Interesting take on “Hobby Lobby”

How Hobby Lobby Undermined The Very Idea of a Corporation

This gets complicated, but bear with us. Basically, what you need to know is that if you and some friends start a company that makes a lot of money, you’ll be rich, but if it incurs a lot of debt and fails, you won’t be left to pay its bills. The Supreme Court affirmed this arrangement in a 2001 case, Cedric Kushner Promotions vs. Don King:

linguistically speaking, the employee and the corporation are different “persons,” even where the employee is the corporation’s sole owner. After all, incorporation’s basic purpose is to create a distinct legal entity, with legal rights, obligations, powers, and privileges different from those of the natural individuals who created it, who own it, or whom it employs.

That separation is what legal and business scholars call the “corporate veil,” and it’s fundamental to the entire operation. Now, thanks to the Hobby Lobby case, it’s in question. By letting Hobby Lobby’s owners assert their personal religious rights over an entire corporation, the Supreme Court has poked a major hole in the veil. In other words, if a company is not truly separate from its owners, the owners could be made responsible for its debts and other burdens.

Read the rest at the link.

Maybe the pro-corporate religious-kook 5 have managed to undermine everything they stand for?

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

A Most Revealing Week for Republicans

The McCutcheon decision, Paul Ryan’s budget, and Obamacare deniers all say what the GOP can’t: We protect the well-off from redistribution of their wealth to those who don’t deserve it.

Republicans and Republican enablers disgust me.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

4th Amendment? What 4th Amendment?

The SCOTUS UNANIMOUSLY (that’s a strong opinion, folks) grants cops even more power to search unreasonably.

Expressing considerable confidence that trained drug-sniffing dogs are reliable, and showing specific respect for one Florida police dog — Aldo — the Supreme Court on Tuesday made it quite easy for police officers to search a car or truck for drugs once a canine snooper has “alerted” to a smell on the vehicle. If the police offer evidence that a dog has been trained, or got a certificate from a training agency, that may well be enough to give police permission to turn an “alert” into a search of a vehicle, the Court said in a unanimous decision written by Justice Elena Kagan (Florida v. Harris, docket 11-817).

The Court specifically rejected a very detailed checklist of proof of a dog’s reliability that the Florida Supreme Court had drawn up before a court could treat a dog’s signaling of the presence of a drug odor as the equivalent of “probable cause” to search. In place of such a checklist, the Court set up a “reasonably prudent person” test — that is, a common-sense review of all of the facts about a dog’s alert, to see if such a prudent person would think that a search would turn up evidence of illegal drugs. “A sniff is up to snuff when it meets that test,” Kagan cleverly summed up.

Did your buddy leave a roach in your ashtray? Do not pass “GO”, go directly to jail. Loaned the car to your kids and “a friend” smoked a joint in it? You’d better hope your spouse didn’t leave a prescription container in the glove box, cuz buddy, that ain’t yours and you’re now guilty of illegal possession of drugs.

I’m amazed by dumb-fuck liberals currently calling for the cops to outgun citizens. Especially when there’s shit like this going on, too.

If you want to disarm citizens, try it. Institute the “reasonable” limits on magazine capacity.

Just don’t expect us to all go along when you make an exception for cops. Their lives aren’t worth more than mine, or my wife’s, or my child’s, or my grand-childs…

Any limit on guns should apply to cops equally to the rest of us.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

BIG SCOTUS Decision Tomorrow on ACA

I don’t have a prediction.

Scalia has demonstrated that he has no respect for the constitution, and he’s a RW/GOP hack, but protecting insurance companies is a RW cause, so who knows how he and the other 3 RW judges will rule? Lord knows, protecting corporate profits rules Alito’s world. IMO, Alito’s the worst judge of the 20th and 21st centuries, although Thomas certainly gives him a run for the money. Roberts is another RW hack, but he shows occasional flashes of sanity and objectivity, so his vote on the mandate is a mystery, to me.

I think Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer will uphold the constitution, but I’m not sure what that means in terms of the individual mandate. They’ll uphold the rest of the law, but maybe not the mandate.

Which, as usual, leaves Kennedy making the decision. Probably. Like I said, I don’t really have a prediction. If I absolutely had to guess, and I don’t, I’d bet on Scalia upholding the mandate but nothing else, with Alito and Thomas joining him. That was sort of tongue in cheek, but I have to believe it’s crossed their foul minds.

OK, if I have to guess, I’m betting the mandate will fall, but “severability” will allow the rest of the law to remain. Probably 5-4 on the mandate, and 7-3 on “severability”. Alito, Thomas, and Scalia are just politically motivated hacks at this point, and they’ll rule to overturn the whole thing. Roberts will join along with Kennedy and “the liberals” on maintaining the rest of the law.

