Skip to main content

After oral arguments in the Hobby Lobby case, I wrote a very misnamed but widely read diary in which I echoed Attorney and Ring of Fire radio host Mike Papantonio's argument that the SCOTUS would never rule in favor of Hobby Lobby for a really Big Business reason: It pierces the corporate veil.

If Hobby Lobby's owners can give their Corporation religion, their religion gives Hobby Lobby's owners--and any other owner, shareholder, officer, whatever--liability for the actions of the corporation.  Mr. Papantonio, who happens to be one of America's preeminent trial lawyers, sees it as an opportunity to sue owners for the company's negligence.  

Some other people, it turns out, agree with his assessment and expand on what it means....

On the other side of the orange magic corporate underwear squiggle thing that is.

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.
So says Alex Park, writing in Salon today.
"If religious shareholders can do it, why can’t creditors and government regulators pierce the corporate veil in the other direction?" Burt Neuborne, a law professor at New York University, asked in an email.

That's a question raised by 44 other law professors, who filed a friends-of-the-court brief that implored the Court to reject Hobby Lobby's argument and hold the veil in place. Here's what they argued:

   

Allowing a corporation, through either shareholder vote or board resolution, to take on and assert the religious beliefs of its shareholders in order to avoid having to comply with a generally-applicable law with a secular purpose is fundamentally at odds with the entire concept of incorporation. Creating such an unprecedented and idiosyncratic tear in the corporate veil would also carry with it unintended consequences, many of which are not easily foreseen.
This is definitely going to complicate things for the religious extremists on the SCOTUS and empire wide as these lawsuits inevitably proliferate.  Putting on the popcorn....now.

Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 2:08 PM PT: Thanks for all the love.  Really feels good to write something that gets read, especially by this community.  Sorry I haven't been able to keep up with the comments.  First, excellent discussion.  Way more than I had considered.  And second, I'm in cancer treatments right now (I'll be fine) so it's really hard for me to concentrate for long without getting dizzy.  Thanks for all of your thoughts on this topic.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  You need to have a conscience to have regrets (48+ / 0-)

    Also self-awareness, the ability to admit mistakes, honesty, empathy, and about a dozen other personality traits none of those self-righteous ideologues possess.

    "You owe your soul to the company store!" - United States Supreme Court Justices

    by Fordmandalay on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 02:31:10 PM PDT

  •  They Won't Feel Any Obligation to Follow Their (29+ / 0-)

    decision to any logical consequences that harms their constituents. They'll find a few words to say that the expansion of power of owners does not equal their liability expanding in any way. That is, if they even agree to hear such a challenge.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 02:34:48 PM PDT

  •  How to put this (12+ / 0-)
    If Hobby Lobby's owners can give their Corporation religion, their religion gives Hobby Lobby's owners--and any other owner, shareholder, officer, whatever--liability for the actions of the corporation.
    No.  There's no legal connection between the idea that a closely held corporation can be treated the same as a non-profit under the RFRA and piercing the corporate veil.

    Though it's interesting...I read quite a bit around here that Hobby Lobby can't have religious convictions because corporations aren't people and therefore can't have religious convictions...but then read from the same people that "Hobby Lobby HATES women".

    How can a corporation "hate"? I thought only people could hate.

    Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

    by Pi Li on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 02:37:50 PM PDT

    •  you have 40 more law profs. to back that? (8+ / 0-)
      "If religious shareholders can do it, why can’t creditors and government regulators pierce the corporate veil in the other direction?" That's a question raised by 44 other law professors, who filed a friends-of-the-court brief that implored the Court to reject Hobby Lobby's argument and hold the veil in place.

      This Rover crossed over.. Willie Nelson, written by Dorothy Fields

      by Karl Rover on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 03:21:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  the amicus brief never raises veil piercing (5+ / 0-)

        as an issue. Probably because it's so daft.

        •  well, what were they against then? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cotterperson, marty marty

          since apparently you say the Salon article was not accurate.

          This Rover crossed over.. Willie Nelson, written by Dorothy Fields

          by Karl Rover on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 04:01:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  look at the next sentence after the quoted one. (11+ / 0-)

            What are some of the unintended consequences?

            - Increased cost of capital. The article explains later that this could increase shareholder litigation as they squabble over religion.

            - Difficulty of attracting employees. Qualified employees will now be leery of companies with rreligious owners.

            - Sluggish entrepreneurialism. We like passive investors that don't mess with operations and let entrepreneurs do their thing. This will hamper that dynamic by giving passive investors a subject to intervene in.

            I didn't read the brief super closely, but I didn't see a thing about veil piercing.

            •  thanks, that was helpful (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              johnny wurster, kfunk937

              This Rover crossed over.. Willie Nelson, written by Dorothy Fields

              by Karl Rover on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 04:21:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Stop bringing facts into a political argument!!! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              johnny wurster
            •  Well, I own an LLC (8+ / 0-)

              a limited liability corporation, and the whole rationale for the LLC is to protect and insulate me personally from the actions and events of the corporation.  We had to "create" the LLC entity in order to get that protection.  And, we have to follow all Federal and State laws applying to how we do business, everything from minimum wage, to non-descrimination, to Worker's Compensation.  

              In other words, the LLC already has left the realm of being "personal" a long time ago.  To reach out from behind the corporate veil and demand that our personal religious beliefs be imposed on the employees of the company -- that just defies comprehension, IMHO.  

              I don't think they are going to be able to pierce the corporate veil, ever, in America.  That's a founding principle of American Capitalism at this point.  But, the corporate veil, and everything that surrounds it, from tax law to precedence to Federal statute, shows how incredibly stupid and contradictory a decision like this is.

              You simply cannot square this circle between the corporate veil and needing to impose your personal views on others through your company.  You can't both get the protections of the corporate veil and then discard them when it suits you.

              This will be overturned, or its precedence will be reformulated through a new case because, quite simply, it does not square up with existing laws and the reality of corporate ownership.

