Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-26-2013, 12:51 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,783,616 times
Reputation: 4174

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by robbobobbo View Post
As for Justice Roberts' finding that the individual mandate was constitutional, he did not change anything in the law. He declared a legal justification for it (authority to tax), and dismissed one of the government's main defenses of it (commerce clause). Nothing in the mandate itself was re-worded.
The word "tax" appeared nowhere in the section specifying the individual mandate.

The word "penalty" appeared 18 times.

Roberts announced that a penalty was unconstitutional, but a tax wasn't.

He then accepted the Obamanites's strident insistence that it wasn't a penalty, but a tax... despite the fact that the bill called it a penalty and not a tax.

Roberts did, exactly, rewrite the bill. He didn't use a pen to do it, but it's rewritten.

Count on the same thing happening to the part that says everyone must provide ALL Obamacare features, including contraception.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-26-2013, 12:53 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
9,701 posts, read 5,112,677 times
Reputation: 4270
Countdown until Conservatives start defending "I don't want to offer HI to my gay employees"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2013, 01:01 PM
 
5,391 posts, read 7,230,341 times
Reputation: 2857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
The word "tax" appeared nowhere in the section specifying the individual mandate.

The word "penalty" appeared 18 times.

Roberts announced that a penalty was unconstitutional, but a tax wasn't.

He then accepted the Obamanites's strident insistence that it wasn't a penalty, but a tax... despite the fact that the bill called it a penalty and not a tax.

Roberts did, exactly, rewrite the bill. He didn't use a pen to do it, but it's rewritten.

Count on the same thing happening to the part that says everyone must provide ALL Obamacare features, including contraception.
You are right about what is in the law, I was wrong. Congress wrote the justification into the law's text. Most of Section 1501 does this. I don't agree that Robert's changed the law (the mandate itself) in a way that was extra-Constitutional, but he did invalidate 1501's language while finding a different justification for the mandate's legitimacy.

Thank you for getting me to look more closely.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2013, 01:33 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,868 posts, read 24,388,397 times
Reputation: 8672
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good View Post
Countdown until Conservatives start defending "I don't want to offer HI to my gay employees"
Its more then that. If its part of your corporations "religious moral" goal to have families, they could refuse to hire homosexuals on religious grounds.

Muslims could refuse to serve Jews, vice versa.

I just don't see how the court could rule in favor of Hobby Lobby, but we'll have to see. Like I said, big implications with this ruling.

This is the first time the court has seen a case where we are trying to apply religious belief to a for profit corporation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2013, 02:29 PM
 
15,047 posts, read 8,872,800 times
Reputation: 9510
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
I'm rooting for them. I hope they win their "right to choose".
I'm rooting for the women who work for Hobby Lobby and all the other corporations who have brought this suit. No company should ever have any say in their employees' medical decisions. Once that wall is breached, what other medical decisions will employers attempt to make for their employees? What if they don't believe in vaccines? Can they decide their employees won't be allowed to get them?

For-profit corporations should not be allowed to impose their religious beliefs on their employees.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2013, 02:32 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,878,374 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514 View Post
I'm rooting for the women who work for Hobby Lobby and all the other corporations who have brought this suit. No company should ever have any say in their employees' medical decisions. Once that wall is breached, what other medical decisions will employers attempt to make for their employees? What if they don't believe in vaccines? Can they decide their employees won't be allowed to get them?

Once you open the door to allow corporations to impose their religious beliefs on their employees you might as well throw the Constitution out the window.
Corporations don't have religious beliefs. That's what SCOTUS needs to decide. Corporations and their owners are legally separate entities. As such, the owners' religious beliefs don't necessarily extend to become the corporations' religious beliefs. If SCOTUS will apply this simple logic to these cases, they will be resolved in a clear manner that courts can apply in the future.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2013, 02:34 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,783,616 times
Reputation: 4174
What could possibly be the justification for medical insurance to be connected to your EMPLOYMENT?

The Fed govt should get rid of the tax breaks offered for employer-sponsored medical insurance.

A lot of these ridiculous problems would vanish quickly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2013, 02:34 PM
 
15,047 posts, read 8,872,800 times
Reputation: 9510
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Corporations don't have religious beliefs. That's what SCOTUS needs to decide. Corporations and their owners are legally separate entities. As such, the owners' religious beliefs don't necessarily extend to become the corporations' religious beliefs. If SCOTUS will apply this simple logic to these cases, they will be resolved in a clear manner that courts can apply in the future.
I might have agreed with you, but that was before the SCOTUS ruled that "corporations are people."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2013, 02:47 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,878,374 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514 View Post
I might have agreed with you, but that was before the SCOTUS ruled that "corporations are people."
They didn't rule that corporations were people.

They ruled that the laws regarding financial reporting and taxes treat corporations as individuals, and that since we pass laws that affect corporations, that corporations should be treated in terms of campaign finance laws the same way we treat them under tax and other laws.

However, in arguments for religious freedom it is up to the individual to argue how their religious freedom is compromised. A corporation would have to attest to religious beliefs, but since a corporation is not a person such testimony is impossible. The owner of the corporation, in the act of corporation, has severed himself legally from the business. Doing so in order to protect himself legally and financially from actions of the corporation. He cannot legally separate to protect himself, but legally connect to impose his personal beliefs on the corporation. He chooses to legally separate himself, and the separation is complete and legal. The corporation does not go to church, the corporation does not pray, does not practice a religion. Whether it pays taxes or makes political contributions
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2013, 03:22 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,481,831 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514 View Post
I'm rooting for the women who work for Hobby Lobby and all the other corporations who have brought this suit. No company should ever have any say in their employees' medical decisions. Once that wall is breached, what other medical decisions will employers attempt to make for their employees? What if they don't believe in vaccines? Can they decide their employees won't be allowed to get them?

For-profit corporations should not be allowed to impose their religious beliefs on their employees.
Nothing has stopped any woman who works at Hobby Lobby from getting birth control pills.
Obamacare mandated that Hobby Lobby pay for it. That is the issue here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top