Skip to main content

View Diary: Senate Democrats set vote on legislation protecting birth control coverage (44 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I appreciate the effort but (9+ / 0-)

    don't understand why the bill doesn't deal with the whole question of corporate personhood in the RFRA, Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

    They only need amend the law to say that "person" means "Human beings acting in their individual capacities and does not include any corporation, partnership or other artificial entity or any human acting through any such entity."

    That is what was originally intended.

    The Murray bill only addresses the ACA issues and not all the other mischief coming down the road by people pursuing their bigotry through their businesses in the name of religious liberty.

    Further, affiant sayeth not. 53959

    by Gary Norton on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 01:57:19 PM PDT

    •  You may be right... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gary Norton

      I would have to read it again and research the legal argument.  Here is a link for others to read:
      http://www.supremecourt.gov/
      The pdf of the Hobby Lobby case is on the right.

      But also read the orders, linked on the home page
      but in the left topic box, near the bottom.
      And read the ones after the Hobby Decision.  

      Those old guys expanded the decision in the fine print.

      We are a nation that respects religious beliefs, but also the right not to have those beliefs imposed upon you by others...and we should therefore keep it out of other people’s business — and bedrooms. George Takei 7/1/14

      by Lipstick Liberal on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 02:24:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, but the decision is based on (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kfunk937, DocGonzo

        the Court's determination that the term "person" in the RFRA is not limited to  "individuals, "natural persons" or "human beings" if you will. The term is not defined in the law. The relied on a generic definition in the code where person includes both individuals ant entities. All we need to do is put a definition in. Then the RFRA basis for a suit disappears. They can still try a 1ST Amendment suit but this bill does not deal with that anyway.

        Further, affiant sayeth not. 53959

        by Gary Norton on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 02:52:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Corporate personhood is a convenience, nothing (0+ / 0-)

      more.

      implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment" is "a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends.
      Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984)

      From Hobby Lobby:

      Protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations thus protects the religious liberty of the
      humans who own and control them.

      The enabling regulations already exempted religiously based not-for-profit corporations.  Personally, I have trouble seeing a meaningful difference between not-for-profit and for-profit corporations in this context.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 03:59:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Again, Hobby Lobby is a RFRA case, not (0+ / 0-)

        a Constitutional one. Congress has the power to define the limits of the laws it enacts.

        Further, affiant sayeth not. 53959

        by Gary Norton on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:40:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Absolutely. But see some other comments about (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Gary Norton

          the purpose of RFRA WRT to American Indian religious practices and ask how you're going to change it without making it unconstitutional.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:46:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The indian practices involve individuals, (0+ / 0-)

            not artificial entities. And if there is concern that they involve tribes, include tribes in the definition of person. When writing definitions in law they can be tailored as wished.

            Further, affiant sayeth not. 53959

            by Gary Norton on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 05:24:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Individuals do not lose their rights when they (0+ / 0-)

              associate with each other. That applies to tribes and it applies to corporations.

              The differentiation that makes sense to me is the difference between closely held private corporations and public corporations.  A public corporation is bought and sold as a commodity. There really is no association of individuals there.

              LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

              by dinotrac on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:33:54 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Democrats Passed RFRA Near Unanimously (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gary Norton

      As I described in another comment in this thread, Democrats made the RFRA bill law near unanimously while they controlled all three elected chambers. I'm not so sure this result is "unintended consequences". Though unraveling the ACA right while it seems to be helping Democrats retain even a sliver of power does seem to be "collateral damage" they'd like to look like they're undoing.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:13:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They did and it was a bad law , but one (0+ / 0-)

        that was passed to respond to a Supreme Court decision.

        Regardless of how we got here it would be good to make clear that religious beliefs are held by individuals only for purposes of the RFRA. Whether there is a 1st amendment question for entities is a separate question that Congress cannot decide.

        Further, affiant sayeth not. 53959

        by Gary Norton on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:39:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Regarding How We Got Here (0+ / 0-)

          Tactically it's important to eliminate corporations as "persons" under RFRA, because that overbroad term in RFRA is a white hot poker up the republic's skirt right now.

          But strategically it's even more important to understand the RFRA itself was passed overwhelmingly by Democrats. Because we must understand that Democrats can't just be trusted to defend us from theocracy. This is even more important than the crucial issue of women's privacy protections by the Constitution trumping anyone's (or anything's) contrived "religious belief". It is existential.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 11:14:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site