https://boards.hellobee.com/ Pregnancy, Baby and Parenting blog, by Hellobee en Sat, 11 Apr 2026 11:18:19 +0000 https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/hobby-lobby-bc-ruling/page/8#post-1737900 Thu, 03 Jul 2014 09:30:31 +0000 TemperanceBrennan 1737900@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>I think @MsLipGloss makes a really good point about judicial bias, and it's something I never really thought about before I read this article on NPR about the fact that judges with daughters more likely to rule in favor of women's rights. </p> <p>"You could make the argument that judges with daughters are being biased, but you could just as easily make the argument that compared to judges who have daughters, judges who have sons are biased in a different direction. And I think what the study is pointing to is the fallacy of imagining that judges rule on the bench without bringing their personal experiences to bear. The better question to ask might be, what biases do you want the judges to have, not whether the judges are biased at all."</p> <p>I think the goal for the Supreme Court should be to make it as diverse as possible.</p> <p><a href="http://www.npr.org/2014/05/28/316552657/research-children-of-judges-may-influence-court-decisions" rel="nofollow">http://www.npr.org/2014/05/28/316552657/research-children-of-judges-may-influence-court-decisions</a></p> <p>Sorry this kind of got off topic. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/hobby-lobby-bc-ruling/page/8#post-1737708 Thu, 03 Jul 2014 08:42:30 +0000 lawbee11 1737708@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@MsLipGloss: :heart: </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/hobby-lobby-bc-ruling/page/8#post-1737540 Thu, 03 Jul 2014 07:42:27 +0000 MsLipGloss 1737540@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@honeybear: You owe @Lawbee11: an apology. </p> <p>There is a common saying among members of the bar: A good attorney knows the law, but a great attorney knows the judge. As a practicing attorney, I can tell you that attorneys/judges regularly discuss how a case may be decided (or why a case was decided a certain way) based on what is known about the judge/judges (appellate decisions are typically made by a panel of judges as opposed to a single judge) who preside over a matter. Chief among the considerations are whether the judge has been historically pro plaintiff or pro defendant, whether the judge is politically conservative, moderate, or liberal, whether the judge is religious and if so what religion she/he practices, what community/civic groups the judge is a member of and/or regularly participates in, and whether the judge has any *pet* issues (such as the environment, for example). Discussions such as these are in no way, shape, or form a violation of any rule of professional conduct. In fact, many attorneys--and judges--will tell you that neglecting to give this information the consideration it deserves is a failure to provide your client with competent representation.</p> <p>I have practiced at state/federal/national levels and in multiple jurisdictions, to include spending time clerking for a federal court of appeals judge. Judges are not demigods beyond influence from their personal beliefs and experiences. They are, like everyone else, subject to the same bias/favoritism/prejudices that we all are. Unlike everyone else, however, the Justices are uniquely situated in that they have the ability to further their ideals and shape legal precedent with scarce oversight. Sometimes they get it right. Sometimes they get it wrong. And many times, their decisions fall somewhere in between. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/hobby-lobby-bc-ruling/page/8#post-1737280 Wed, 02 Jul 2014 22:08:47 +0000 mrbee 1737280@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>&lt;&lt; If you're a lawyer you have a professional responsibility to encourage respect for the U.S. legal system. &gt;&gt;</p> <p>@honeybear: I reread the thread, and lawbee11's comments seemed pretty reasonable to me.</p> <p>&lt;&lt; You have zero legitimate grounds for assuming that because the justices in the majority are all Catholic that they'll automatically side with Christians. Justice Sotomayor is Catholic too, and she dissented. Casting unfounded aspersions on members of the judiciary because they happen to be of a particular religious faith is intolerant and contrary to all of the rules of professional conduct I've seen. &gt;&gt;</p> <p>If the lifeblood of the law has been experience, it seems pretty reasonable to discuss the experience of the justices. If you disagree with someone's analysis, you're welcome to make counterpoints! In any case, this is a message board, not the Supreme Court. Our rules of professional conduct ask that our members refrain from personal attacks.