Hobby Lobby court decision

[Odelay]

This is the best takedown that I've seen (from a Fed District Judge appointed by Bush 41):
Remembering Alexander Bickel’s passive virtues and the Hobby Lobby cases

July 5, 2014 By RGK in Uncategorized Tags: Alexander Bickel, Hobby Lobby, legal realism, passive virtues 163 Comments

In the Hobby Lobby cases, five male Justices of the Supreme Court, who are all members of the Catholic faith and who each were appointed by a President who hailed from the Republican party, decided that a huge corporation, with thousands of employees and gargantuan revenues, was a “person” entitled to assert a religious objection to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate because that corporation was “closely held” by family members. To the average person, the result looks stupid and smells worse.

To most people, the decision looks stupid ’cause corporations are not persons, all the legal mumbo jumbo notwithstanding. The decision looks misogynistic because the majority were all men. It looks partisan because all were appointed by a Republican. The decision looks religiously motivated because each member of the majority belongs to the Catholic church, and that religious organization is opposed to contraception. While “looks” don’t matter to the logic of the law (and I am not saying the Justices are actually motivated by such things), all of us know from experience that appearances matter to the public’s acceptance of the law.*

The Hobby Lobby cases illustrate why the Court ought to care more about Alexander Bickel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia “passive virtues“–that is, not deciding highly controversial cases (most of the time) if the Court can avoid the dispute.** What would have happened if the Supreme Court simply decided not to take the Hobby Lobby cases? What harm would have befallen the nation? What harm would have befallen Hobby Lobby family members who would have been free to express their religious beliefs as real persons? Had the Court sat on the sidelines, I don’t think any significant harm would have occurred. The most likely result is that one or more of the political branches of government would have worked something out. Or not. In any event, out of well over 300 million people, who would have cared if the law in different Circuits was different or the ACA’s contraception mandate was up in the air?

Next term is the time for the Supreme Court to go quiescent–this term and several past terms have proven that the Court is now causing more harm (division) to our democracy than good by deciding hot button cases that the Court has the power to avoid. As the kids say, it is time for the Court to stfu.

[Odelay]

Another criticism I've read that seems relevant is the issue of the separation between a corporation and it's owners. These assholes get the best of both worlds. If the corporation financially fucks over it's employees, vendors, customers or the government, lawsuits against the corporation are confined to the assets of the corporation. You can't go after the owners' assets because the corporation represents a legal entity that is separate from the owners and therefore the owners have limited liability.

However, with this decision, the corporation is tightly bound with the owners and the legal entity that was created is now meaningless as the corporation and owners are treated as one in the same.

One thing you're advised on when forming a corporation is not to pierce the corporate veil by having the owners be too cozy with the company, intermingling assets, etc. I wonder how it would go for these owners if they fell on hard times and went through bankruptcy. Any lawyer for the debtors would surely go after these owners for piercing the veil, right?

[trish]

Talk about an activist court!

I find this decision to be a huge blow to religious freedom. In a time when jobs are few and far between, hundreds of thousands of employees are now disadvantaged because of the religious whims of their employers...or should I say employer because Hobby Lobby is a single person.

Moreover, all kinds of strange metaphysical questions arise from this decision. Is the person known as Hobby Lobby (HL for short) a distinct person from its owners. Can persons own persons now? Is HL's religion necessarily the same as that of its owners? Shouldn't the person HL have the right to decide its own religion? If the person HL actually did choose its own religion, how would we know what religion it chose? Finally, what is the person HL's gender and does it practice birth control. If not, why aren't there a lot of little Hobby Lobbies running around?

[trish]

Did Hobby Lobby receive its personhood upon conception?

[buttslinger]

Part of religion spends it's time in serene hills outside of town, and part is spent upsetting moneylender's tables in the temple. One more skirt on the Supreme Court and Catholics would be the ones crying.

In the finest court of Justice, people will still get upset, suffering will occur. Earthly Justice, anyway. Cash plays a large part in our quality of life, admit it.

Lots of these damn "Give your car to charity" outfits put ads on the radio leading people into thinking they'll restore your junker and donate it to a needy family........they take your car directly to the junkyard, collect scrap payment, and pocket most of the money. Completely legal. Even the Salvation Army sends most of it's donated clothing to shredders to be salvaged like bottles and newspapers. The difference is whether or not one person is UNFAIRLY profiting off another. There's the debate.

MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY

[trish]

So Hobby Lobby became a person when the first dollar bill wiggled its way through its fallopian corridors and penetrated the receptive cash register that opened to it with a passionate ka-ching! Or was it when the first spermatozoa wended its circuitous way from the owners of Hobby Lobby into the republican, Catholic, male majority of the Supreme Court?

[danthepoetman]

...