              Industrial food production in America ruins our health, our environment and consumes more fossil fuel than any segment of our economy.

              by Mi Corazon on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 03:36:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Here is the brief (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      G2geek

      http://www.becketfund.org/...  (PDF)

      Read it.  Refute their arguments.  I don't think you can.

      •  they never mention veil piercing, (4+ / 0-)

        so there's nothing to refute.

        •  What's all this then? (5+ / 0-)

          Beginning arguement

          The rationale behind the corporate veil is simple:
          by creating the corporate veil, legislators wanted to
          encourage entrepreneurial activity by founders,
          investment by passive investors, and risk-taking by
          corporate managers. The corporate veil is a simple
          device that helps to achieve all three of these goals.
          Conclusion...
          CONCLUSION
          Hobby Lobby’s and Conestoga’s RFRA claims rest
          on arguments that are contrary to well-established principles of corporate separateness that are recognized by corporate law, criminal law, and agency law. The judgment of the Tenth Circuit should be
          reversed and the judgment of the Third Circuit should
          be affirmed.
          Respectfully submitted,
          So what are these 'well-established principles of corporate separateness' if not what is commonly known as 'the corporate veil'?

          "The problems of incompetent, corrupt, corporatist government are incompetence, corruption and corporatism, not government." Jerome a Paris

          by Orinoco on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 05:37:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Orinoco - they are very different principles (8+ / 0-)

            and they mention them like relationships with passive investors and employees. I know piercing the corporate veil is the new theme of the day (yesterday it was Hobby Lobby's investment options in it's 401K) but I just never saw the Hobby Lobby majority opinion as something that could even attempt to pierce the corporate veil. I don't think that many of the people writing diaries and comments on the topic actually understand what it takes to actually pierce the veil for a corporation that pays attention to its governance practices.

            "let's talk about that" uid 92953

            by VClib on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 05:44:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not convinced that you do, either (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Man from Wasichustan, VClib

              But your comment is thought-provoking and well written, and tipped thereby.

              I don't think that many of the people writing diaries and comments on the topic actually understand what it takes to actually pierce the veil for a corporation that pays attention to its governance practices.

              "As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce." - Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations

              by ozsea1 on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 06:01:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I Do (25+ / 0-)

              Before becoming exclusively pro bono, I did corporate litigation for many years.  Indeed, I have one of the most recent reverse veil piercing cases in California to my credit.

              Believe me, the AmLaw 100 commercial law world in which I sit (even as I no longer bill for my personal work) is well aware of the potential impact of this decision on the corporate veil in the long-term.  That's all anyone has been talking about since it came out.  

              It's all about the long game.  Most plaintiffs' lawyers are not dumb.  This next decade will see a lot of offensive use of Hobby Lobby.  And, at least as I read the decision, SCOTUS has inadvertently gave them plenty of ammunition.  Despite their cute maneuver a la Bush v. Gore of trying to claim they don't see the decision as truly precedential outside its narrow facts.

              At this point, I just want America to admit that it still doesn't want its Black citizens to live in any state other than terror, subservience and inferiority, under pain of death. I can handle American racism, but I can't handle American denial.

              by shanikka on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 06:23:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  one of their arguments is that policy reflects (0+ / 0-)

            the distinction between owner and corp. They never argue that if that if RFRA applies to corps then veils can be pierced.

            And it would be THE BIGGEST DEAL IN THE UNIVERSE if that were the result. It would be 90% of the brief if they thought that would be the result.

        •  Huh? (8+ / 0-)

          That's the entire subject of their brief - the dangers of allowing a reverse veil piercing theory as asserted by Hobby Lobby & company and the unintended consequences for corporate operations.

          .  

          At this point, I just want America to admit that it still doesn't want its Black citizens to live in any state other than terror, subservience and inferiority, under pain of death. I can handle American racism, but I can't handle American denial.

          by shanikka on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 06:19:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  piercing the veil isn't one of those dangers. (3+ / 0-)

            They mention plenty of others, but don't assert that it would be easier to pierce the veil.

            •  Do You Litigate Corporate Matters? (10+ / 0-)

              I have.  A lot.  I litigated one of the most recent precedents in California on the issue of reverse veil piercing (within the context of a pro bono matter; the decision is only 3 years old.  We won.)

              Respectfully, I gotta tell you you're wrong on this one.  Everyone in the high end business litigation world (AmLaw 100) is well aware of what this decision could mean in terms of corporate veil litigation brought by enterprising plaintiffs' lawyers in the states going forward.  And corporate drafting client advisories even as we speak.

              At this point, I just want America to admit that it still doesn't want its Black citizens to live in any state other than terror, subservience and inferiority, under pain of death. I can handle American racism, but I can't handle American denial.

              by shanikka on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 06:29:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Doh (4+ / 0-)

                I mean drafting corporate client advisories.

                At this point, I just want America to admit that it still doesn't want its Black citizens to live in any state other than terror, subservience and inferiority, under pain of death. I can handle American racism, but I can't handle American denial.

                by shanikka on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 06:30:34 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  limited liability is one of the central components (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                nextstep, Beelzebubs Brass Bs, VClib

                of our economic systems, yet it got no mention by any of the lawyers, justices, or amici? I have a hard time believing it could possibly be relevant. What factor in the veil piercing analysis is impacted by holding that a corp is a person for purposes of RFRA?

                re white papers etal: that doesn't surprise me. I write some, too,and the message of some is "don't freak out."

                •  You Keep Saying (15+ / 0-)

                  It wasn't mentioned.  But it was.  There is a key paragraph in Ginsburg's dissent about it.  

                  You misunderstand the ruling of Hobby Lobby.  It's ruling is, fundamentally, that for a closely held corporation, the individual shareholders may pierce the corporate veil otherwise requiring that the company be treated a legally separate person with no unity of interest or rights shared by its shareholders, and defensively declare that the corporation is their alter-ego for the purpose of avoiding a generally applicable law being applied to the corporation.  (In this case, RCRA.)  That is, at bottom, the heart of Hobby Lobby.  Without such a foundational analysis the decision collapses quickly upon itself.

