Daily Kos: Reason #1 SCOTUS Will Regret Hobby Lobby

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/03/1311556/-Reason-1-SCOTUS-Will-Regret-Hobby-Lobby?detail=email#

THU JUL 03, 2014 AT 02:22 PM PDT

After oral arguments in the Hobby Lobby case, I wrote a very misnamed but widely read diary in which I echoed Attorney and Ring of Fire radio host Mike Papantonio's argument that the SCOTUS would never rule in favor of Hobby Lobby for a really Big Business reason: It pierces the corporate veil.

If Hobby Lobby's owners can give their Corporation religion, their religion gives Hobby Lobby's owners--and any other owner, shareholder, officer, whatever--liability for the actions of the corporation. Mr. Papantonio, who happens to be one of America's preeminent trial lawyers, sees it as an opportunity to sue owners for the company's negligence.

Some other people, it turns out, agree with his assessment and expand on what it means....

On the other side of the orange magic corporate underwear squiggle thing that is.

FULL story at link.

[libodem]

1. Interesting

Corporations are people who have their owners' religion. But what other personal ties and liabilities are tied straight to the owners. It works both ways. It is or it isn't separate.

I wonder it the owners can be personally sued for child support for all the resultant live births.

[SoCalDem]

3. I doubt it, because

they would argue that they are not required to offer health care, and that anyone can buy with their own money, all the birth control they want.. just as the company could not be sued if a person chose not to buy food with their paycheck, and starved to death.

[Toots]

8. If they have over fifty employees I believe they are indeed required to provide health insurance

At least I believe that is how it is written into the Law but I also know that employer mandates have been delayed a bit.

[SoCalDem]

9. they can choose to pay a penalty

if their religious sensibilities are so stressed, the penalty might be their easy way out

or they could offer a bare bones policy that did not cover much..and would allow their employees to use an exchange

[yeoman6987]

5. I doubt that the Supreme Court is going to regret their decision

I haven't heard of any Justice except ONE regret a decision and it happened after the Justice Retired. All 9 of them live in a bubble. They barely even know that this is a big story. Keep in mind they are all on vacation until October. Some of them might not even be in the country.

[HooptieWagon]

2. Damn, thats an interesting take.

I would love to see that angle argued in court. If successful, it would be a bombshell.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. That is exactly what's been bothering me about this case.

The Supremes basically said that the religious beliefs of the owners of a corporation could be attributed to the corporation itself. Seems to me that pokes a big hole in the corporate veil. If the religion of the owners is the religion of the corporation, why can't the liabilities of the owners become the liabilities of the corporation, and vice-versa?

The Supremes said it wasn't fair to make religious people give up the advantages of incorporation if their corporation isn't allowed to follow the religious practices of its owners. Well, boo fucking hoo. You can't pierce the corporate veil for one purpose and maintain the separate corporate entity for all others. At least, that's what they taught me in law school. But maybe at Harvard they learn something different. Or maybe they learned that in church.

[Jim__]

6. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS 5 have no qualms about contradicting themselves when convenient.

This ruling will mean only what they want it to mean. Any unpleasant implications will just be denied.

[marked50]

10. Agreed

This may sound exciting as a remedy for the HL decision- with all the upcoming challenges to the "corporate veil" giving rise to a reversal of the HL ruling but all the SC need to do is just keep making the rules that they want- contradicting or not. They will just keeping digging that hole deeper and deeper until all sense of fairness becomes just a fairy tale in the past. It is weird when you think that there should be somewhere to overrule a SC ruling....Forget impeachment with a Repub controlled House....

[panader0]

7. The decision opened a can of worms.

K and R