Justices side with religious hospitals in pension dispute

[TexasTowelie]

Source: AP

Religious hospitals don't have to comply with federal laws protecting pension plans, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday in a case that affects retirement benefits for roughly a million workers nationwide.

The justices sided with three church-affiliated nonprofit hospital systems being sued for underfunding their employee pension plans.

The hospitals — two with Catholic affiliation and one with Lutheran ties — had argued that their pensions are "church plans" that are exempt from the law and have been treated as such for decades by federal officials.

Workers asserted that Congress never meant to exempt massive hospital systems that employ tens of thousands of workers. They said the hospitals are dodging legal safeguards that could jeopardize their benefits.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/justices-side-religious-hospitals-pension-dispute-47840798

[7962]

1. Wow; unanimous ruling. I guess the law is pretty clear on this. nt

[Honeycombe8]

19. Unanimous says it all, I guess. Bummer. Don't work for religious hospitals, ya'll! nt

[Eliot Rosewater]

26. Change the law, fuck religious institutions.

[Hortensis]

22. Right. The law and the prinicple of the law.

I remember back in the early 1990s when I worked in insurance, and one of the clients I worked on was involved in a major case about whether a church had a right to fire employees whose behavior was contrary to the beliefs of that church. Yes. And I agreed, a pretty simple case. Not that I let on to all the media besieging us for statements.

There are complicating, "graying" issues, like the partially publicly held status of Hobby Lobby, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. So not a big-change ruling.

[pfitz59]

2. Time to end all religious fiscal exemptions

Tax the churches. Treat them like the corporations they are!

[ybbor]

4. THIS

[sandensea]

5. 400 years of relentless puritan brainwashing have made sure that won't happen.

These holy rollers play for keeps.

[Raven123]

8. Absolutely!

[mountain grammy]

18. YES, YES and YES!

[B Stieg]

20. YUP!

Tax 'em!

[not fooled]

25. Amen!

[bucolic_frolic]

3. A pension is like real estate

You own it until you don't pay the taxes

So you're paying into this pension fund, and you're not guaranteed, or vested.

"real estate" comes from the term meaning 'royal estate' - a piece of the king's land.

A pension is just a piece of the church's assets too.

The little guy gets the bill.

[angrychair]

6. Ok...what the serious fuck

First the USSC rules 9-0 to allow big banks and investment companies that defraud and steal billions of dollars the right to keep the money if it's been more than 5 years.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN18W1UQ

Now, it rules 8-0 that religious organizations, including hospitals, have no obligation to fund and can even lie about their retirement funds.

How much longer are people going to allow those with wealth and power to continue to fuck the little person.

[barbtries]

7. today's ruling was actually 8-0

though i am certain that had Gorsuch not been recused he would have voted with the majority.

i am so sick of religion.

[angrychair]

11. I agree, he definitely would have ruled in favor

Thanks for the catch though, didn't realize Gorsuch recused himself. I corrected my post.

[packman]

9. How much longer are people going to allow those with wealth and power

to continue to fuck the little person.

As long as they can get away with it-

[Yo_Mama]

28. The Supreme Court is not a legislative body. Pure and simple. It passes no laws.

If you want the laws passed, lobby Congress. Don't blame the Supreme Court.

Even when the Supreme Court says something isn't constitutional, and that changes the way the law works, in theory they are working with laws that conflict with more basic law (the Constitution).

I don't know where people get this idea that the Supreme Court, or any court, is supposed to say what the law should be. The courts' role is to say what the law IS.

If you are sitting around hoping for the courts to pass laws, you are the political problem.

[Solly Mack]

10. Because..god. That's why.

Must be nice to have such an easy out for everything,

[angrychair]

12. How very xian of them

To defraud their employees and screw the poor.

When Jesus saw the poor and hungry, he looked to his disciples and said "fuck them, I'm not going hungry".

[angrychair]

13. Reminds me

That I used to live in an area with a Catholic hospital.
They had a sign hanging on the wall in the ER, on the same wall as a golden Christ on a cross icon hanging on the wall, that if you didnt have insurance that they were only obligated to stabilize emergency situations and that you would need to pay first or seek services at another facility.

Aka "if you are poor and don't have insurance I guess your going die bitch."

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

27. Actually that's true of all ERs, regardless of the kind of hospital.

If you don't have insurance, they only need to stabilize you.

Trust me, it's not a Catholic hospital thing. Unfortunately, a lot of people have no idea this is how ERs work, especially if you don't have insurance. And it's why the goddam Republicans and all others of their ilk who think it doesn't matter if people don't have health insurance because after all, they can go to the ER, haven't a clue how it really works.