But that’s not why I’m posting. Check this out;

If Health Care Law Struck Down, House Progressives to Push Single-Payer Option

While the White House, Congressional Republicans and Mitt Romney’s Presidential Campaign have probably worked out how they are going to react to the Supreme Court ruling, expected tomorrow, on President Obama’s health care law, the House Progressive Caucus is preparing themselves as well. According to Progressive Caucus c-chair Representative Keith Ellison, they are going to start pushing a single-payer system they are going to term “Medicare For All”.

In an interview with The Huffington Post Ellison said that a single-payer, publicly funded and administered program is the easiest and cheapest way to cover all Americans. He also said that all 75 members of the Progressive Caucus had signed onto the plan.

I’m going to repeat this ad nauseum (the beatings will continue until morale improves); there are NO progressive Republicans. There IS a difference between the two parties.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Vote For Murray Hill

Life Imitates The Onion

Murray Hill might be the perfect candidate for this political moment: young, bold, media-savvy, a Washington outsider eager to reshape the way things are done in the nation’s capital. And if these are cynical times, well, then, it’s safe to say Murray Hill is by far the most cynical.

That’s because this little upstart is, in fact, a start-up. Murray Hill is actually Murray Hill Inc., a small, five-year-old Silver Spring public relations company that is seeking office to prove a point (and perhaps get a little attention).

After the Supreme Court declared that corporations have the same rights as individuals when it comes to funding political campaigns, the self-described progressive firm took what it considers the next logical step: declaring for office.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

A “Return” to Corporations Ruling America

Many legal experts say they expect the court to use its imminent ruling, in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, to eliminate the remaining restrictions on advertisements for or against candidates paid for by corporations, unions and advocacy organizations. (The case centers on whether spending restrictions apply to a conservative group’s documentary, “Hillary: The Movie.”)

Even if the court rules more narrowly, legal experts and political advocates say that the 2010 elections will bring the first large-scale application of previous court decisions that have all but stripped away those restrictions. Though the rulings have not challenged the bans on direct corporate contributions to parties and candidates, political operatives say that as a practical matter the rulings and a deadlock at the Federal Election Commission have already opened wide latitude for independent groups to advocate for and against candidates.

“It will be no holds barred when it comes to independent expenditures,” said Kenneth A. Gross, a veteran political law expert at the firm of Skadden Arps in Washington.

Get ready for the most negative election season, ever.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)


It’s my opinion that the one over-riding driver of the average American voter is fear. Usually, irrational fear.

Fear of scary brown people, AKA “terrorists”.

Fear of gays getting married and breaking up marriages that can withstand anything else.

Fear that swarthy Hispanics will “take our jobs”. (Or perhaps the corollary, that someone other than white men will be in charge.)

Fear that we’ll LOSE our jobs, leading to sucking the corporate cock teat cock.

Fear that women will be able to consult privately with a doctor.

Fear that “the church” is losing influence.

Fear of other nations.

Fear of the government spending too much (on people) or too little (on blowing shit up and killing people).

Pants-shitting, abject fear that things will change (Forget about “for the better” or “for the worse”, change itself is “bad”) drives a status quo that gets worse, every year.

I admit to fear, myself. I’m afraid that things WON’T change. That we’re so blinded by “patriotism” that we think we can’t make this a better place to live for EVERYONE (not just our corporate masters.) I’m afraid we’ll watch, like the proverbial slowly boiling frog, until we’re either “dead” (emotionally, at least) or so fed up we realize we have nothing to lose and do something crazy.

So, whattaya think of THAT?

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Supreme Court takes a fresh look at handgun laws

The court said Wednesday it will consider a challenge to Chicago’s (handgun) ban, and even gun control supporters believe a victory is likely for gun-rights proponents.

The other day I heard Bill Clinton say that the Democrats lost the congress in 1994 because of the assault weapons ban. It will be interesting to see how they handle this. Will the WH advocate for or against this law, or will they try to stay out of it entirely?

I suspect, but don’t know, that if Obama is pressed on this he’ll come out in favor of overturning an outright ban like Chicago’s. Which would be an amazing act of courage, given the lunacy and threats of the right.

How would “you” like it if a state passed a law taking away your right to enter certain churches?

Proponents of “states rights” are usually hypocritical anti-abortion zealots. The same people are often hypocritical “states have no rights” when it comes to guns. Opponents of the second amendment are often hypocritical “states rights” supporters on this issue, and opponents of states rights when it comes to abortion. These two issues will continue to re-shape politics for years.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)