Posted on 03/26/2014 10:49:22 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
If one wants sober and careful analysis of legal issues, the last media outlet one would choose would be MSNBC — and Joy Reid demonstrates why. Taking a page from Jamie Stiehm and using a construct that would be called bigotry in any other context, Reid warns viewers that a Supreme Court full of Catholics are a threat to the progress toward a more secular nation, especially in the Hobby Lobby/Conestoga case being heard at the Supreme Court today. Can you really trust Catholics to interpret the law, Reid asks (via Truth Revolt and Jeff Dunetz):
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
Now, the most famous use of corporate personhood was Citizens United, which opened the door to corporate people spending lots of money to sway elections. The new cases ask whether corporations are not just people, but people who can have religious beliefs. Can the Hobby Lobby Craft Store chain, and Conestoga Wood Specialties of Pennsylvania claim that covering contraception in their employees’ health plans violates their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration act, which says government can’t substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion? And can a New Mexico photographer refuse to shoot a gay wedding through her corporate expression of herself? The Obama administration is arguing that corporations are, in fact, not people, and that they can’t shield themselves behind religious beliefs. The court that will decide includes six Catholic justices, some of whom have not been shy about asserting their religion. And all of this is taking place as the country becomes more secular. Even as the fervently religious fight even harder than ever to push creationism in taxpayer funded schools, and on science TV shows. And where the question of corporate personhood has gone from whether the railroad has to pay its taxes to whether corporations can be religious people. The question is do you trust this court to make those decisions?
The decision will almost certainly avoid the discussion of corporate personhood, as Lyle Denniston predicted last week at SCOTUSBlog, because the Supreme Court doesn’t need to go that far to reach a decision in either direction:
But the Court need not go that far, even if it should lean toward ruling in favor of an exemption within the business world from the ACA’s contraceptive mandate. It could decide that the Green family and the Hahn family have a right to exercise their religious beliefs in the way they run their business firms, and that this mandate intrudes on those rights.
Along the way, of course, the Justices would have to find a way around the conventional business law notion that corporations stand apart from their owners. But they could do that with a very narrow definition of the rights of the owners of a company that is so closely held that it is essentially not a public corporation, except in name. Again, though, that would grow out of the rights of the owners, not of the corporate entity itself.
It wouldn’t necessarily need to even go that far. The court could find that government cannot establish a crisis in contraception access that makes it a compelling state interest in the first place, which puts it at odds with the RFRA. We’ll have more on that later, though.
Jeff points out the hypocrisy at MSNBC evident in this clip:
If there was three African-Americans on the court and someone protested that those three black Justices could not fairly judge civil rights cases, there would be screams of racism coming from the media, and those screams would be justified.
However because Joy Reid was questioning Catholic judges, it’s no big deal. In the world of the mainstream media it’s only bigotry when directed toward certain groups, blacks, women, Muslims, Hispanics, etc. But Joy Reid’s comments were just as bigoted as anything coming from David Duke. Ms Reid should be chastised for her bigotry–but that will never happen because Catholics are not one of MSNBC’s “protected groups.”
It’s worth noting that the six Catholic justices on the Supreme Court rarely reach any kind of consensus, unless it is a consensus shared by the whole court. Reid bases her argument of religious bias on literally nothing at all but her own prejudice. One suspects it’s because of the desperation the Left has over the Hobby Lobby case and the HHS mandate in general, but it may just be that Reid has a bias against Catholics in public life apart from this, too.
With the Roberts court, I wouldn’t make a bet on anything.
But the government mouthpiece is making some interesting noises. Starts to sound a bit like a religious test of office.
I feel the same way about the Constitution-trampling, America-hating commie DemocRAT justices. Can we “trust” them?
They believe in separation of church and state.
They believe the government should be able to force people to worship as the government dictates.
They believe all SC justices should be atheists or, at least, keep their mouths shut.
Roberts I dunno????????