                  That the majority went out of its way not to take that seriously, and that it only had small mention in Ginsburg's dissent, doesn't change that.  And, as I said, in the commercial law world in which I roll, everyone knows it - and many are (since they are always on corporate defense) worried about it's application at the state level and district court level where business litigation is concerned.

                  At this point, I just want America to admit that it still doesn't want its Black citizens to live in any state other than terror, subservience and inferiority, under pain of death. I can handle American racism, but I can't handle American denial.

                  by shanikka on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 06:45:52 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  you're writing a brief for a future (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    VClib

                    complaint by a plaintiff.  The ruling was actually that a corp is a "person" for RFRA. We can look to things like organizational docs, board resolutions,  etc, to determine those. Nothing in the decision or dissent about unity of interest or alteregos.

                    I have no doubt that someone will reference the case in the future in a veil piercing case, but it won't go anywhere.

                    •  Well (9+ / 0-)

                      The trouble with your analysis is that it makes no sense.  The idea that a corporation is a person for RFRA purposes is self-evident.  The court's majority ruling makes clear that this was not up for serious discussion, and nothing in the dissent challenges that long-standing idea of corporate personhood.

                      The question was whether a for-profit, non-religiously purposed (as in a general for-profit) corporation was imbued with the right to avoid the operation of a generally applicable law--the RFRA--on religious grounds. The gravamen of the problem is that the idea of religious freedom has been applied previously to natural persons or eleemosynary organizations with an overtly religious purpose, and other religiously-missioned nonprofit organizations (which the ACA already exempts).  To answer that question in the affirmative, the majority focused on the closely held nature of the corporation and held that the individual shareholders of the corporation were entitled to the protection of RFRA for their personal religious beliefs, which they contended (and the court agreed) were expressed through their corporate operations despite the corporation's overt status as for-profit making businesses with no overt religious or eleemosynary purpose.  That analysis is overt, and on the face of the decision itself.

                      That is the ultimate in reverse veil piercing.

                      At this point, I just want America to admit that it still doesn't want its Black citizens to live in any state other than terror, subservience and inferiority, under pain of death. I can handle American racism, but I can't handle American denial.

                      by shanikka on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 07:16:40 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  And the government failed to notice this and raise (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        johnny wurster

                        it in its brief?

                        And so did all of the conservative justices and their clerks?

                        And so did all of the business groups that would have deluged the Court in a blizzard of Friend of the Court briefs opposing Hobby Lobby?

                        Somehow, I think it is more likely that there is no such issue.

                        •  The Government Did Not Raise It (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          kfunk937

                          Except in passing in argument.  But it makes no sense for the government to raise an argument that applies not to the operation of the federal government (as the federal government has lots of ways to pierce the veil already should that be necessary - see lots of environmental and tax cases.)  It was addressed directly, however, by those most interested in the issue: amicus briefs filed by academicians and by businesses.  At least 2 briefs addressed this issue in whole or in part.  They are easily findable.  (Indeed, in the comments someone has linked to one of them.)

                          That the majority didn't address it directly is not surprising at all - they don't have to in order to reach the conclusion they did about RCRA.  They do hint at it, however, although Alito is very careful to avoid directly discussing it -- but there is no other reason to have the entire first section talking about the nature of the goals of a corporation (i.e., that it's purpose to "protect individuals operating through it") but for covertly trying to dispose of that issue.  It is discussed in the dissent as well, in one paragraph in particular.  

                          Respectfully, it doesn't take that long to read all these briefs and the decision/concurrence/dissentsand know that.  Most folks here taking your position clearly have not - at least not with a corporate lawyer's eyes.

                          At this point, I just want America to admit that it still doesn't want its Black citizens to live in any state other than terror, subservience and inferiority, under pain of death. I can handle American racism, but I can't handle American denial.

                          by shanikka on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 02:15:02 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  This is the second time you've called the RFRA (0+ / 0-)

                            The RCRA and your legal analysis is a joke.  I don't think you are any more a lawyer than your are an astronaut.

                            But it makes no sense for the government to raise an argument that applies not to the operation of the federal government
                            Nonsense.  The government raises such arguments all the time - such as the impact of Hobby Lobby's birth control denial on Hobby Lobby's employees.  The government tries to explain to the Court all the reasons why ruling against the government will break the law or have results that the Court would agree are clearly not intended by the law or Constitution.
                            At least 2 briefs addressed this issue in whole or in part.  They are easily findable.  (Indeed, in the comments someone has linked to one of them.)
                            No one has provided any quote from any brief saying anything to the effect of "Ruling for Hobby Lobby will result in liability to shareholders for corporate actions or debts."  If you disagree I challenge you to present such a quote.
                            That the majority didn't address it directly is not surprising at all - they don't have to in order to reach the conclusion they did about RCRA.
                            Do you think that any Justice would knowingly write an opinion that could result in significantly weakening limited liability?  If you do you're an ignorant idiot.
                          •  If You Think My Analysis is a 'Joke' (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Pescadero Bill

                            Then let's talk at a more specific level than you are talking: the law and briefing. I've talked about the legal principles underlying what was decided.  I've even told you where to find the arguments being made- since at least two, quite publicly available, amicus briefs, addressed this issue of the corporate veil quite directly.  I'm not going to do your legal research for you when you're too lazy to even go to SCOTUS blog and read them.  Come back when you actually have, and then we can talk with some intelligence.

                            Otherwise your naysaying (and insult of my legal skills) is nothing more than uninformed lay desperation.

                            At this point, I just want America to admit that it still doesn't want its Black citizens to live in any state other than terror, subservience and inferiority, under pain of death. I can handle American racism, but I can't handle American denial.

                            by shanikka on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 08:40:05 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  More nonsense. (0+ / 0-)
                            I've talked about the legal principles underlying what was decided.  I've even told you where to find the arguments being made- since at least two, quite publicly available, amicus briefs, addressed this issue of the corporate veil quite directly.
                            Bull shit.  84 amicus briefs were filed in Hobby Lobby.  You have not even specified which briefs to look at, never mind giving page numbers or specific quotes.
                            Otherwise your naysaying (and insult of my legal skills) is nothing more than uninformed lay desperation.
                            So tell me Shanikka, how does a lawyer not know how to spell "RFRA"?
                          •  As I Said (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm not going to do your legal research for you.

