i think it seems like a use of the law by HL that differs from the way congress intended the law to be used when passed

but court's gotta look at that E.R.A. (congressional intent, legislative history and canons of construction) in determining whether HL is "person" under the law in question. and it seems like administration couldn't find legislative history materials to suggest that Congress did in fact have a specific contrary intention

Nigerian man deemed mentally ill in Nigeria for being atheist:

Mubarak Bala was being held against his will at the hospital after his Muslim family took him there, it said.

The hospital said it was treating Mr Bala, 29, for a "challenging psychological condition", and would not keep him longer than necessary.

Kano is a mainly Muslim state and adopted Islamic law in 2000.

The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) says that when Mr Bala told relatives he did not believe in God, they asked a doctor if he was mentally ill.

Despite being told that he was not unwell, Mr Bala's family then went to a second doctor, who declared that his atheism was a side-effect of suffering a personality change, the group says.

Mr Bala, a chemical engineering graduate, was forcibly committed to a psychiatric ward at the Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital, but was able to contact activists using a smuggled phone, it says.

They believe in the truth of their religion so much that they deem someone who doesn't believe in their religion to be mentally unwell. Amazing convictions there, fellas. What pussies.

Unemployment down to 6.1 after 288k job report.

CalvinBall wrote:Unemployment down to 6.1 after 288k job report.

I was promised 13% + if we re-elected Obama.

PhillieMooDo wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Unemployment down to 6.1 after 288k job report.

I was promised 13% + if we re-elected Obama.

the dirty little secret is they're not counting all those undocumented kids as unemployed

There is a lot of alarmingly intelligent analysis of HL in this thread.

My problem with the decision is its privileging of the right of a fictive entity to freedom exercise of religion over the the right of individuals to live as they please, and civil libertarians everywhere ought to be equally concerned. I think Ruth Bader-Ginsburg generally got it right: any individuals right to religious freedom ends at the end of his or her nose/fingertips; my right to religious freedom does not allow me to encroach on anyone else's right to engage in any legal activity in which s/he chooses to engage. But corporations who employ people, owing to the particular nature of what it is to employ someone in a country where health insurance is tied to employment, do encroach on individual rights when they assert "freedom of religion" in refusing to pay for contraceptive care (and this by the way says nothing about whether 'contraceptives' are always taken by women for the express purpose of preventing pregnancy, which they are not; they have other palliative effects for which they might be legitimately prescribed).

I also have a problem with the fact that, in awarding certain freedoms of consciousness to corporate entities, the court essentially drew arbitrary lines of demarcation as to where a corporation may or may not have religious beliefs. Matters of sexual morality are apparently fair game, but the court showed "consciousness of guilt," or at least an understanding of the potentially ruinous affects of its own logic, by going out of its way to cite examples where a corporation wouldn't have religious freedom, like in whether or not to cover vaccinations. The majority attempted to defend this position by citing compelling government interest as part of the strict scrutiny test, but this whole process gives away the game: corporations may be fictive persons, but they don't really make INDIVIDUAL choices; any choice they make affects more than the corporate entity itself, and, importantly, its owners, and as such they should not be treated, with respect to religion at anyrate, as a person making personal decisions about personal morality.

Bottom line: you don't want to provide health insurance that includes access to birth control? Then don't run a business. No one is putting a gun to your head. If you run a business, you will of necessity have contact with people who did not share your religious beliefs, and your right to yours should not and should never permit you to affect someone else's legal choices about their own lives.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:I don't think it's preposterous at all to suggest that a person gives up something when they avail themselves of the legal fiction of the corporate veil. Instead, the Supreme Court has increasingly expanded the corporate veil while refusing to make any corresponding limitations on that protection.

e.g., A homosexual employee can't personally sue his owner/boss for unlawful termination, but is instead limited to filing a claim against the company. Yet the company might now be able to claim some religious protection under RFRA in the employment action due to the owner's alleged moral objection to the homosexual lifestyle.