</p> <p>This thread has gone on for 8 pages, and overall has been really respectful (thanks everyone!). That's most likely to continue if we keep the thread focused on discussing the issues, and not on each other... </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/hobby-lobby-bc-ruling/page/8#post-1737245 Wed, 02 Jul 2014 21:46:03 +0000 honeybear 1737245@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@lawbee11: I disagree. You said that because they're Catholic, you guessed they would decide a case a certain way. That's an unfounded attack on their integrity. </p> <p>Look, I think disagreements about the merits of opinions are healthy. But I don't think there is any good reason to look at the personal characteristics of judges and effectively label them ideologues. And I think it's especially bad form for lawyers to do so. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/hobby-lobby-bc-ruling/page/8#post-1737240 Wed, 02 Jul 2014 21:39:33 +0000 honeybear 1737240@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@MrsH: @wonderstruck: @sunny: @mrs. bird: RFRA only protects the exercise of religion, and that's the statute at issue in <i>Hobby Lobby</i>. It is important to note that RFRA does not protect religion from any encroachment by the government whatsoever. The government has a trump card if it can show that it 1) has a compelling interest, and 2) is using the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling interest. If those two requirements are met, government can go ahead and burden the exercise of religion. Here's the main part of the text of RFRA that was in play in the case (in subsection (b)): <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000bb-1" rel="nofollow">http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000bb-1</a></p> <p>Taxes probably are the least restrictive means of achieving the compelling government interest of paying for government, so they would likely survive a challenge under RFRA. Check out page 47 of the opinion, about 2/3 of the way down: <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf</a> </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/hobby-lobby-bc-ruling/page/8#post-1737233 Wed, 02 Jul 2014 21:36:16 +0000 lawbee11 1737233@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@honeybear: I did not cast "unfounded aspersions on members of the judiciary." I simply made a prediction (hence my use of the term "guessing") as to what I think the outcome would've been had a different religion been at issue. I realize that Sotomayor is Catholic, but she's also a woman, and it's womens' reproductive rights under the contraceptive mandate that are at issue in this case. If you'd like to further discuss the rules of professional conduct, please do so on my wall. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/hobby-lobby-bc-ruling/page/8#post-1737230 Wed, 02 Jul 2014 21:35:25 +0000 LovelyPlum 1737230@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@sunny: that is true, some people do find war immoral and evil and conscientiously object to it. I'm fine with that. I'm not fine with having no opt out on this issue. </p> <p>Like I said originally, I am glad for this ruling mostly for what affect it will have (or potentially have) on future rulings about the mandate, because the religious exception clause they built in is a joke. As currently constituted, an organization must both employ and serve a majority of people.who adhere to its belief system in order to qualify. In other words, Catholic hospitals, schools, and charities who serve a majority of non-Catholic populations don't qualify. And to me, that is a gross overstep of the government'sright to imose regulations and a part of this law that needs to be corrected. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/hobby-lobby-bc-ruling/page/8#post-1737191 Wed, 02 Jul 2014 21:14:25 +0000 MrsH 1737191@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@mrs. bird: I'm not arguing right or wrong but I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court just held that a closely held for profit company can have religious views. I would be curios to learn what the Quakers do about taxes. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/hobby-lobby-bc-ruling/page/8#post-1737186 Wed, 02 Jul 2014 21:11:25 +0000 MrsH 1737186@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@wonderstruck: I'm not saying they are less valid but the decision of HL was based on religion. Hence I'm talking about religion. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/hobby-lobby-bc-ruling/page/8#post-1737185 Wed, 02 Jul 2014 21:10:59 +0000 honeybear 1737185@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@travelgirl1: Apologies, I failed to reply to your question about how insurance works in this situation. Hobby Lobby is self-insured. That means that HL pays the claims made by employees from its own funds. It is therefore directly paying for birth control if its employees buy birth control using the HL health insurance plan. Lots of companies self-insure, because there are advantages over being fully insured (cost is usually a big one). </p> <p>In any event, the fact of being self-insured ultimately does not matter. In either a self-insured or fully-insured plan, the HHS regulations that require employers to provide plans that include birth control with no cost-sharing make HL a party to the birth control purchase. If they weren't being forced to be a payor in this situation, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court. </p> <p>@lawbee11: I take exception to what you wrote here: </p> <p><i>"Considering all 5 justices who wrote the majority opinion are Catholic, I'm guessing it would've had a different outcome had any other religion been at issue."