The US Supreme Court has issued its Hobby Lobby decision and by a 5-4 majority held that a for-profit corporation can claim religious objections that allow them to opt out of providing certain contraceptives required under Obamacare. However, the Court made it clear that religious objections are not a valid basis for discrimination or not paying taxes. [NY Times]
Here’s another aspect of the HOA scandal that hasn’t gotten much attention–Nancy Quon’s $10 million in life insurance. [RJ]
In the wake of recent escalating officer involved shootings, Sheriff Gillespie is back to asking for more cops. [8NewsNow]
It’s hot out there. How hot? So hot that one local news channel is dispensing legal advice on renter’s rights when the AC is broken. [8NewsNow]
I think the Supreme Court's ruling is a smart one. It doesn't create a large carve-out for these religious objections, but addresses them narrowly. Now there will always be people who try and test the limits, but this is a good in-between position.
Guest
Anonymous
June 30, 2014 5:27 pm
What an atrocious call. For-profit corporations–legal fictions for the purposes of establishing limited liability for their shareholders–now have religious rights? I guess they can have their cake and eat it too. Woof.
Guest
Anonymous
June 30, 2014 5:51 pm
The Hobby Lobby decision is shameful. It's not an "in-between position". What it represents is the opening to an entirely new area of jurisprudence: so-called "Corporate Religious Freedom". What about the rights of the Hobby Lobby employees to disagree with their bosses? What about their desire to abstain from religion altogether? Today's decision says that their bosses' views matter, while theirs do not.
The one saving grace in all this is, perhaps, that the market will sort itself out. Perhaps it will come to pass that employees will opt away from working for companies that engage in paternalism. Frankly, I think such a trend would be a fitting consequence for such companies. I also hope that the administration doesn't cave and find away to fill the financial hole for the employees that today's archaic ruling has created. Let the employees feel the moral judgment and financial pain of this ruling and they will simply choose to work elsewhere. This is a dark day for the U.S., along with several others that have been brought to you by the Roberts Court. Like it or not, we're headed back to the 19th century.
Woe is the poor indentured servant who is forced to slave away for his master at Hobby Lobby. If only the US was a free country where an employee could choose to work for a different master. Then, and only then, would such a ruling be tolerated. Have no doubt, the court has rolled back the clock in this country by 4 years. You may recall those dark days when an employer was free to engage in abusive practices like refusing to pay for its employees "Plan B" coverage. Mark my words, this is the end of a once great country!
Seems even more stupid to rant about it when 1) they can change employers and/or 2) they can buy their own insurance that covers the subsidy they want.
I heard a few litigation attorneys were leaving, taking their practice to another litigation boutique firm in town. Most of the original Fennemore folks look to have jumped ship.
I think the Supreme Court's ruling is a smart one. It doesn't create a large carve-out for these religious objections, but addresses them narrowly. Now there will always be people who try and test the limits, but this is a good in-between position.
What an atrocious call. For-profit corporations–legal fictions for the purposes of establishing limited liability for their shareholders–now have religious rights? I guess they can have their cake and eat it too. Woof.
The Hobby Lobby decision is shameful. It's not an "in-between position". What it represents is the opening to an entirely new area of jurisprudence: so-called "Corporate Religious Freedom". What about the rights of the Hobby Lobby employees to disagree with their bosses? What about their desire to abstain from religion altogether? Today's decision says that their bosses' views matter, while theirs do not.
The one saving grace in all this is, perhaps, that the market will sort itself out. Perhaps it will come to pass that employees will opt away from working for companies that engage in paternalism. Frankly, I think such a trend would be a fitting consequence for such companies. I also hope that the administration doesn't cave and find away to fill the financial hole for the employees that today's archaic ruling has created. Let the employees feel the moral judgment and financial pain of this ruling and they will simply choose to work elsewhere. This is a dark day for the U.S., along with several others that have been brought to you by the Roberts Court. Like it or not, we're headed back to the 19th century.
Hyperbole much?
In the immortal words of Sergeant Hulka: "Lighten up, Francis."
It's not hyperbole if it's true. The Roberts Court is not going to be treated kindly by history. Unfortunately we have to live through it.
So, 12:39, I assume you are just as angry over that Roberts Court decision keeping Obamacare intact?
Fortunately for the members of the Roberts Court, they answer to the Constitution, not to "history," whatever that is supposed to mean.
1:48 is so clever. Dred Scott much?
Woe is the poor indentured servant who is forced to slave away for his master at Hobby Lobby. If only the US was a free country where an employee could choose to work for a different master. Then, and only then, would such a ruling be tolerated. Have no doubt, the court has rolled back the clock in this country by 4 years. You may recall those dark days when an employer was free to engage in abusive practices like refusing to pay for its employees "Plan B" coverage. Mark my words, this is the end of a once great country!
This.
Seems even more stupid to rant about it when 1) they can change employers and/or 2) they can buy their own insurance that covers the subsidy they want.
This x 2
Anyone know what is going on at Fennemore Craig (Jones Vargas)
What have you heard?
I heard a few litigation attorneys were leaving, taking their practice to another litigation boutique firm in town. Most of the original Fennemore folks look to have jumped ship.