACA law permits it to mandate that the 'Hobby Lobby' corporation includes contraceptive care in its health plans.

Hobby Lobby/Mennonite cabinet-maker Conestoga Wood Specialties argue:
The 'Religious Freedom Restoration Act' applies and the ACA law should not permit the federal government to violate the Christian beliefs of the owners.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_ ... ration_Act

SUPPORTERS OF THE ACA MANDATE


PROTESTORS OF THE ACA MANDATE

Not really.

The problem with being in business is that on one hand, you have liberty of contract...so no business person should be forced to violate their moral convictions. Let the marketplace decide (shoppers go elsewhere and employees choose to work for someone else). Forcing any company...even a publicly-held one...to provide insurance that pays for abortions or provide benefits to same-sex employee spouses is wrong.

On the other hand, unless you are a sole-proprietor AND your service is readily available from other competitors in the area, denying someone a service or a product because of your beliefs becomes a problem in the area of discrimination. Again, the market SHOULD decide. If not wanting to photograph a gay wedding costs you business and you are okay with that, then no harm, no foul. It's not like the couple can't find another photographer willing to do the job. HOWEVER, we have laws saying on some criteria, you can't discriminate on certain grounds when you offer a service to the general public.

The line is going to have to be drawn somewhere. Right now (on at least gay rights), a Christian baker/caterer or photographer who doesn't want to be involved in a same-sex wedding has to essentially back out of providing the service to anyone to prevent being accused of discrimination. Even if there are a dozen competitors willing and able to take the job, they could lose everything because they want to honor their beliefs in how they operate their business, and that's unreasonable.

It's so nice to see seniors staying active. They should be careful with those flags, though. Too much gyration can cause hip breakage.

It will be interesting to see the position (and argument) of Antonin Scalia in the Hobby Lobby case.

In 1990, he wrote the Supreme Court opinion in Employment Division v. Smith. Here is an excerpt which I have previously posted here on WP:

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/494/872

Scalia thus provided an impressive list of possible exemptions as a rationale for not extending 1st amendment rights to religious exemptions from civic obligations.

So, given the above, Antonin Scalia might have to argue against the precedent he established himself in order to side with Hobby Lobby. Needless to say, such an approach would probably not go unnoticed.

I would be inclined to suspect a 6-3 or 7-2 opinion in favour of the government on the basis of the above (and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius), but it is difficult to gauge how Citizens United might influence the precedent set in Employment Division v. Smith.

Anyway, that's just me speculating. And the Supreme Court has been known to troll America on several occasions.

The ruling itself can be tracked live here at SCOTUSBLOG (airs in about 47 minutes as of this writing):
http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_b ... ne_30_2014

Last edited by GGPViper on 30 Jun 2014, 11:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

Here is Harris v. Quinn (the union case), btw:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13 ... 1_j426.pdf

Looks like they will rule in favour of Hobby Lobby, as Alito delivers both opinions.

Ruling just in on Hobby Lobby. Good thing I didn't make a wager.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America rules:

... in favour of Hobby Lobby.

The decision is 5-4 with Alito (writing), Roberts Jr., Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy in the majority, and Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Breyer dissenting. A strict split across ideological lines.

The court rules that the government should provide closely-held corporate objectors the same accommodation it already provides nonprofit organization objectors according to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

Here is the opinion of the court (including 1 concurring opinion from Kennedy and 2 dissenting opinions from Ginsburg and Breyer/Kagan, respectively).
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13 ... 4_olp1.pdf

Any way, the ruling may - perhaps somewhat ironically - push the US further towards a universal health care system. As the majority opinion states:

... this could create an impetus for government-run health care programmes to expand into those areas where insurance-based coverage is restricted due to religious objections.

Thanks.

Now religious employers will opt out of coverage for contraceptives, abortions, transgender care anything , STEM cell anything and same-sex health benefits.....

And some may "find religion" when they realize that they can lower their insurance costs by claiming religious convictions.

That ain't going to happen anytime soon. First, Hobby Lobby is offering its employees health care coverage that meets the ACA mandate, so the employees do not have the alternative of getting subsidies to buy on the health care exchange; basically, the less well-paid of them (basically, anyone under 40k a year) isn't going to be able to afford to switch to the exchange, because since their employer is offering them health care coverage that meets the ACA mandate they are not entitled to any subsidies.

The Republicans are going to take control of both Houses of Congress, point blank, this year. If the Democrats cry loud enough, then perhaps the Republicans would be willing to play ball on Alito's point, but at a cost: All federal funding of sex reassignment surgery, including funding by organizations that receive any sort of federal funding. The Democrats, naturally, will take it, denying trans people the health benefits that we need.

Things are going to be hell for the next decade for the trans community. Very quickly, we are going to find that all these victories we've recently obtained are almost all going to be knocked back.

The majority opinion tried to qualify its opinion to prevent such a broad interpretation:


It is however unclear - which was pointed out in the Ginsburg dissent - exactly how the court makes a distinction between contraception and other insurance-coverage mandates wrt. religious objections.

It seems, based on his concurring opinion, that Kennedy was inches away from siding with the Liberal justices, but that the government case eventually fell on its inability to demonstrate that it could not further its goals through less restrictive means.

I can recall how years ago, there was a jackass who had divorced his wife, and adamantly refused to pay child support. And his reason? He said it was because he was a born again Christian - I know, WTF?!?!?! Don't be in the least surprised if companies opt out of any medical coverage for employees with the excuse: it violates my religious beliefs. And the damn right of the Supreme Court will probably side with them!

If they opt out of all medical coverage, then the employees would have the option of getting subsidies on the exchange. That might be better for female employees of Hobby Lobby.

SCOTUS has just turned the United States into Mexico. Good job.

Hey guys, my religion says that failing to use unpaid child labor is a mortal sin. Okay kids, into the salt mines with you. I wish you didn't have to work 20 hour shifts, but this is my immortal soul we're talking about here!

Could it be that contraceptives and abortions are a BS services to have to provide in the first place, and the religion angle was the only thing they could find to legally hang their hats on?

why does insurance have to pay for birth control

last time I checked sex was an entirely optional activity
in my opinion if you want to have sex all the time pay for your own birth control

Do you really want the yobbos that can't afford birth control to have even more kids? They will probably cost the taxpayer a lot more. And of course sex is optional, but it's a bit naive to think people are able to restrain themselves and be celibate all the time. Our monkey brains are not wired that way.