HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Supreme Court declines to...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:17 PM

Supreme Court declines to block provision covering contraceptives in health care law

Source: NBC News

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court declined Wednesday to put a temporary hold on a controversial provision in the new health care law requiring employers to provide health insurance coverage for contraceptives.

Two businesses challenging the act -- the nationwide chain of 500 Hobby Lobby Stores and Mardel, a chain of Christian bookstores -- contended that the law violates their religious freedom. Their legal battle is continuing over the merits of their claim. In the meantime, they asked the US Supreme Court to put a temporary hold on the law, which takes effect January 1, 2013.

On Wednesday, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who handles emergency appeals from the courts where the companies are based, declined to grant an injunction.

In a brief written opinion, she said the Supreme Court has never addressed similar freedom-of-religion claims brought by for-profit corporations objecting to mandatory provisions of employment benefit laws.

Read more: http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/26/16171443-supreme-court-declines-to-block-provision-covering-contraceptives-in-health-care-law

24 replies, 4601 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 24 replies Author Time Post
Reply Supreme Court declines to block provision covering contraceptives in health care law (Original post)
Tx4obama Dec 2012 OP
RKP5637 Dec 2012 #1
ProfessionalLeftist Dec 2012 #2
Lasher Dec 2012 #9
efhmc Dec 2012 #17
Panasonic Dec 2012 #3
Ikonoklast Dec 2012 #10
starroute Dec 2012 #11
Ikonoklast Dec 2012 #13
ReRe Dec 2012 #16
loyalkydem Dec 2012 #4
freshwest Dec 2012 #5
glinda Dec 2012 #14
freshwest Dec 2012 #18
bluestateguy Dec 2012 #6
AlbertCat Dec 2012 #15
SoapBox Dec 2012 #7
Vietnameravet Dec 2012 #8
davidpdx Dec 2012 #12
Tx4obama Dec 2012 #19
davidpdx Dec 2012 #22
Captain Boomerang Dec 2012 #20
Resonance_Chamber Dec 2012 #21
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #23
sellitman Dec 2012 #24

Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:22 PM

1. Hobby Lobby ... found pockets of gold in their flocks' pockets by peddling god wares. I'm surprised

Hobby Lobby doesn't want a tax free status.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:23 PM

2. Thanks to Justice Sotomayor for that. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessionalLeftist (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:00 PM

9. I warned long ago that she is a centrist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lasher (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:31 PM

17. Which is what a judge should be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:27 PM

3. Slapped. Down. Repeatedly. To. Stupid. Fundamentalist. Groups.

 

Fuck you HL, and Mardel's. You have not gotten any of my money since 2002.

Sotomeyer is telling you to sit down, shut the fuck up, and do your business, and no to invade other people's personal properties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:21 PM

10. Do corporations have religions?

Were they arguing on behalf of their own personal beliefs being violated, or those of the corporation?

I would not want to stand up in front of the Supreme Court that ruled corporations are people and argue that corporations also have religious beliefs.

Even that might be a bridge too far.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:38 PM

11. The story does say "the family that owns the two businesses"

If they really are privately-held and not public corporations, that might affect the final decision.

If I understand what's going on here, the plaintiffs are seeking an emergency stay -- which would typically require them to prove there is a strong likelihood of their case being successful. That was the grounds on which Sotomayor rejected their appeal.

But it seems like the case could ultimately be decided in favor of family-owned businesses without touching the corporations-are-persons issue at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to starroute (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:58 PM

13. They are both incorporated, a separate legal entity.

I also own a business, it is incorporated as an LC, and the business has to stand on its own.

I cannot conflate any personal financial, real estate, or any other dealings with any dealings of the business I wholly own, without leaving myself wide open to consequences.

Can't have it both ways, it's either run as an incorporated business or its a sole proprietorship, can't be both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:35 PM

16. "Corporations are people"...

...don't ya know? They now they have religion! Holy rollers they are now...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:27 PM

4. Que Rush's head exploding in five, four, three, two and .......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:38 PM

5. Religion a a personal affair. Business is a public affair. Next!

Last edited Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:56 PM - Edit history (1)

And stop discriminating against women!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:59 PM

14. Yes. If an employee does not want birth control then they don't. If they do, no business

should have any right to dictate their Religious beliefs when they make a killing off of the public, who carry varied beliefs. Where does any business have any right to "punish" employees for their choices? What a pile of crud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glinda (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:59 PM

18. They live in a fantasy world where they think they have that authority. I'm grateful to Obama and

the judges for standing up to these petty tyrants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:39 PM

6. Now I say to Hobby Lobby: you shut your mouth and comply with the law!

Obamacare now! Obamacare tomorrow! And Obamacare forever!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:35 PM

15. And Obamacare forever!

NO!

I want it to get BETTER than Obamacare. Y'know, like single payer... or a Public Option.

Obamacare's a start

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:40 PM

7. Cool!

"...the Supreme Court has never addressed similar freedom-of-religion claims brought by for-profit corporations objecting to mandatory provisions of employment benefit laws."

Hilarious.

But, have any "non" profits tried this yet? OR...there is already provisions made for "non" profit (aka, churchs) types?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:44 PM

8. Well I wonder if these same righties

would allow certain businesses to withhold taxes for wars they dont like? Guess we all know the answer to that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:40 PM

12. Can they come back and ask for an en banc hearing of the entire court?

Or petition another justice? I'm just wondering if that is now dead (for a lack of a better word).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:36 AM

19. I don't know, but I hope someone here on DU will let us know :) n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #19)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 09:02 AM

22. I know the other organization that has been fighting the ACA is Liberty University

So there may actually be several separate cases still up in the area.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:41 AM

20. I don't want to pay for women's contraception

ONLY if I don't have to pay for Righties who clog up their arteries at Chick-Fil-A and other fine righty dining establishments.

Slobby Lobby probably needs to be sued the first time they violate this new health care law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Captain Boomerang (Reply #20)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 05:39 AM

21. You make an interesting point

 

Why should I have to pay, via high HC premiums and taxes, for overweight people and people who intentionally live an unhealthy lifestyle?

One can even make a case that gun owners are driving up the cost of MY HC because statically the gun owners gun will be used to kill another member of their family. Is that not irresponsible behavior that we have to subsidize?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Captain Boomerang (Reply #20)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 09:21 AM

23. No Viagra coverage for single men ... no sex outside marriage!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #23)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:35 PM

24. You left off an important caveat

Applies to Republicans only.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread