Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, July 01, 2014

The Supreme Court has opened up a new front in the battle over corporate rights by ruling that family-owned and other closely held corporations can mount religious objections to government action. The court allowed the exemption and in so doing raises the possibility of religious-based exceptions on issues such as blood transfusions, antidepressants and vaccinations, liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned in her dissenting opinion.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Corporations are people too, my friends. Just better than you.

The GOP

#1 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-07-01 11:15 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

The court allowed the exemption and in so doing raises the possibility of religious-based exceptions on issues such as blood transfusions, antidepressants and vaccinations, liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned in her dissenting opinion.

Yes, the possibility exists if, as does Justice Ginsburg, you ignore the the compelling interest and substantial burden prongs of the RFRA.

Ginsburg on Monday cited then-Justice John Paul Stevens' lengthy dissenting opinion in Citizens United, in which he said corporations "have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires."

Nothing in the majority opinion says otherwise about corporate conscience, etc.

#2 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-01 11:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

The more ludicrous and out of touch the rulings of the GOP corporate-activist judges become, the tougher it will be for the GOP candidates to defend those rulings in the general election.

"Corporations are people too, my friend," will be appended with "Corporations have deeply held spiritual beliefs, my friend." The GOP will then have to claim that corporations are entitled to suffrage, since most human beings will be so disgusted by this inanity that the repub candidates will never be able to win another national election without corporate votes.

#3 | Posted by censored at 2014-07-02 12:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

Strange this was a law passed by democrats 20 years ago.

The court ruled Obama violated this law.

This is nothing new the court granted no new rights just upheld the law the democrats passed.

If the democrats think they can start a movement to take religious rights away from companies in the US then great just run on that and see how many are kicked out of office.

#4 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-07-02 12:39 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

If the democrats think they can start a movement to take religious rights away from companies in the US then great just run on that and see how many are kicked out of office.
#4 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-07-02 12:39 AM

You think voters consider corporations to be people? Do you think that there are more employers than employees? You think voters want their employers deciding what kind of medical treatment they can get based on their employer's alleged religious beliefs? The answers to those questions, and the electoral ramifications, should be obvious to anyone with anything approaching a tenuous grasp on reality.

#5 | Posted by censored at 2014-07-02 12:51 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

If the democrats think they can start a movement to take religious rights away from companies in the US

And there we have it folks.

The past magically modified so that the worst part about this decision can be justified.

Hey numbnuts, when in the past was it recognized that corporations have religious beliefs or rights to begin with?

#6 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-02 01:51 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

The GOP will then have to claim that corporations are entitled to suffrage

At what time after inception, if ever, is it acceptable to abort a corporation?
Does corporate life begin at charter?

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-02 03:55 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Corporations have the same rights as you but can't go to jail.

#8 | Posted by Sycophant at 2014-07-02 09:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

Strange this was a law passed by democrats 20 years ago.

#4 | Posted by tmaster

How could you possibly bring that up at a time like this?

It was introduced by chuck u shumer, every dem voter for it and slick willie signed it.

Ain't that sumptin?

#9 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-07-02 09:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

We're basically living the prequel to every work of fiction that takes place in a dystopian future where corporations are the government. If you've ever read or watched a book or movie that takes place in such a setting and asked yourself "How could things every really go that far in the first place?", now you know.

#10 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-02 10:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

Time for all of us to become corporations?

#11 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-02 11:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

#10 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2014-07-02 10:04 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

I've been watching Continuum on Netflix and that's exactly what happened - the corporations are basically the government AND control the police. Not such a crazy notion after all...

#12 | Posted by bartimus at 2014-07-02 12:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Large companys control the US by buying the DC --------. It ain't because they get to vote. The 50% on the dole control the vote.

#13 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-07-02 12:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Alito said the ruling dealt specifically with the birth control provision, noting that in other cases, like immunization, the government was likely to be able to show that it had a compelling interest and that there was no less restrictive means for it to achieve its goal.

