FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
If I owned Holly Lobby and the USSC ruled in favor of this mandate, I would presumably be wealthy enough to simply shut down. Give everyone notices, work hard to help entire Holly Lobby employee team restart somewhere else, and sell off/close.
Yes. they are more flexible than a LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget...
Off the top of my head, I can’t recall the portion of the First Amendment that stipulates that freedom of religion is denied to business owners.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
IMHO, there is another flaw in Kagan's logic that I haven't seen addressed by anyone. Paying the contraceptive-mandate penalty every year creates a history of non-compliance with the IRS. Such a history can cause trouble. Here's just one example from the IRS Penalty Handbook.
Review available IRS information in determining whether or not the taxpayer exercised ordinary business care and prudence. Check the preceding tax years (go back at least three years or twelve quarters) for payment patterns and the taxpayer’s overall compliance history.Who knows how a history of intentional non-compliance will play out 5-10 years from now.Assertion of the same penalty(s) in the taxpayer's history may indicate that the taxpayer is not exercising ordinary business care.
If this is the taxpayer’s first incident of noncompliant behavior, weigh this factor with other reasons the taxpayer gives for relief, since a first time failure to comply does not by itself establish reasonable cause. See IRM 20.1.1.3.6.1 for First-Time Abate.
Consider the length of time between the event cited as a reason for the noncompliance and subsequent compliance. The length of time between events may serve to cancel or reduce the event’s effect. Penalty relief may not be appropriate if, after considering all facts and circumstances, the taxpayer failed to correct their noncompliant behavior within a reasonable period of time.
Can the supreme court miss the side of a barn from 5 feet with a double barrel 12 gauge shotgun that fires only truth?
I think Hobby Lobby should-- and I cautiously predict, will--win this case, but the "200 years of precedent" the author talks about is far more mixed than the article lets on. Corporations have always been understood to have certain constitutional rights, chiefly those relating to protections of property rights. There are also certain constitutional rights that corporations clearly do not have, such as the privilege against self-incrimination. There are certainly gray areas in this field of law.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the USSC declares "Corporations are not People" and therefore the owners of Hobby Lobby don't have the "right" to run their business according to their religious beliefs.
By declaring "Corporations are not people" in this case, wouldn't the USSC also be overturning Citizens United, for which Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion which stated:
"Justice Kennedy's majority opinion[29] found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."[30]
I think they would. If the USSC is to be consistent, they simply HAVE to find for Hobby Lobby. If they don't, Citizens United is absolutely meaningless at worst, contradictory at best.
Just my own humble non-legal opinion.
Given the remote possibility that some freepers and lurkers have not seen the following excerpts, you will probably find them very interesting.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. (emphases added)” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description (emphasis added), as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” —Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln, 1837.
“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously (emphasis added) beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925.
Remember in November!
I’ve already given up on the fantasy that our government, especially at the federal level,
IS IN ANY WAY LEGITIMATE.
The only thing they have is FORCE. They do not have my willing compliance, as they are an illegitimate authority at this point.