                            But another person here already linked to one of them.

                            I"ll give you a hint: look at who filed the briefs and you can find at least one more =)

                            At this point, I just want America to admit that it still doesn't want its Black citizens to live in any state other than terror, subservience and inferiority, under pain of death. I can handle American racism, but I can't handle American denial.

                            by shanikka on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 04:59:33 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  PS (0+ / 0-)

                            Lawyers also make typos (there is another with the acronym RFRA - ever considered that?)

                            At this point, I just want America to admit that it still doesn't want its Black citizens to live in any state other than terror, subservience and inferiority, under pain of death. I can handle American racism, but I can't handle American denial.

                            by shanikka on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 05:00:01 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Lawyers provide references to back up their claims (0+ / 0-)
                          •  OK Hon (0+ / 0-)

                            You got nothing, but want to play games rather than come at it in good faith.  I don't have time for that.  So go do your homework, then come back and we can talk.  

                            At this point, I just want America to admit that it still doesn't want its Black citizens to live in any state other than terror, subservience and inferiority, under pain of death. I can handle American racism, but I can't handle American denial.

                            by shanikka on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 07:27:43 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  This: (0+ / 0-)

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            You're twisting what shanikka said. shanikka said "At least 2 briefs addressed this issue in whole or in part." The issue being the corporate veil, or to put it another way; "Hobby Lobby’s and Conestoga’s RFRA claims rest on arguments that are contrary to well-established principles of corporate separateness that are recognized by corporate law, criminal law, and agency law."

                            Whereby shanikka rightfully submits that this ruling will leave corporations open to suits that "will result in liability to shareholders for corporate actions or debts." She did not say there were any links to briefs suggesting that specifically. That was merely what she was concluding.

                            IMHO a fair conclusion and time will bare this out as lawyers start to go after CEOs and Shareholders for monetary claims.

                            It can't be allowed to exist in one direction and not the other. The SCotUS will have to embarrassingly reverse itself at some point to reestablish the corporate veil.


                            "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis Brandies

                            by Pescadero Bill on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 08:54:35 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And why not? (0+ / 0-)
                            You're twisting what shanikka said. shanikka said "At least 2 briefs addressed this issue in whole or in part." The issue being the corporate veil, or to put it another way; "Hobby Lobby’s and Conestoga’s RFRA claims rest on arguments that are contrary to well-established principles of corporate separateness that are recognized by corporate law, criminal law, and agency law."

                            Whereby shanikka rightfully submits that this ruling will leave corporations open to suits that "will result in liability to shareholders for corporate actions or debts." She did not say there were any links to briefs suggesting that specifically. That was merely what she was concluding.

                            Well, first off, that's not what Shanikka says.  See http://www.dailykos.com/... - she does not claim I misrepresented her position.

                            In addition, if "this ruling will leave corporations open to suits that ‘will result in liability to shareholders for corporate actions or debts.’“ then why didn't anyone put that in a brief?

                            It can't be allowed to exist in one direction and not the other. The SCotUS will have to embarrassingly reverse itself at some point to reestablish the corporate veil.
                            No.  It will never make it to SCOTUS because lower level courts will laugh at such arguments and lawyers who make them may well be sanctioned for frivolous pleadings.
                  •  Only in religious matters can a closely held (9+ / 0-)

                    company decide that the owners and the company are one and the same. Seems to me court is raising Bill of Rights issues above the question of liability.

                    To me, the real argument here is about equal protection. Why is a closely held company any different from any other corporate person?

                    If corporations are people, then they all must be treated equally under the law. Why does Hobby Lobby get to have religious freedom and General Motors doesent? In my view, the most rapid way to eliminate the corporate veil is to make every corporation as human as possible. This will absolutely destory shareholder value and that will be the end of 'corporations are people.'

                    •  Yes (12+ / 0-)

                      But the Court avoided expressly the Bill of Rights issue because Hobby Lobby would have been in serious legal trouble on that question, given the clear line of SCOTUS authority going the other way.  The majority instead twisted RCRA into something that it was never intended to mean, and what it's legislative history made clear it was never intended to mean, all while facilely avoiding actual discussion of that subject.

                      You're right to focus on equal protection, because that is the heart of the hole punched into the corporate veil by this decision, no matter how many people are claiming that it has no larger potential impact on corporate law.

                      At this point, I just want America to admit that it still doesn't want its Black citizens to live in any state other than terror, subservience and inferiority, under pain of death. I can handle American racism, but I can't handle American denial.

                      by shanikka on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 07:19:04 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  I dont see how you are able to separate (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  basquebob

                  the veil from limited liability.

                  •  I'm Unclear What You're Asking? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    kfunk937

                    The veil is at the heart of the idea of limited corporate liability.  

                    At this point, I just want America to admit that it still doesn't want its Black citizens to live in any state other than terror, subservience and inferiority, under pain of death. I can handle American racism, but I can't handle American denial.

                    by shanikka on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 07:20:05 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  The plain English... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mightymouse

              contradicts you.  Now, of course, lawyerese is usually in code :)

      •  Hmmm (4+ / 0-)

        I don't believe that brief says what you think it does.

        In any event, if there was an argument to be made in this regard...any argument...don't you think Ginsburg would have mentioned it in her dissent?

        Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

        by Pi Li on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 04:30:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ginsburg does mention it (14+ / 0-)
          In a sole proprietorship, the business and its owner are one and the same. By incorporating a business,however, an individual separates herself from the entity and escapes personal responsibility for the entity’s obligations. One might ask why the separation should hold only when it serves the interest of those who control the corporation.
          But yes, the piercing of the corporate veil is not the greatest of problems introduced by this Supreme Court decision, nor the strongest argument against it.  It is "collateral damage", so to speak.   Extra corporate litigation does not damage the country so much as the breaching of the barrier between religion and public policy, and the impact on the rights of women.  We already see parties appealing to the Court that they don't have to accord equal right to LGBT because it would violate their religious convictions.

