Hellobee Boards

@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?

@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).

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.

@lawbee11: I take exception to what you wrote here:

"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."

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.

***
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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

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.

@honeybear: You owe @Lawbee11: an apology.

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.

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.

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.

"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."

I think the goal for the Supreme Court should be to make it as diverse as possible.

http://www.npr.org/2014/05/28/316552657/research-children-of-judges-may-influence-court-decisions

Sorry this kind of got off topic.