I am eager to see this tested and hope Alito is correct. Slippery slopes are just that: slippery.

#14 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-07-02 12:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

I guess women's health is not a compelling interest to Alito.

#15 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-02 01:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

I guess women's health is not a compelling interest to Alito.

I believe he said in the majority opinion that it was only IUD and morning after pill based and they ruled as they did because Obamacare allows for employees of religious based non-profits to have access to these at our expense.

I could be wrong however. The reporting on this story from all sides has been horrible and ripe with "lies of omission."

#16 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-07-02 01:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

I've been watching Continuum on Netflix and that's exactly what happened - the corporations are basically the government AND control the police. Not such a crazy notion after all...

#12 | Posted by bartimus at 2014-07-02 12:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

I haven't seen that but its a common theme in sci-fi.

My favorite movie that plays on that theme is Rollerball (the 1975 version with James Caan, not the unwatchable remake). Used to be on TV alot when I was a kid. Once in a while it still pops up. Saw it on IFC a few months ago.

#17 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-02 01:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

The 50% on the dole control the vote.
#13 | Posted by Sniper

Wow, it's grown from 47% to 50% since Romney said it?

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-02 01:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

the corporations are basically the government

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
en.wikipedia.org

Craigslist v. 3Taps, 2012. 3Taps was accused by Craigslist of breaching CFAA by circumventing an IP block in order to access Craigslist's website and scrape its classified ads without consent. In August 2013, US federal judge found 3Taps's actions violated CFAA and that it faces civil damages for "unauthorized access". Judge Breyer wrote in his decision that "the average person does not use "anonymous proxies" to bypass an IP block set up to enforce a banning communicated via personally-addressed cease-and-desist letter".[31][32] He also noted "Congress apparently knew how to restrict the reach of the CFAA to only certain kinds of information, and it appreciated the public v. nonpublic distinction -- but [the relevant section] contains no such restrictions or modifiers.

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-02 01:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

I guess women's health is not a compelling interest to Alito.

No, the Court assumed there is a compelling interest but other prongs of the statutory test were not overcome by the government. Court rules in favor of for-profit corporations, but how broadly? In Plain English

#20 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-02 01:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

When will a corporation be convicted of a crime?

#21 | Posted by kudzu at 2014-07-02 03:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

The idea to bring the case was not Hobby Lobby's, but the work of the conservative Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. This is critical, because reporters ought to note that Hobby Lobby, according to its own court filing, was providing employees with contraceptive coverage it apparently concluded violated its religious beliefs. As Stephanie Mencimer of Mother Jones pointed out, Hobby Lobby says it has a problem with "the emergency contraceptive pills Plan B and Ella and IUDs, which they (erroneously) believe are abortifacients."

But, Mencimer noted:

The company admits in its complaint that until it considered filing the suit in 2012, its generous health insurance plan actually covered Plan B and Ella (though not IUDs). The burden of this coverage was apparently so insignificant that God, and Hobby Lobby executives, never noticed it until the mandate became a political issue.

Common Dreams

#22 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2014-07-02 04:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The burden of this coverage was apparently so insignificant that God, and Hobby Lobby executives, never noticed it until the mandate became a political issue."

so, one can conclude that the folks at Hobby Lobby are douchebags. Another conclusion is the inclusion of that that mandate inside ACA was probably an overreach as it actually set coverages back some. The point was to improve the coverages.....not get them excluded by challenges like this one.

#23 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-02 05:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

The 50% on the dole control the vote.
#13 | Posted by Sniper

Wow, it's grown from 47% to 50% since Romney said it?

#18 | Posted by snoofy

well, Obamacare has been pretty successful so we should be getting more Socialist by now.

#24 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-02 06:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Both parties favor the corporate person.

You are either for ending this abomination, or you are a fascist of one stripe or another. There is no ambiguity.

#25 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-07-03 03:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

When will a corporation be convicted of a crime?

Happens more often than you may think. THE TOP 100 CORPORATE CRIMINALS OF THE 1990's

#26 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-03 03:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort