SCOTUS today: 2 HUGE deicisions

[boutons_deux]

bull Corporate-Americans can also have a bull religion?

The VRWC/Corporate FINAL SOLUTION in their War on Employees by killing unions?

[FromWayDowntown]

Since it seems an almost certainty that Justice Alito has been assigned the majority opinion in at least one of those cases, I'd say the odds are strong that the outcome of whichever case that might be will be disappointing to the left.

For whatever it's worth, Harris (the unions case) seems almost certainly to be a case that was assigned to Justice Alito. It was heard in January and everyone else on the Court (other than Justice Alito) has written a majority opinion for a case assigned in that sitting.

I'd say the odds are pretty bad for a left win on Hobby Lobby, too. There were 6 cases heard by the Court in March. 5 of those have already been decided, leaving 4 justices without a majority opinion from March. Those 4 are Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Alito. Normally, my guess would be that Justice Kennedy has Hobby Lobby, since he's generally the consensus builder. But he's already authored 8 majority opinions this Term while several others, including the Chief Justice, have only authored 7 opinions. Since the distribution of majority opinions tends to be fairly even, the expectation would be that one of those who've only authored 7 opinions would have Hobby Lobby (and not, therefore, Justice Kennedy). But it wouldn't be terribly unusual for one justice to be +2 over others in a particular Term (it looks like the last time that happened was in OT 2011, when Justice Kennedy wrote 9 majority ops while most others wrote only 7).

[boutons_deux]

"disappointing to the left"

nope, disappointing to America, to women, to employees

[FromWayDowntown]

Alito actually has both opinions.

[CosmicCowboy]

From a layman's viewpoint the Hobby Lobby lawsuit seems very similar to Citizens United. If they are going to give corporations first amendment rights of freedom of speech how can they deny first amendment rights of freedom of religion?

[FromWayDowntown]

5-4 in Harris, but the commentators in the courtroom seem to think the outcome does not gut public employee unions.

[FromWayDowntown]

From a layman's viewpoint the Hobby Lobby lawsuit seems very similar to Citizens United. If they are going to give corporations first amendment rights of freedom of speech how can they deny first amendment rights of freedom of religion?

I think that's right. I'm not particularly sold on the fundamental point of Citizens United, particularly because we don't always treat corporations like people (in a number of legal contexts, the courts specifically distinguish corporations from people in terms of the legal rights of each). I'm not sure that corporations should be treated like people in some cir stances in which they want to be treated like people without being treated like people in other cir stances where they would prefer to be treated as faceless en ies. But that's what the law is at the moment and it does seem likely (particularly with Alito writing Hobby Lobby) that the rubric applicable to CU will generally apply to resolving the Hobby Lobby issues.

We'll know in just a few minutes.

[boutons_deux]

Hobby Lobby Is Only The Second Most Important Decision The Supreme Court Will Hand Down On Monday

Hobby Lobby is a major case, with tremendous implications for whether religious conservatives must obey the same rules that apply to the rest of society, but there is another case pending before the Court that has even greater implications for what kind of nation America will become. On Monday, the Supreme Court is expected to hand down two cases, Hobby Lobby and a lesser-known case called Harris v. Quinn. Of the two, more is actually at stake in Harristhan in Hobby Lobby.

Defunding Labor

Harris arises from a group of home-based aides for Medicaid patients in Illinois, a majority of whom voted to unionize. When a majority of a workforce, but not every single worker, votes to be represented by a union, the union is still required to represent the interests of the non-union workers. That means all workers must be treated equally at the bargaining table — a union cannot entice workers into joining the union by bargaining for one set of wages for union members and another, lower set of wages for non-members.

By any reasonable objective measure, the union struck a very good deal for Illinois’ home health aides. Before the union negotiated a collective bargaining agreement, the aides’ wages were just $7.00 an hour. Now they are $11.65 an hour, and they are scheduled to increase to $13.00 per hour in December. Nevertheless, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (NRWLDF), an anti-union litigation shop, found a handful of home health aides who object to this arrangement. Those objectors are now the plaintiffs in Harris.

Specifically, these plaintiffs object to a provision in the collective bargaining agreement requiring non-members to pay what is known as “agency fees” or “fair-share payments” in order to reimburse the union for the costs of bargaining on their behalf. Bargaining on behalf of hundreds or thousands of workers can be an expensive task. It often requires bargaining agents with a sophisticated understanding of an employer’s finances, and lawyers who can trace out the full consequences of every contract provision under discussion. If non-union members can enjoy the benefits of belonging to a unionized workplace — according to one study, unionization raises wages by about 12 percent on average — then they will get something for nothing while their co-workers who join the union will bear the costs.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...arris-preview/

Funding[edit]

The National Right to Work Foundation is a public foundation that operates under the tax-exempt status of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code meaning it is eligible for tax-deductible donations. The Foundation says its supporters are "union members, former union members, independent employees, business owners, and others" and that "individuals, corporations, companies, associations and foundations" are eligible to donate, but that the group receives no government support.^[4] It says it has received donations from "more than 350,000 Americans."^[3]
The iden ies of donors are not disclosed, but some of its funding has been traced to conservative foundations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...nse_Foundation

NRTWF is part of the VRWC, aka "movement conservatism", to wage non-stop War on Employees.

[FromWayDowntown]

Hobby Lobby being read now.

[FromWayDowntown]

It appears that HL wins its case -- closely-held corporations cannot be required to provide contraception coverage because the RFRA applies to regulations that govern the activities of such en ies and the government failed to show that the ACA mandate is the least restrictive means of advancing its interest in ensuring cost-free access to contraception. Apparently, the opinion is highly-qualified; as the SCOTUSBlog people are saying: the opinion "concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs," and "does not provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice."

Notably, Justice Kennedy in a concurring opinion says that the government could pay for the coverage itself.

[CosmicCowboy]

Yeah, i expected them to limit it to closely held corporations.

[boutons_deux]

It appears that HL wins its case -- closely-held corporations cannot be required to provide contraception coverage because the RFRA applies to regulations that govern the activities of such en ies and the government failed to show that the ACA mandate is the least restrictive means of advancing its interest in ensuring cost-free access to contraception. Apparently, the opinion is highly-qualified; as the SCOTUSBlog people are saying: the opinion "concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs," and "does not provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice."

Notably, Justice Kennedy in a concurring opinion says that the government could pay for the coverage itself.

The VRWC/Christian War on Vaginas nails another vagina to its trophy wall.

[CosmicCowboy]

The VRWC/Christian War on Vaginas nails another vagina to its trophy wall.

Did it hurt, Boo?

[FromWayDowntown]

I would say this about today's opinions: the majority, which was the same in both of the cases (CJ Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito), could have easily gone much further in each case than it chose to. And it's not like that majority is constrained in some way by anything other than a belief in the rule of law. I say that without reading the opinions and just taking the commentary about them at face value.

[Blake]

Sidebar opinion:

I still think the fact that we only have 9 Supreme Court judges is ridiculous.

[FromWayDowntown]

And apparently, the Court did hold that corporations are persons for the purposes of the RFRA (to extend Citizens United). Where it ultimately distinguished closely held a corporations from other larger forms of en y is by concluding that closely-held corps can have a particular religious belief without deciding whether a larger, publicly-traded en y can have such a belief.

[FromWayDowntown]

Sidebar opinion:

I still think the fact that we only have 9 Supreme Court judges is ridiculous.

Frankly, I'm not sure how many more would be workable. Nor am I sure that more would make a significant difference. Is 11 or 13 or 15 really that much different than 9? Would a 6-5, or a 7-6, or an 8-7 opinion in a close case really be more acceptable than a 5-4?

[boutons_deux]

The VRWC SCOTUS-court packing continues to screw Human-Americans.

a corporation is a person? bull .

this bull "person" can Taleban-like impose its religious bull on its employees? bull

Thanks, Repugs and Repug voters.

[CosmicCowboy]

Boos vagina hurts.

[boutons_deux]

5-4, employees/unions LOSE AGAIN

[boutons_deux]

so those Harris home care workers get to have their hourly knocked down from union $11 back to $7.

How wonder how much the VRWC paid these low-wagers to themselves over.

[CosmicCowboy]

It will be interesting to see just how broadly Harris is interpreted. Can a conservative member of a union that is in the pocket of the Democrats refuse to pay dues that are used to benefit political candidates he disagrees with?

[boutons_deux]

It will be interesting to see just how broadly Harris is interpreted. Can a conservative member of a union that is in the pocket of the Democrats refuse to pay dues that are used to benefit political candidates he disagrees with?

I'm sure the VRWC/Repugs will launch 10s or more of suits buildingon/expanding this precedent.

[FromWayDowntown]

Boos vagina hurts.

An aside: I don't really get why suggesting that a man is a woman is an insult. I never have, and I doubt that I ever will. I certainly don't think my daughters, wife, or mother are weak because they're female and it's never occurred to me to try to insult a guy by ascribing female qualities to him.

Probably just me.

Carry on.

[boutons_deux]

Boos vagina hurts.

right-wing misogynist employer exposes his assholiness