          It was a religious conviction at one time, that women had no souls or defective souls.  It was a religious conviction some time that Africans were black and enslaved because of the curse of Ham/Canaan.

          •  It's an interesting question raised by Ginsburg... (0+ / 0-)

            ...but I'm not convinced that's quite where she's going with this.

            Still, rec'd for the thoughtful response. I do agree that the ramifications of this case will be significant, to be sure. I'm just not convinced it's in the way this diary suggests.

            Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

            by Pi Li on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 08:08:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  So if an employee of Hobby Lobby is injured (9+ / 0-)

    They can sue the business AND the business owners? If something like that happens, I'll provide the (virtual) popcorn!

    It takes two to speak the truth -- one to speak, and another to hear ~ Henry David Thoreau

    by SisTwo on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 02:43:21 PM PDT

    •  No they can't sue the business owners (6+ / 0-)

      19th Century courts held that workers injured on the job cannot sue their employees - and it makes no difference if they work for a corporation - because they are barred by assumption of risk.  The courts held that the workers knew the danger of the job but assumed the risk anyway.  Never mind that workers in the Gilded Age had to take whatever work they could get.  Progressives, joined by moderate conservatives, fixed the problem by creating workman's compensation.  Ever since, any worker injured on the job must submit a worker's comp claim and is barred from suit.

      "Corporations exist not for themselves, but for the people." Ida Tarbell 1908.

      by Navy Vet Terp on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 04:03:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Now it's statutory (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cali Scribe

        as part of the workers' compensation statutes. There's a trade-off: The worker can't sue the corporation or its agents/owners, but on the other hand gets compensation without having to prove fault or even negligence.

        However, where piercing gets very useful is in suits by outsiders. So, for example, if a train carrying crude oil explodes in your house, you might be able to sue not only the train company, but the company's owners, for damages (including in some cases punitive damages). I'm not sure that matters, as insurance would just step in anyway, but if I were a corporation's lawyer it might worry me some.

        •  If insurance companies are aware (0+ / 0-)

          of this particular scenario, you might see a significant increase in corporate insurance rates.

          There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

          by Cali Scribe on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 10:46:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  One of the reasons (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson

    a start-up company forms an LLC is to keep their business separate from their personal "holdings". That way if something should happen, let's say, like a lawsuit, the plaintiff can only sue the LLC holdings and not the owners personal holdings. So if I'm getting what your saying, this could affect even a one person LLC?  

    6% of scientists are republican. Scientists have no explanation why that number is so high.

    by fugwb on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 03:12:16 PM PDT

    •  LLC = LIMITED Liab. Co., not NO liability (0+ / 0-)

      Hobby Lobby's a C Corp.  

      My Karma just ran over your Dogma

      by FoundingFatherDAR on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 04:02:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  same thing. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cotterperson, VClib

        They limit liability to the assets of the entity.

        •  Do you practice corporate law? (0+ / 0-)

          Work a lot with tax cases where piercing the veil comes up most often?

          In our criminal justice system, a Republican is presumed innocent until the 2nd Coming. - Gooserock

          by ExpatGirl on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 04:45:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm a tax lawyer. (4+ / 0-)

            Veil piercing doesn't come up a lot in tax. I do work quite a lot with LLCs, though, and do know that an LLC provides inside-out creditor protection. ( many states now offer outside-in protection for SMLLCs, FWIW)

            •  Thx. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ozsea1, Sychotic1

              I don't think piercing the corporate veil comes up a lot generally - in part because corps are smart enough to avoid it.

              I've been through a corporate tax case where it was a potential issue. Terrifying.

              In our criminal justice system, a Republican is presumed innocent until the 2nd Coming. - Gooserock

              by ExpatGirl on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 05:04:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  yeah, it's gotta be a perfect storm of crappy (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ExpatGirl, VClib, grover

                administration and a legal action. Either is rare enough. I've been doing tax for about a decade now and don't think I've been involved in anything like that. I'm sure it would be extremely stressful. That said,  you can see how it happens in the small business context. My wife might open a little shop soon and I'm setting up an LLC for her,  and it's hard to explain why it's so important to treat the LLC as a separate thing.

              •  It's threatened a lot in liability work. (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VClib, johnny wurster, ExpatGirl, ozsea1

                They nibble around the edges, hoping to find something. But yeah, it's really hard to do.

                That brief does raise veil piercing as an issue. But it doesn't say what a lot of people seem to think it says.

                COULD the HL decision be used to somehow maybe execute an inside-out magic veil flip?

                Perhaps. But not likely.

                It might MOST be useful to extract a settlement from a company that is using RFIA to avoid federal law.  THAT, I could see happening. People would be willing to settle just because they don't want to risk their RFIA protection and corporate protection (and that of all their fundie friends) over one case.  It's not worth it.

                But ultimately, I see is there NO way John Robert's Supreme Court is going to let Corporations lose their protective veils. None. No way. That would be his legacy: the only one anyone would be remember.

                 He never would have voted this way if he thought that were an option. Roberts is a smart guy. He thinks this stuff through. He probably already has his draft for that eventual decision typed up with blank spots for the details to be filled in.

                So, I agree with you.

                © grover


                So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

                by grover on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 05:45:39 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  What if I say that according to my (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Man from Wasichustan

                  interpretation of the Bible it is my sincerely held belief that the HL case pierces the corporate veil?

                  Didn't SCOTUS just give me the green light? I mean, if practically every medical body known to man came forward to say that the premise of the HL case was not based on science why does my thinking need to be based on anything other than my sincerely held beliefs?

                  In our criminal justice system, a Republican is presumed innocent until the 2nd Coming. - Gooserock

                  by ExpatGirl on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 06:00:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  for starters, corp law is state law and RFRA (0+ / 0-)

                    doesn't apply to state law, only federal law.