</i></p> <p>If you're a lawyer you have a professional responsibility to encourage respect for the U.S. legal system. You have zero legitimate grounds for assuming that because the justices in the majority are all Catholic that they'll automatically side with Christians. Justice Sotomayor is Catholic too, and she dissented. Casting unfounded aspersions on members of the judiciary because they happen to be of a particular religious faith is intolerant and contrary to all of the rules of professional conduct I've seen. </p> <p>***<br /> Regarding the question du jour, RFRA applies to the exercise of religion. If you've got a sincere religious belief and the government is infringing your exercise of religion in a manner that is not the least restrictive means, you're set under RFRA. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/hobby-lobby-bc-ruling/page/8#post-1737184 Wed, 02 Jul 2014 21:10:58 +0000 mrs. bird 1737184@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@MrsH: the quaker religion is very much against war, it's not far fetched to compare the financial contributions to the military made by quakers via their taxes to the contributions companies make to their employees ins covering things their employers find immoral. if anything, quaker individuals seem to have more right to claim a religious objection to funding something their religion states to be immoral since they are individuals capable of holding religious views, unlike a for profit company </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/hobby-lobby-bc-ruling/page/8#post-1737181 Wed, 02 Jul 2014 21:10:00 +0000 MrsH 1737181@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@sunny: I'm pretty sure there is a whole group of people (war tax resistors) who don't pay taxes supporting military efforts. I do not have knowledge what the IRS does as a consequence. Are there religious groups that oppose their taxes going towards the war? </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/hobby-lobby-bc-ruling/page/7#post-1737180 Wed, 02 Jul 2014 21:08:46 +0000 sunny 1737180@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@MrsH: right but you can still object to a specific war. Plus there are also pacifists who may object to all war. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/hobby-lobby-bc-ruling/page/7#post-1737179 Wed, 02 Jul 2014 21:08:35 +0000 wonderstruck 1737179@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@MrsH: I'm not sure what that has to do with anything - someone can find something immoral for non-religious reasons. There are still many people out there who find war to be immoral. Are you saying someone's moral beliefs are less valid if they aren't religious? Because I would disagree with that. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/hobby-lobby-bc-ruling/page/7#post-1737174 Wed, 02 Jul 2014 21:04:31 +0000 MrsH 1737174@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@wonderstruck: really? Most (a majority?) religious groups have wars over their beliefs. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/hobby-lobby-bc-ruling/page/7#post-1737173 Wed, 02 Jul 2014 21:04:00 +0000 sunny 1737173@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@MrsH: there are people who think that the wars were immoral. Should they be exempted from paying taxes towards military expenditure? </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/hobby-lobby-bc-ruling/page/7#post-1737171 Wed, 02 Jul 2014 21:03:22 +0000 wonderstruck 1737171@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@MrsH: Her wording was different, but I don't think it's a reach to say that some people find war to be immoral.</p> <p>ETA: Sorry @Sunny, I see we were typing at the same time! </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/hobby-lobby-bc-ruling/page/7#post-1737168 Wed, 02 Jul 2014 21:02:07 +0000 wonderstruck 1737168@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@LovelyPlum: Some people believe that the earth is overpopulated and people should stop re-producing. If someone with those beliefs owns a corporation, should they be allowed to deny their employees maternity coverage or FMLA leave? Because as ridiculous as that may sound to you or me, there are groups that feel strongly about it and do believe that it's immoral and killing the earth and such. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/hobby-lobby-bc-ruling/page/7#post-1737166 Wed, 02 Jul 2014 21:01:40 +0000 MrsH 1737166@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@sunny: not to put words in @LovelyPlum's mouth but "not in favor" doesn't exactly reach immoral. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/hobby-lobby-bc-ruling/page/7#post-1737155 Wed, 02 Jul 2014 20:55:18 +0000 sunny 1737155@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@LovelyPlum: &lt;&lt; To me, government mandates that force people to contribute to services that they find immoral (regardless of how hypocritical it may seem at face value) is an overstep that this ruling is helping to correct. &gt;&gt;</p> <p>There are lots of people who disagree with various ways the government in run, yet still are required to pay taxes. Are you saying that if I am not in favor of supporting the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, I shouldn't have to pay taxes to support the military? It just doesn't work that way. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/hobby-lobby-bc-ruling/page/7#post-1737123 Wed, 02 Jul 2014 20:36:06 +0000 LovelyPlum 1737123@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@MsLipGloss: nope! I would feel the same. To me, government mandates that force people to contribute to services that they find immoral (regardless of how hypocritical it may seem at face value) is an overstep that this ruling is helping to correct. I do not believe that the government has the right to legislate away religious freedom. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/hobby-lobby-bc-ruling/page/7#post-1737119 Wed, 02 Jul 2014 20:31:41 +0000 LovelyPlum 1737119@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@sunny: I would not. I'm for ACA generally, but not the contraception mandate. So I don't think this can simply be a pro/anti ACA thing. After all, the court did uphold another provision of ACA, so it is not as if they are completely against it, either. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/hobby-lobby-bc-ruling/page/7#post-1737113 Wed, 02 Jul 2014 20:20:38 +0000 Adira 1737113@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@sunny: I wonder that too!!! </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/hobby-lobby-bc-ruling/page/7#post-1737096 Wed, 02 Jul 2014 20:07:35 +0000 Synchronicity 1737096@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@wonderstruck: That's a great quote! </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/hobby-lobby-bc-ruling/page/7#post-1737091 Wed, 02 Jul 2014 20:04:21 +0000 sunny 1737091@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>I also wonder if people would think differently if it didn't have to do with the ACA. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/hobby-lobby-bc-ruling/page/7#post-1737070 Wed, 02 Jul 2014 19:54:39 +0000 MrsMccarthy 1737070@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>People would be losing their minds if this were a Muslim or scientologist, or Jewish case! Christian Scientists don't believe in western medicine at all. It's completely ludicrous. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/hobby-lobby-bc-ruling/page/7#post-1736996 Wed, 02 Jul 2014 19:02:05 +0000 wonderstruck 1736996@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@MsLipGloss: I would not feel differently, but I do not agree with the ruling so I suppose that is to be expected. I think it's an excellent question though. It seems that because Christianity is the most popular, and IMO most accepted, religion in our country, people are much more open to altering laws to align with that set of beliefs. It's so intertwined with our country (people's fierce belief in keeping 'under God' in the pledge and 'in God we trust' on our money being key examples) that I feel like for some reason Christian beliefs too often slip past the separation of church and state.</p> <p>I saw a Seth Rogen quote online earlier today about this whole thing that really amused me. It was, "People love defending people's rights to deprive other people of their rights." </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/hobby-lobby-bc-ruling/page/7#post-1736084 Wed, 02 Jul 2014 12:46:17 +0000 lawbee11 1736084@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@MsLipGloss: I wouldn't feel differently, but I also don't agree with it as it currently stands (and I was raised Catholic). </p> <p>Considering all 5 justices who wrote the majority opinion are Catholic, I'm guessing it would've had a different outcome had any other religion been at issue. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/hobby-lobby-bc-ruling/page/7#post-1736074 Wed, 02 Jul 2014 12:42:28 +0000 Jenn23 1736074@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@Adira: "I personally would feel the same. Religion is religion and corporations can't be religious in my opinion!"</p> <p>Agreed!! I don't even want to KNOW anybody's religious views when it comes to business. There is a time and a place for it for some people, but not in the workplace and certainly not when it affects employees. I'm still so angry about this decision. :( </p>