The Supremes

[cellio]

Dear SCOTUS,

Let me see if I have this right: A corporation that has a small number of shareholders, like a family, is a "person", and a corporate "person" can reject at least one legally-required expenditures it objects to on religious or moral grounds, and thus Hobby Lobby doesn't have to follow Obamacare's requirement to fund contraception. Got it.

A corporation, while maybe a "person", is clearly no more of a "person" than an actual, real live person, like me. There are legally-required expenditures that apply to me that I object to on religious or moral grounds too. So, dear SCOTUS, could you please clarify which of those I can opt out of? If Obamacare or contraception is somehow unique, please specify how. If you say that I can't opt out, why not? Surely you're not saying that, for example, Hobby Lobby has more rights as a person than I do?

(Quite aside from how you feel about any particular law, while it's a law it should apply equally -- or there should be a clear reason that cases aren't equivalent.)

Comments

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

I believe those suits relate to rather abstruse points, and won't survive challenges. Basically (if I understand the cases correctly) they relate to the fact that by SIGNING a document which says they won't offer contraceptive services, they set into motion means by which those services will still be offered. They don't want to "certify", since the sole path that might be open to them to avoid complicity is to not provide the services but not state whether they do or not.

I suspect that the final decisions will be that honest certification for what you are and are not doing is not a substantial burden because the level of complicity in the result is too far-fetched.

[eub.livejournal.com]

Well, we shall see whether they're tossed 9-0 or what. The majority does seems to be telegraphing its intention to toss them! Which is an interesting thing to do with a still-open case.