                    •  And what if I sincerely believe otherwise? (0+ / 0-)

                      Isn't that enough according to the SCOTUS ruling?

                      After all, facts no longer matter.

                      In our criminal justice system, a Republican is presumed innocent until the 2nd Coming. - Gooserock

                      by ExpatGirl on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 06:18:12 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  This: (0+ / 0-)
                    according to my interpretation of the Bible it is my sincerely held belief that the HL case pierces the corporate veil?
                    Might likely get you out of jury duty.

                    But other than that? You're almost certainly stuck suing the corporation as a whole.

                    My personal request? If possible, avoid corporations that might harm you. No harm, no injury, no damages, no lawsuit.

                    © grover


                    So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

                    by grover on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 07:08:27 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

  •  You have to be human to have regret; the 5 are (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hillbilly Dem

    monsters.

    I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

    by a2nite on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 03:20:01 PM PDT

  •  Unfortunately conservatives are not bound by logic (8+ / 0-)

    The SCOTUS majority will simply ignore that argument no matter how compelling it is and reverse any case that comes before them making such an argument. What would be hilarious is if Scalia or Kennedy dies or retires and a new liberal justice replaces him  and the new liberal majority then found the Hobby Lobby precedent compelling to throw out the corporate veil but even that seems unlikely.

  •  Another silver lining is the additional support... (16+ / 0-)

    ...for single payer.

    The Hobby Lobby case proves the necessity of single-payer healthcare

    Even Hillary Clinton seems to agree;

    Hillary Clinton Calls Hobby Lobby Ruling "Deeply Disturbing"

    “So does this mean whoever wrote that concurrence is in favor of a single-payer system for contraception?” she asked, which drew laughs from the crowd.

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 03:30:15 PM PDT

  •  Adage: Be Careful What You Wish For! (9+ / 0-)

    The conservatives on SCOTUS will get their un-intended, but predictable comeuppance hopefully sooner than later.

    Loved Justice Ginsberg's opinion  on this.

    Conservatives rail against the concept of 'over-reach' when they apply it to President Obama, and turn a blind eye to their own zealous and very determined scurrilous actions.

  •  Would that not also mean an end to corporate.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek, cotterperson, Sychotic1

    person-hood? With the corporate veil shredded, a corporation is no longer a distinct entity from its owners.

    I am sure this SCOTUS will protect corporations from harm, but what will the next one do.

    And when you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.
    -Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
  •  Can I sue Hobby Lobby for discrimination against (4+ / 0-)

    women? Isn't that what the Civil Rights act was about?

    "It's no measure of health being well adjusted to a profoundly sick society"

    by buckshot face on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 03:53:29 PM PDT

  •  Oh...PLEASE..... (11+ / 0-)

    ...we live in an era of selective interpretation and selective enforcement of the law. Corporate law firms run a multibillion dollar industry whose sole purpose is to maintain the literal "privilege" enjoyed by their clients.

    Expecting corporations to be held accountable by a fair and consistent application of the law, is like expecting Banksters to go to prison.

    In the Fox News Christian Nation, public schools won't teach sex education and evolution; instead they'll have an NRA sponsored Shots for Tots: Gunz in Schoolz program.

    by xynz on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 03:54:22 PM PDT

  •  Regret It, They're Not Even Following Own Precednt (11+ / 0-)

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 04:01:04 PM PDT

  •  Wouldn't regret (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aitchdee

    imply a lack of sociopathic nature?  

    Well, maybe the minority will regret it.

    Is it better to lose than be lost?

    by Publius2008 on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 04:19:31 PM PDT

  •  I wish. (0+ / 0-)

    But I think you're dreaming.

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 04:24:37 PM PDT

  •  Corporations may live to regret this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    yoduuuh do or do not

    the SCOTUS never will.  Why should they, they have cushy jobs for life.

  •  I'm on the fence about this. (5+ / 0-)

    Most often, piercing the corporate veil claims come up when money has been transferred from the corporation to an individual in a dubious way.

    But everything about this ruling is unprecedented. The Green's have more or less said that they are the corporation. It will be interesting to see the arguments that clever and resourceful legal minds come up with.

    In our criminal justice system, a Republican is presumed innocent until the 2nd Coming. - Gooserock

    by ExpatGirl on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 04:55:03 PM PDT

  •  It's The Republican Party Who Will Live To Regret (11+ / 0-)

    this decision.  Notice how quiet they are about it now.  They were preening all over the place the first day the decision came down.

    Now.....not so much.  Somebody w/ a brain in the party (probably Steve Schmidt) told them to STFU.  They already have that little problem w/ women.....now they're tied to this.  

  •  Private Equity Bankers would flee (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ozsea1, defluxion10

    closely held companies if creditors/bond holders were able to pierce the corporate veil and get at the large shareholders. Venture capitalists would have to put prospective deals on hold until the courts/legislature worked it out.

    All of the above would be lethal to the stock market and for small business start-ups as no one is going to purchase stock in a start-up if they can be held responsible for corporate actions and the liabilities that may rise.

    The 5 second sound bite: "The decision is a potential economy killer" tm

    “ Success has a great tendency to conceal and throw a veil over the evil of men. ” — Demosthenes

    by Dburn on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 05:09:08 PM PDT

  •  Great post! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shanikka, Kdoug, Australian2

    This woman thinks it's hilarious that the conservative "labia majora" knocked a brick out of the corporate wall because women drove them to.

    Freud wins again.

  •  I agree that Hobby Lobby does pierce the (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shanikka, aitchdee, Australian2

    corporate veil.  If a business owner's beliefs can be imposed through corporate policy to its employees, those who have grievances against the actions of a corporation should find it easier to push back through the corporation to the owners themselves.  

    I'm sure the conservatives don't see it that way. They view the corporation as their holy trinity that sits above all of us, even the laws of government.  Stuff only flows downhill for them, not uphill.