The primary purpose of the corporate entity/legal fiction is to mark a distinction between the shareholders and the corporation itself. That is the absolute foundation of corporate law, and it's something that law students learn in their first day of class in a corporate/closely held course. You are presuming something reverse... that the corporation is simply an alter ego of the shareholder. It is not.

That is why I say that the individual gives something up when he/she starts a corporation.

Don't get me wrong... you're in excellent company in your position considering that the decision went 5-4 in your favor. It's great that you agree that "person" means a closely held business vis a vis RFRA. But there's a reason that Amici were filed by a slew of corporate law professors in favor of the government's position (i.e., not the type of law professor typically aligned with liberal causes).

As for Breyer and Kagan, who knows what they would have decided if there was a coalition of five. It's not in any way uncommon for a justice to hold back on sweeping statements when it's unnecessary, as it was in this case.

This is all really stellar, first-rate stuff, succinctly and clearly argued. May I quote you elsewhere?

jerseyhoya wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:If you don't have to pay towards something that majority voted for and works on behalf of everyone, member or not, then you shouldn't have to pay taxes either if you don't like the government.

The difference between mandating taxes to the government and dues to a private organization like a union is pretty vast.

Calling a public employee union, or indeed any union, a "private" organization implies that they are more like, well, Hobby Lobby than they are like the government, which is really untrue.

Unions are not "owned" in the proper sense by anyone; they are free associations of employees working in a certain area (a bargaining unit), are voted into existence by majorities, have leadership that is also democratically elected from among their own ranks, and have contracts that are ratified by majorities. One of the fundamental flaws of all the writing on Harris v. Quinn and "agency fee" or "fair share" in general (and I suspect this on the part of at least some people an intentional flaw, meant to push a certain political position with respect to the idea) is that this is somehow about state laws requiring people to pay union dues. This article on Harris v. Quinn used to have language exactly to that effect, but I tweeted them about it (and maybe others?) and they evidently changed it (the article used to refer to "state laws requiring public-sector workers to pay union dues."

First of all, agency fee is not full union dues; it is a percentage, and the funds collected may only be used for 'normal' union functions - paying salaries of people who negotiate and enforce contracts, etc. I work for a union, and believe me: despite what Alito writes in the majority opinion, there is very little difficulty about distinguishing between "chargeable" (i.e., purely contract-related) and "non-chargeable" (i.e., political work, etc.) expenses, because we are watched like HAWKS by the IRS. The rules are very clear, and they are tightly followed, or else everyone goes to jail, and we all know it.

Secondly, and more importantly, there is NO state law that requires non-members to pay dues. Agency fee may only be collected in the first place if there is a state law that PERMITS it to be collectively bargained from the state. There is a world of difference between those two concepts. Public sector unions may only be formed in the first place by a majority vote of the affected workers, and the unions they form may only collect agency fee if the union bargains that from the state, and then the contract is ratified by a majority vote of membership.

In other words, there is no real distinction betwee "the union" and its members. All unionization is done first and foremost on a local level, by a vote of the workers directly affected. Their contracts are similarly bargained. Members may vote down a contract if they wish. A dissenting worker, one who voted against the union and against the contract, may be required ONLY to pay a minimum fee, and only then if a majority voted for the union AND FOR THE CONTRACT, just as a taxpayer who voted against the current government and called his legislator to block the new legislation may only be charged regular taxes and may not be compelled to donate to his legislator's next campaign. Furthermore, any such dissenting member is free to say anything he likes at all about the union or its leadership (which, again, is democratically elected from among the local set of employees), including organizing his co-workers against a contract, or against the union itself. It happens all the time. I have worked in public sector settings where union members voted no on contracts that the elected leadership of the union recommended, and where members voted the union out of existence entirely.

The point is, there are democratic remedies, and a non-member paying agency fee in no way has any limits placed on him/her in terms of what s/he may say or do to work against the union if s/he wishes, and if a majority agree, s/he will get his/her way. A fee payer may even join the union formally and run for office PURELY to undo the union, which I have seen happen, and work.

mozartpc27 wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:I don't think it's preposterous at all to suggest that a person gives up something when they avail themselves of the legal fiction of the corporate veil. Instead, the Supreme Court has increasingly expanded the corporate veil while refusing to make any corresponding limitations on that protection.

e.g., A homosexual employee can't personally sue his owner/boss for unlawful termination, but is instead limited to filing a claim against the company. Yet the company might now be able to claim some religious protection under RFRA in the employment action due to the owner's alleged moral objection to the homosexual lifestyle.

The primary purpose of the corporate entity/legal fiction is to mark a distinction between the shareholders and the corporation itself. That is the absolute foundation of corporate law, and it's something that law students learn in their first day of class in a corporate/closely held course. You are presuming something reverse... that the corporation is simply an alter ego of the shareholder. It is not.

That is why I say that the individual gives something up when he/she starts a corporation.

Don't get me wrong... you're in excellent company in your position considering that the decision went 5-4 in your favor. It's great that you agree that "person" means a closely held business vis a vis RFRA. But there's a reason that Amici were filed by a slew of corporate law professors in favor of the government's position (i.e., not the type of law professor typically aligned with liberal causes).

As for Breyer and Kagan, who knows what they would have decided if there was a coalition of five. It's not in any way uncommon for a justice to hold back on sweeping statements when it's unnecessary, as it was in this case.

This is all really stellar, first-rate stuff, succinctly and clearly argued. May I quote you elsewhere?

Thanks, and go right ahead.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:I don't think it's preposterous at all to suggest that a person gives up something when they avail themselves of the legal fiction of the corporate veil. Instead, the Supreme Court has increasingly expanded the corporate veil while refusing to make any corresponding limitations on that protection.

e.g., A homosexual employee can't personally sue his owner/boss for unlawful termination, but is instead limited to filing a claim against the company. Yet the company might now be able to claim some religious protection under RFRA in the employment action due to the owner's alleged moral objection to the homosexual lifestyle.

The primary purpose of the corporate entity/legal fiction is to mark a distinction between the shareholders and the corporation itself. That is the absolute foundation of corporate law, and it's something that law students learn in their first day of class in a corporate/closely held course. You are presuming something reverse... that the corporation is simply an alter ego of the shareholder. It is not.

That is why I say that the individual gives something up when he/she starts a corporation.

Don't get me wrong... you're in excellent company in your position considering that the decision went 5-4 in your favor. It's great that you agree that "person" means a closely held business vis a vis RFRA. But there's a reason that Amici were filed by a slew of corporate law professors in favor of the government's position (i.e., not the type of law professor typically aligned with liberal causes).

As for Breyer and Kagan, who knows what they would have decided if there was a coalition of five. It's not in any way uncommon for a justice to hold back on sweeping statements when it's unnecessary, as it was in this case.

This is all really stellar, first-rate stuff, succinctly and clearly argued. May I quote you elsewhere?

Thanks, and go right ahead.

And, I've already had need for it.

mozartpc27 wrote:My problem with the decision is its privileging of the right of a fictive entity to freedom exercise of religion over the the right of individuals to live as they please, and civil libertarians everywhere ought to be equally concerned.

The right of individuals to live as they please, i.e. have someone else pay for stuff they want. Libertarians of all stripes must be aghast.

I want to eat lunch today. My employer isn't feeding me. The government isn't mandating that they feed me. Why isn't the government making these corporations let me live as I please?

mozartpc27 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:If you don't have to pay towards something that majority voted for and works on behalf of everyone, member or not, then you shouldn't have to pay taxes either if you don't like the government.

The difference between mandating taxes to the government and dues to a private organization like a union is pretty vast.

Calling a public employee union, or indeed any union, a "private" organization implies that they are more like, well, Hobby Lobby than they are like the government, which is really untrue.

Unions are not "owned" in the proper sense by anyone; they are free associations of employees working in a certain area (a bargaining unit), are voted into existence by majorities, have leadership that is also democratically elected from among their own ranks, and have contracts that are ratified by majorities. One of the fundamental flaws of all the writing on Harris v. Quinn and "agency fee" or "fair share" in general (and I suspect this on the part of at least some people an intentional flaw, meant to push a certain political position with respect to the idea) is that this is somehow about state laws requiring people to pay union dues. This article on Harris v. Quinn used to have language exactly to that effect, but I tweeted them about it (and maybe others?) and they evidently changed it (the article used to refer to "state laws requiring public-sector workers to pay union dues."

