++Laurence Tribe, President Obama's constitutional law professor at Harvard, says the verdict is in,"The winds of SCOTUS are blowing in a conservative direction." While he says the decisions are not as bad as they could have been, he wonders whether these are just the first tactical steps toward much more wide-ranging opinions. He cites the gutting of the Voting Act as being based on a previous modification that even had liberal votes but once they found out what it meant they rebelled.
++A blogger at Dailykos caught the legal meat of Justice Sotomayor's scathing dissent against the court issuing a temporary injunction against Wheaton College having to comply with the ACA birth control mandate. The three women justices hollered that only one day after Hobbylobby the court went back on its word that the Hobbylobby case was a one off. Sotomayor was incensed not only by the birth control aspect of the case but that to issue such an injunction the Supreme Court has to use the All Writs Act, which the court has ruled must be used sparingly and that this injunction was extraordinary since she beeves that the school's "sincere religious beliefs" do not trump its social and religious obligations to fill out the PCCA forms.
++If you have read this blog, you will know that I accepted Mike Papantonio's interpretation of HobbyLobby as ruinous to the veil of corporate indemnity. Mike has pointed out that no business association had filed an amicus curiae brief for HobbyLobby because they thought it jeopardized the immunities granted under corporate law.
++But Mike said SCOTUS would never side with HobbyLobby. He was wrong. But court observers believe he ultimately is right. Alex Park in Salon writes how 44 corporate law professors filed an amicus curiae brief for the government against Hobby Lobby warning precisely about this situation. They argue that if individuals can push the corporate veil for religious reasons than regulators and shareholders can push back the other way.
Showing posts with label Mike Papantonio. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mike Papantonio. Show all posts
Friday, July 4, 2014
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Hobby Land--What Does God Want Me Not To Pay For?
++Hobby Land made news the last Jewish Holiday because they didn't have materials to make Jewish holiday decorations because Jewish Holidays were not part of their product calendar. Now the corporation has appealed to the Supreme Court for a religious exemption from paying for health insurance that would cover contraceptives. Now,they have insured for 14 types of contraceptives previously but they now think--contrary to medical opinion--that two cause abortions. This last point seemed to impress Judge Kennedy.
++Judge Roberts is trying desperately to find a narrow solution for "closely-held" companies to avoid the contraceptive mandate.
++Jeffrey Tobin in the New Yorker had an excellent piece on the gallant women on the Court dominating the debate and handing his hate back to Clement arguing for Hobby Land.
++Lawyer Mike Papantonio takes a unique position as a liberal on this question. He would love HobbyLand to win the case. A successful litigator against the tobacco companies he argues that the corporate veil, the protections of the owners against personal suits and claims against their personal property would be torn, opening up a field day for lawyers seeking punitive damages from closely held corporations.
++He points out that usually the Roberts Court sides with corporations 93% of the time. But he claims this case is a horror show for companies. He notes that there are no amicus curiae briefs filed by any companies or the Chamber of Commerce.
++Others argue that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act violates the establishment clause. Previously passed in the late 1990s,this was a reaction to the Supreme Court,led by Tony Scalia,ruling that American Indians did not have the right to use peyote in their religious ceremonies. What then are real religious convictions?
++The Supreme Court previously ruled against an Amish-run firm that believed in self-sufficiency and did not want to pay the Social Security taxes.
++What if a company has as its religious convictions not to pay taxes? Or if owned by Christian Scientists, not wanting to pay insurance that covered blood transfusions?
++The women justices raised the question whether employers can make decisions for employees and particularly determine the treatment of women employees.
++Can companies really have a religious dimension when they have nothing to do with religion per se,just that their owners might belong to one? Why not discriminate against gays or if your a Mormon against blacks?
++The men on the Court seem to lean toward HobbyLand and getting rid of the contraceptive mandate in Obamacare. Of course,with the exception of Breyer, they are all Catholic.
++Vast majorities of Democrats,Republicans,Independents, Catholics, Protestants and Jews are against any restriction on contraception. Can a billionaire religious zealot,if he really has a religious thought in his head,really dictate what Americans don't want?
++I find the case obscene. We resolved this issue of contraceptives before I was a teenager. The employer doesn't have to buy any and maybe his employees won't either. But can an employer on mere whimsy prohibit a benefit from a law to an employee?
++This case is messy and I am dubious that Mike Papantonio will prove correct--that this is too much of a reach? Let's hope SCOTUS does the right thing.
++Judge Roberts is trying desperately to find a narrow solution for "closely-held" companies to avoid the contraceptive mandate.
++Jeffrey Tobin in the New Yorker had an excellent piece on the gallant women on the Court dominating the debate and handing his hate back to Clement arguing for Hobby Land.
++Lawyer Mike Papantonio takes a unique position as a liberal on this question. He would love HobbyLand to win the case. A successful litigator against the tobacco companies he argues that the corporate veil, the protections of the owners against personal suits and claims against their personal property would be torn, opening up a field day for lawyers seeking punitive damages from closely held corporations.
++He points out that usually the Roberts Court sides with corporations 93% of the time. But he claims this case is a horror show for companies. He notes that there are no amicus curiae briefs filed by any companies or the Chamber of Commerce.
++Others argue that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act violates the establishment clause. Previously passed in the late 1990s,this was a reaction to the Supreme Court,led by Tony Scalia,ruling that American Indians did not have the right to use peyote in their religious ceremonies. What then are real religious convictions?
++The Supreme Court previously ruled against an Amish-run firm that believed in self-sufficiency and did not want to pay the Social Security taxes.
++What if a company has as its religious convictions not to pay taxes? Or if owned by Christian Scientists, not wanting to pay insurance that covered blood transfusions?
++The women justices raised the question whether employers can make decisions for employees and particularly determine the treatment of women employees.
++Can companies really have a religious dimension when they have nothing to do with religion per se,just that their owners might belong to one? Why not discriminate against gays or if your a Mormon against blacks?
++The men on the Court seem to lean toward HobbyLand and getting rid of the contraceptive mandate in Obamacare. Of course,with the exception of Breyer, they are all Catholic.
++Vast majorities of Democrats,Republicans,Independents, Catholics, Protestants and Jews are against any restriction on contraception. Can a billionaire religious zealot,if he really has a religious thought in his head,really dictate what Americans don't want?
++I find the case obscene. We resolved this issue of contraceptives before I was a teenager. The employer doesn't have to buy any and maybe his employees won't either. But can an employer on mere whimsy prohibit a benefit from a law to an employee?
++This case is messy and I am dubious that Mike Papantonio will prove correct--that this is too much of a reach? Let's hope SCOTUS does the right thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)