    Global Shakedown - Alternative rock with something to say. Check out their latest release, "A Time to Recognize": Available on iTunes, Amazon, Google Play, Spotify and other major online music sites. Visit http://www.globalshakedown.com.

    by khyber900 on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 05:37:38 PM PDT

  •  The last 15 years have revealed that the Court (9+ / 0-)

    is a joke.  There is no such thing as precedent or established principles of law which are applied impartially.  Just look at the gay rights issue.  The only reason the courts have now opened up to marriage equality is because a critical mass of public opinion, including elite opinion (and perhaps the personal experience of one Justice Kennedy) forced the court to change.  The legal arguments in favor of marriage equality were just as strong in 1990 as they were last year. What changed is public opinion, and especially elite opinion.

    I guarantee you that if a Republican had been President that decision on recess appointments would've been decided differently.  Hobby Lobby wouldn't even have come up for discussion.  This is about political bias plain and simple.

    Global Shakedown - Alternative rock with something to say. Check out their latest release, "A Time to Recognize": Available on iTunes, Amazon, Google Play, Spotify and other major online music sites. Visit http://www.globalshakedown.com.

    by khyber900 on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 05:41:47 PM PDT

  •  Directors and Officers Insurance (0+ / 0-)

    is about to get a lot more expensive

    Listen to Netroots Radio or to our pods on Stitcher. "We are but temporary visitors on this planet. The microbes own this place" <- Me

    by yuriwho on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 07:11:02 PM PDT

  •  I'm thinking this more about lady parts (0+ / 0-)

    There'll be no veil piercing here.

  •  Our beleaguered yet somehow still beautiful (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ranton, Forward is D not R, jayden

    country is so torn into tatters right now that I'm not sure how much more of this insidious BS it can take without exploding at the seams. However, if enough law suits are brought by the right people - HL employees, for example - and if it's possible to directly sue the Frightening Five who so shamelessly drag the rest of the SCOTUS through the muck and mire, that would be a good thing to see happen. And I hope it does. Plus, it will give the RW plenty more time to avoid enacting meaningful legislation that could really help to shore up our bedraggled remnant of a middle class.

    •  The cynic in me believes that what you describe (0+ / 0-)

      in your first sentence is by design: "so torn into tatters right now that I'm not sure how much more of this insidious BS it can take without exploding at the seams."  The kind of social/economic/political instability and divisiveness creates "opportunity."  

      We would not be the first country to turn to a "strong" authoritarian leader in a time of such instability.  

      Robber Baron "ReTHUGisms": John D. Rockefeller -"The way to make money is to buy when blood is running in the streets"; Jay Gould -"I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half."

      by ranton on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 09:12:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  well! lawyers ARE good for something (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lilyvaldem

    blow me down

    PRESENT Shock When everything happens NOW

    by Portia Elm on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 09:20:17 PM PDT

  •  The other thing Mike Papantonio says... (3+ / 0-)

    ...and maybe even more important...
    (blockquote format used for emphasis only, not an actual quote:)

    Now is the time to make and gather a mass movement around this issue.  This has the essentials to be all moving enough to crush the Tea Partyers and other members of the not so noble opposition.
    I'm too old and tired to organize a mass movement any more.  The best I can do now is to drop the hint and hope someone will pick it up and carry it on to fulfillment.  This is a very big opportunity.

    TY!

    Only a government drowning in arrogance and hubris or a government run by psychopaths and sociopaths would pick [Russia as] an enemy. Paul Craig Roberts

    by dharmasyd on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 09:57:16 PM PDT

  •  Back to the 16th century! (3+ / 0-)

    Historically this "decision" is really pretty amazing.
    Remember the Reformation? It actually started a big civil war in Germany pitting Protestant princes against the Holy Roman Emperor. The Emperor Charles couldn't really wipe out the Lutherans (the way his predecessors wiped out the Hussites) because he was busy fighting the Turks who were attacking his capital of Vienna and the French. In the end he won but was too exhausted to kill all the Protestants and so the principle was adopted that all the subjects in the various states in the Holy Roman Empire would have to adopt the religion of their local princeling.
    This brilliant compromise resulted in another century of
    religious war in Europe.
    Hence forth all employees will adopt the religious views of their employers--another brilliant compromise.
    Well done, SCOTUS!

  •  Not a problem for the 5 crooks (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RichM, aitchdee

    They will happily allow corp owners to take personal actions though corp entities by imposing their personal religious views on employees and customers but will still grant them full immunity from the consequences of those personal and other actions. They will have no problem reconciling the irreconcilable.

    Hard to imagine a more dishonest, lying bunch than those 5 wing nut justices, several of whom talked nonsense during the confirmation process about honoring the will of Congress and calling balls and strikes.

  •  The problem with this is... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jayden, looty, NoMoJoe

    They don't seem to be rooted in law.  They are rooted in opinion.  They wanted for companies to discriminate against Birth Control and against women.  So they found an excuse.  If it has unintended consequences - so what?  They will just produce another ridiculous ruling.  Until we basically have a set of rulings around some sort of 'super citizenship' of corporations.

    “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” - John Steinbeck (Disputed)

    by RichM on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 12:40:23 AM PDT

  •  Not convinced (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RASalvatore

    The "corporate veil" is not a natural phenomenon, nor is it spell that can broken with a few nudges here and there or some ethereal force that is thrown out of balance when someone takes advantage.  It's a privilege extended by statute, legal custom and social contract.  

    No judge is going to chuck limited liability unless he or she really, really wants to do so.  All this garbage about "veil piercing" is nothing more than legalese for "fuck it, if you do that I'm going to do this."  And if we were going to see such a thing, we would have saw it after Citizens United, or any other number of cases where "values bleed through" is at issue.

  •  Whether the "veil" is pierced or not (5+ / 0-)

    the decision has enraged a large number of voters, and the conservative movement is going to pay dearly at the polls.

    November is going to be very interesting.

    A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

    by onionjim on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 04:44:07 AM PDT

  •  oooooh--can we now test that legal theory on (0+ / 0-)

    Hobby Lobby?

