Originally posted by EladarIt's not a surprise that Hobby Lobby won a 5-4 narrow decision based on the ideological make up of this Court. That's pretty much what most legal observers had expected. Kennedy's concurrence makes rather clear that this is about as far as he is willing to go, however.
Not a surprise? I thought you said that Hobby Lobby had no case.
30 Jun 14
Originally posted by no1marauderSo now you are saying two things:
It's not a surprise that Hobby Lobby won a 5-4 narrow decision based on the ideological make up of this Court. That's pretty much what most legal observers had expected. Kennedy's concurrence makes rather clear that this is about as far as he is willing to go, however.
1) Hobby Lobby did have a case and people do have the right to make money and hold religious beliefs.
2)Judges do not determine what is Constitutional and what is not Constitutional based on what the Constitution says, but according to the ideological beliefs of the judges themselves.
30 Jun 14
Originally posted by EladarI am saying that the SCOTUS made a ruling that I disagree with. It has done so in the past and will surely do so in the future.
So now you are saying two things:
1) Hobby Lobby did have a case and people do have the right to make money and hold religious beliefs.
2)Judges do not determine what is Constitutional and what is not Constitutional based on what the Constitution says, but according to the ideological beliefs of the judges themselves.
The case did not involve the Constitution; it was decided solely on the SCOTUS' interpretation of a law passed by Congress in 1993.
30 Jun 14
Originally posted by no1marauderI thought that the Supreme Court could only rule on laws based on Constitutionality. I thought the decision was that people who own small businesses have a Constitutional right to put their religious beliefs into practice.
I am saying that the SCOTUS made a ruling that I disagree with. It has done so in the past and will surely do so in the future.
The case did not involve the Constitution; it was decided solely on the SCOTUS' interpretation of a law passed by Congress in 1993.
But I'm sure you don't see it that way, even if that was what the judges said in their decision.
30 Jun 14
As I understand the ruling, what it will essentially do is require HHS to make a rule treating closely held corporations which have "religious objections" to the contraception mandate to be treated the same as religious non-profits that do. This means that insurance companies will have to bear the full costs of contraception services of those insureds' employees without cost sharing of any kind. See p. 43 of the decision: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/06/30/13-354_olp1.pdf?hpt=hp_c2
I'm sure that will make the insurance companies very happy.
30 Jun 14
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't think what you wrote negates what I said in the last post.
As I understand the ruling, what it will essentially do is require HHS to make a rule treating closely held corporations which have "religious objections" to the contraception mandate to be treated the same as religious non-profits that do. This means that insurance companies will have to bear the full costs of contraception services of those insureds' e ...[text shortened]... _olp1.pdf?hpt=hp_c2
I'm sure that will make the insurance companies very happy.
30 Jun 14
Originally posted by EladarYou may read the decision and it will correct your erroneous impression. The SCOTUS also rules on disputed interpretations of Federal laws. Even in that context it expressly disavowed doing what you thought they did on p. 46:
I thought that the Supreme Court could only rule on laws based on Constitutionality. I thought the decision was that people who own small businesses have a Constitutional right to put their religious beliefs into practice.
But I'm sure you don't see it that way, even if that was what the judges said in their decision.
Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer's religious beliefs.
30 Jun 14
Originally posted by no1marauderYou are grasping for straws. Perhaps you can should go back and read what I said and respond to what I said. Quit trying to change the subject.
You may read the decision and it will correct your erroneous impression. The SCOTUS also rules on disputed interpretations of Federal laws. Even in that context it expressly disavowed doing what you thought they did on p. 46:
Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer's religious beliefs.
The subject is a person who wants to open a business to make money.