First of all, agency fee is not full union dues; it is a percentage, and the funds collected may only be used for 'normal' union functions - paying salaries of people who negotiate and enforce contracts, etc. I work for a union, and believe me: despite what Alito writes in the majority opinion, there is very little difficulty about distinguishing between "chargeable" (i.e., purely contract-related) and "non-chargeable" (i.e., political work, etc.) expenses, because we are watched like HAWKS by the IRS. The rules are very clear, and they are tightly followed, or else everyone goes to jail, and we all know it.

Secondly, and more importantly, there is NO state law that requires non-members to pay dues. Agency fee may only be collected in the first place if there is a state law that PERMITS it to be collectively bargained from the state. There is a world of difference between those two concepts. Public sector unions may only be formed in the first place by a majority vote of the affected workers, and the unions they form may only collect agency fee if the union bargains that from the state, and then the contract is ratified by a majority vote of membership.

In other words, there is no real distinction betwee "the union" and its members. All unionization is done first and foremost on a local level, by a vote of the workers directly affected. Their contracts are similarly bargained. Members may vote down a contract if they wish. A dissenting worker, one who voted against the union and against the contract, may be required ONLY to pay a minimum fee, and only then if a majority voted for the union AND FOR THE CONTRACT, just as a taxpayer who voted against the current government and called his legislator to block the new legislation may only be charged regular taxes and may not be compelled to donate to his legislator's next campaign. Furthermore, any such dissenting member is free to say anything he likes at all about the union or its leadership (which, again, is democratically elected from among the local set of employees), including organizing his co-workers against a contract, or against the union itself. It happens all the time. I have worked in public sector settings where union members voted no on contracts that the elected leadership of the union recommended, and where members voted the union out of existence entirely.

The point is, there are democratic remedies, and a non-member paying agency fee in no way has any limits placed on him/her in terms of what s/he may say or do to work against the union if s/he wishes, and if a majority agree, s/he will get his/her way. A fee payer may even join the union formally and run for office PURELY to undo the union, which I have seen happen, and work.

Money is fungible.

jerseyhoya wrote:I want to eat lunch today. My employer isn't feeding me. The government isn't mandating that they feed me. Why isn't the government making these corporations let me live as I please?

jesus christ you're drunk already

meanwhile, Johnny Roberts & His Stricken Balls Bois are getting frisky with their new precedent

The headlines on Salon.com's homepage right now:

Fireworks should be banned
This is not a democracy: How the Supreme Court allowed the 1 percent control
We are a clueless nation: America's congenital blind spot on Iraq
We, the people are violent and filled with rage: A nation spinning apart on its Independence Day
How to win July 4th: Salon's holiday guide to arguing with right-wing relatives
Dick Cheney's demented last laugh: Neoconservatives destroyed American exceptionalism, but made Obama collateral damage
I hate the Fourth of July
The Founding Fathers backed Thomas Piketty - and feared a powerful 1 percent

Happy Fourth of July!!!

Say hello to Kurdistan.

jerseyhoya wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:My problem with the decision is its privileging of the right of a fictive entity to freedom exercise of religion over the the right of individuals to live as they please, and civil libertarians everywhere ought to be equally concerned.

The right of individuals to live as they please, i.e. have someone else pay for stuff they want. Libertarians of all stripes must be aghast.

I want to eat lunch today. My employer isn't feeding me. The government isn't mandating that they feed me. Why isn't the government making these corporations let me live as I please?

There's no law saying an employer has to feed you. Cool strawman, tho.

I will totally agree with you that Libertarians only care about the "freedoms" they want to(i.e. anything that helps white males who own guns).

They had no issues with 16 contraceptives, only the ones they didn't understand the science behind.

They had no issues with 16 contraceptives, only the ones they didn't understand the science behind.

The rare 73-minute double post

Wtf