My first thought also.
A couple of brief observations. 1) The First Amendment does not mention anything about personhood, individual or corporate. 2) If corporations cannot have a religion, how could a state, a city or the federal government?
Kennedy is the one to worry about in this case.
If the previous “news coverage” of previous SCOTUS arguments give us a hint, then we should not be counting out chickens just yet for a Hobby Lobby victory. Remember when conservative commentators on Fox News were gushing over the grilling 6 SCOTUS justices gave the Obama SG when hearing arguments for the repeal of Obamacare? Ends up being turned on its head in the decision.
My observation is when a justice asks these piercing questions to put an attorney off guard or grill them, they usually have their minds up in favor for the side getting grilled and just do it to clear out the little remaining doubt they have in their minds.
At least the past few years that has been the norm.
There are actually 6 liberals sitting SCOTUS justices. Kennedy is no swing vote at all (liberal). I will let you decide which of the remaining 4 justices is the last "masked liberal." It is not Thomas, not Scalia, not Alito...oops gave it up.
They are all getting up there in years and thinking about meeting their Maker. What an inconvenience.
Actually after yesterday I think Kennedy is in the bag for the government. The decision will most likely be in favor for the government 6-3 with Kennedy and Roberts siding with the majority.
Right, but in case they don,t what every one needs to do is dissolve the corporations.
I don,t know how it would be done but there is a difference between a company and a corp.
Obama's SG yesterday fed Kennedy (and Roberts too) the "solution" to keep the contraception mandate intact. He offered that a corporation could just drop the healthcare coverage and have the employees sign up with the Obamacare exchanges. A most clever statist suggestion which the court will take to a 6-3 vote in favor of the government (Kennedy and Roberts will side with the majority).
Here’s why Hobby Lobby will win:
The left is arguing that as individuals everyone has first amendment religious rights, but once a group forms a corporation, those rights are lost and become subject to government regulation.
If this is the case, then it must also be true that individual journalists have a right to freedom of the press, but once those journalists come together to form a corporation aka New York Times, CNN, FoxNews, then they would also lose their First Amendment rights and be subject to government regulation. If one situation it true, then the other situation must also be true as there is no differentiation between any of our First Amendment rights. They cannot make a case that one right is less or more than the others.
The next argument has to do with leftists claiming that since women have the right to use contraception, employers must bear the expense. That’s like saying because we have the right to bear arms, our employers must purchase our guns for us if the government tells them too.
But the best argument is statutory and Hobby Lobby will win the case on these grounds alone. The Religious Freedom and Restoration Act passed in 1993 (under Clinton) already makes it illegal for the government to pass any law that substantially burdens the free exercise of religion. In this case we have a department of the executive branch attempting to reinterpret statutory law by issuing regulations. Sebelius clearly does not have the authority to do this, it belongs to the legislative branch alone.
We got them; and they WILL make up their own minds.
There is secular law of the land, and there is a Higher Law.
When there is disagreement between the two; I would hope that someone, who CLAIMS to follow and believe certain Religious precepts, would rule in a manner that reflects them!
A most clever statist suggestion which the court will take to a 6-3 vote in favor of the government (Kennedy and Roberts will side with the majority).>>>>>
Right, with justices like that we do not have a constitutional republic.
The next argument has to do with leftists claiming that since women have the right to use contraception, employers must bear the expense. That’s like saying because we have the right to bear arms, our employers must purchase our guns for us if the government tells them too.>>>>>
Good thinking, and if that fails the Government should steal from the tax payers and buy our guns for us.
I believe that the tolerant and open minded folks at MSNBC should be congratulated for showing their religious tolerance and lack of religious bigotry. (MEGA-SARCASM)
I forgot to add: Has anyone checked to see if their KKK robes are back from the laundry, so they can wear them the next time they voice another similar religious toleration toward Catholics.
What about the Jews, mein reporteratrix?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.