[vkkv]

14. Buyer (of religious doctrine) Beware !!

[appleannie1943]

15. If you are a nurse or doctor, don't apply for work in a religious hospital.

See how long they last without staff.

[turbinetree]

16. Talk about doing the Lords work...................

So go to work for a Lutheran or Catholic "entity" pay money into your worthless 401-K pension, and now you get the money changers of the church screwing "all" of there believers and don't have to pay.

I thought there was rules:

Thou shalt not steal, or

Thou shalt not lie.

So what have they being doing with the money? Apparently both lying and stealing and telling everyone it was "fully funded".

And coming to your worthless 401-k plan at a job that is not affiliated with a church---------------------zilch, if a church can have it why not some business, after all they are now considered a person, and the head cheese can be affiliated with a church, look no further than Hobby Lobby.

Well workers get two strikes today, don't it just give you that warm fuzzy feeling, of how equal justice under the f***ing law is working so well





/

[appleannie1943]

17. I worked as an aide in a Catholic Hospital and watched a 20 something woman die after giving birth

to her 6th baby in 8 years. It was a preventable death but you must comply to your husband's needs and birth control is a sin. So 6 young kids did not have a mother. They still operate that way.

[demosincebirth]

21. chalk another one up for the "right." This is only the begining

[Jake Stern]

33. Made possible, in part, by justices on the "left"

[demosincebirth]

34. Yup.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. So why isn't this against the First Amendment?

Congress passed a law favouring hospitals run by religious groups - they get to spend less on employee pensions, thus giving them an advantage in a non-religious business (healthcare) over competing secular hospitals. And the employees get shafted as a results.

Kagan said in her ruling that Congress intended hospitals run by churches to be able to offer the worse pensions, and so she was ruling that the churches can. But shouldn't the Supreme Court be deciding if Congress passed an unconstitutional law?

[angrychair]

24. If this is a sample of rulings to cone

We are screwed.

[Yo_Mama]

29. Sotomayer wrote the one opinion and Kagan the other. This does not have to do with politics.

If you want the law changed, go talk to Congress.

[angrychair]

30. Ok

While I would agree the laws should be better defined, I find it abhorrent that this is their decision.
It is the focus of this body to weigh the rights and responsibilities of the Constitution in relation to what is best in the public interest given that consideration.

For those we entrust to protect us and ensure PEOPLE are protected, to willingly and knowingly allowing companies they know to be criminals, to retain illicit gains, especially sums in the millions or billions, likely from citizens that trusted these thieves with their financial futures, is horrid.

There is no Constitutional guarantee to retain illegal money. Only in the financial industry is it legal.
If that is the case all criminals should abandon drugs and sex and just do financial crimes...it's apparently easy money and no one arrest you.

[Yo_Mama]

31. But the statutes control, again. Think about the implications of the SC "fixing" Congressional laws

to make them more just, in their opinion. If the law has a five year statute of limitations, then Congress can change that. The SC cannot.

If the SC were to just change this (and how would that be constitutional?), inevitably, the people would lose control of the legislative process. Every crappy judge would be there for a lifetime, and serve as a super-legislature. And we would have no constitutional method of fixing it!! You have to understand, there is so much money against us, and it would cost so little to stack the court. We would lose all effective representation and rapidly become an oligarchy.

What you want is the worst possible outcome for the causes you support. The WORST.

These were both unanimous cases based on the law as Congress passed it. The fix here is to lobby Congress. We get to vote those idiots in and out. We don't get to do that with US judges.

[angrychair]

36. The USSC has changed law

Love v Virginia.

Brown v board of education

Roe v Wade

"Interpretation" of laws around sexism and ageism

Or the other way around

By upholding federal (DOMA) and state laws around gay marriage for years and then all of a sudden, not.

It is the job of the courts to interpret the intent within the framework of the Constitution.

That being said, it's not that I don't understand your point. I do.

If republican45 being in the WH and rulings like this doesn't already confirm an oligarchy than I don't know what would.

[keithbvadu2]

32. More of the republican/church-as-a-business Jesus

[Xolodno]

35. Sadly, I have to agree.

Separation of Church and State goes both ways. Religious hospitals are often underwritten by religious charitable groups/members/churches/etc.

Their responsibility is duty of care to the patient and standard working conditions...and that's pretty much it.

If I worked for a school that was sponsored by a religious institution, I expect basic working conditions enforced by law. Beyond that, I wouldn't trust them as far as could throw them....no wait...that's still too far.