John Roberts Offers Conservatives A Way Out Of Birth Control Dilemma

[el_bryanto]

Story from Talking Points Memo. Apparently Hobby Lobby is a tightly owned corporation, so it should be allowed to do what it likes without that applying to other larger more publicly owned corporations.

"Well, that's his argument for distinguishing it," said the chief justice. "But there are others, including the fact that you avoid all of the problems with what to do if there's a percent ownership of the shareholders, if you simply say that it's in this type of Chapter S Corporation that is closely held. Whether it applies in the other situations is a question that we'll have to await another case when a large publicly-traded corporation comes in and says, we have religious principles -- the sort of situation I don't think is going to happen."

Lyle Denniston, a legal expert at the respected SCOTUSblog, observed that Roberts was "seeming to look for a way to rule narrowly for corporations" and "suggested that the case might be decided by finding such protection only for corporations that are owned by a tightly limited group of shareholders."

I really can't follow the logic here - certainly the defining characteristic is the relationship between employer and employee and not how large the company is? Or let me put it another way - if I as an individual wanted to start a restaurant, and I was going to retain sole ownership and I wanted my "hook" to be "the restaurant of 10,000 rats," the fact that I owned it personally wouldn't really save me from having to abide by safety codes.

On the other hand I guess it's mildly heartening that really big corporations won't be able to use this loophole to start doing corrupt stuff - at least not until their lawyers found a way around it.

How long do you think that would take?

Bryant

[upaloopa]

1. It has to do with ownership.

If there are multiple owners they would all have to have the same religious beliefs which most likely would not happen.

[kelliekat44]

2. If there is one single issue that Dems ought to rally around it's the SCOTUS. We need a Dem

in the WH for this reason and we need Dem Congress to support her or him.

[Xyzse]

5. This Independent is rallying around that one issue.

That's probably the biggest reason I voted Obama twice.

[VanillaRhapsody]

16. Me too!

[PoliticAverse]

3. Why do people feel the need to speculate so much on the results of possible decisions?

How much was written here on DU on how Roberts was going to find the entire ACA unconstitutional?

[el_bryanto]

6. Well it's a case that has enormous implications down the road

I admit that since we don't participate we aren't really going to influence it (unlike an election) - but at the same time people have a natural interest in what is going to happen.

Bryant

[PoliticAverse]

8. Even if the court decides for Hobby Lobby they could craft a decision so narrow

that it could end up affecting only a few thousand people at most. It is rather unlikely that
they are going to significantly increase the ability of companies (or individuals) to ignore
law based on religious belief.

[el_bryanto]

9. well two points

Only a thousand people losing privileges the rest of us enjoy is still pretty bad, and as you stated above there's no way to know how they will vote. That's why people are paying attention to this issue.

Bryant

[TBF]

13. People are intellectually curious and

of course they speculate on supreme court decisions because they have far-reaching implications. This is true no matter which political party you subscribe to.

[Electric Monk]

4. If the business owner believes in faith healing, should that allow them to not pay for anything?

Hell no, of course.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

7. Every Christian Scientist business owner wants to know (nt)

[RedSpartan]

10. What is the difference (if any) between

tightly held and private? Or is that the same thing?

[el_bryanto]

11. I'm not a lawyer - I think so but can't say for sure.

I guess the issue is whether the corporation reflects the culture of its' owners? If it's only a few than it's ok to set policy based on religious preference, but if it's a lot, it's unlikely that all of them will have the same religious preference.

Bryant

[Glitterati]

12. Answers for you

Any company that has only a limited number of shareholders. Closely held corporation stock is publicly traded on occasion, but not on a regular basis. (My note..Walmart is a tightly held corporation)

These entities differ from privately owned firms that issue stock that is not publicly traded.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/closely-held-corporation.asp

[wandy]

14. Honest question. How many people own wallmart...................

How many people own Koch industries?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Koch
What determines 'ownership'?

[el_bryanto]

15. Walmart is publicly traded so it's not owned by the Walton family

You can buy a part of Walmart if you chose to.

Koch Industries is privately owned, though.

Bryant

[okaawhatever]

17. I know the administration, and pretty much every attorney who pleads a case before scotus, limits

the legal points they argue. No one wants a legal decision that is too broad, or one that wouldn't go in their favor because their argument is overly broad or compromised in some other way. That being said, I wonder why the administration's attorneys didn't bring up the issue of Hobby Lobby not abiding by their own religious beliefs. Sourcing their goods from China when China had a forced abortion policy, being one example. I realize there is a difference in that HL chooses to buy their goods from China, whereas ACA is required by law, but I don't understand how a company can use their religious beliefs in one instance and not another. HL can't say that they aren't supporting abortion in China because many of their suppliers are state owned or public/private partnerships that return money back into government coffers. If religion is used as a basis for exemption from law, must there be proof that the closely held company has a pattern and practice of following religious doctrine?