    "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

    by GreenMother on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 05:46:37 AM PDT

  •  The Koch brothers ! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sychotic1, cyeko

    Their companies are closely held entities as well. They, in fact, helped to fund this Hobby Lobby mess. No doubt they are licking their lips, trying to find a way to use this decision with their own work force.

    Wouldn't it be great if this turns out to be their very undoing. Their companies have been grand polluters, in some cases thumbing their noses at environmental regulations. I would love to see a class action suit that is successful at piercing their corporate veil.

  •  But with this court (0+ / 0-)

    they tend to think things like "tradition" trumps law and the constitution. So they can wiggle any way they want. They have an agenda, and it has nothing to do with the law or the Constitution.

  •  Corporations can't go to heaven... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oddmike, Amber6541

    but they sure can go to hell.

    Guns don't kill people like hammers don't pound nails.

    by rschndr on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 09:41:39 AM PDT

  •  NBD, because Alito doesn't care about consistency (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    He's fine with having the law mean X when X benefits corporations, and the opposite of X when the opposite of X benefits corporations.  

    And while the titular head of this court may be Roberts, Alito is the power behind the throne.  

  •  YES YES YES YES (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Amber6541

    the owners have admitted the corporation is an alter ego... I would say that effectively disrobes the corporation of its veil.

  •  so Hobby Lobby's "sincerely held... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dumbo, Amber6541

    religious beliefs" allow them to evade black letter law.

    But what if their beliefs are provably insincere?

    Which they are, given the fact that they buy from China.

    And so, down the road, what government agency is going to determine whether or not any "closely held company" beliefs are sincere?

    Or would an individual sue them to prove they are lying by their actions?

    What about that can of worms?

    Or is there going to be an Agency for Determining Religious Corporate Sincerity?
    Belief Police?
    What's next?

    •  Hmmmm... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NoMoJoe

      Interesting question.  Could an individual sue them, given that the government in the Hobby Lobby case stipulated the sincerity of their religious beliefs and thus couldn't revisit it.

      In particular, what if an employee of Hobby Lobby were to sue?  Wouldn't they have separate standing?  

      And if Hobby Lobby retaliated by firing them or some other kind of workplace shunning, wouldn't that also be sweetly liable?

  •  It seems to me any closely held corporation (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lilyvaldem, Amber6541

    that tries to use the Hobby Lobby case in a similar manner, in the future, will find itself the subject of a different kind of scrutiny that is unexpected.  

    The government, in Hobby Lobby, stupidly stipulated that Hobby Lobby's religious concerns were sincere, so there's no going back to that.  But in the future, it should be just as proper for the government to call in and question the family members of the closely held corporation -- including the wives of owners, who are also by law co-owners, and the likely users of family planning methods -- and ask them just what they have done with their reproductive choices in their own life and how they reconcile that with the corporation's "religious" position.  That should be real Nancy Grace style entertainment.

    If they claim that's government intimidation -- well, wouldn't the government do the same if they claimed a draft exemption for religious reasons?  The precedent is there that the burden falls on the person or people or "closely held corporation" seeking the exemption.

  •  Doesn't matter (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Amber6541

    Jurisprudence now, at least as regards the SCOTUS, is all about "sincerely held beliefs" that comport with right-wing dogma.

    If they did accidentally tear this veil, they'll seal it right back up and it doesn't matter if they contradict themselves entirely in the process.

  •  what if the corporation's owners (0+ / 0-)

    believe in Scientology? Sincerely.  what then?

  •  They'll call it a one-way street (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, Amber6541

    Try and go in the wrong direction and you get stopped and turned around. We call that a double standard. They call it traffic control.

    "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

    by kovie on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 08:42:01 PM PDT

  •  I am sure it's been said before (0+ / 0-)

    But what color crayon was used by the rights handlers when they sent the "opinion" to Roberts et al?

  •  But while you are shopping for a veil (0+ / 0-)

    elsewhere and you feel an urge to craft:

  •  I can't wait until a Musilm own company, like t... (0+ / 0-)

    I can't wait until a Musilm own company, like the many in America who have share holders who could possibly be a Muslim majority, fire a Christian. I can only hope that Liberals start acting like their asshole Christian counterparts. It's time to change the face of America. Christians can always say "Ohh the KKK wasn't real Christians" and "ohh, those against interracial marriage were real Christians" and "oh when the Puritans lynched Quakers and burnt witches at the stake, they were real Christians", etc. Christians have it easy, time for them to be treated the same way they have been treating minorities since the dawn of man!

    •  Edit: "Ohh the KKK WEREN'T real Christians" - "... (0+ / 0-)

      Edit: "Ohh the KKK WEREN'T real Christians" - "Ohh, those against interracial marriage WEREN'T real Christians" and "Ohh when the Puritans lynched Quakers and burnt witches at the stake, they WEREN'T real Christians", etc.

  •  BEAUTIFUL!!!! (5+ / 0-)

    I could feel there was something like this hiding in there, but couldn't quite place it. But this is it. They can't have it both ways. Either the corporation is a separate (non-sentient) entity that protects the real persons running it, or the real persons running it are the corporation and are therefore fully liable for all the company's failures and malfeasance.

    Let's go get 'em!!!

  •  Pantheists want class action lawsuit (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SilentBrook

    against corporations destroying their religion, Nature.

  •  Second step in the USA death spiral (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jack mattke, portlandzoo

    Step 1. The legislative process stops working.
    Step 2  SCOTUS takes over and tries to legislate.
    Step 3  Scotus fails; society disintegrates into tribal schisms.
    Step 4  Oligarchs try to rule and worsen economic divisions.
    Step 5  Violent tribal conflict of people with nothing left to lose.
    Step 6  Military dictatorship to maintain order.
    Stir that pot with weather, economic and political catastrophes.
    Step 7  Conquest by a better led foreign power.
    Good luck, Kiddies. I'm watching from near the end of my 4th generation of life.  I'll be dead soon and my kids already have sound escape plans.   I wish you well.
    Flatmotor
    I just read the Declaration of Independence.  What a great dream it was!

  •  The Corporate Veil (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    War4Sale, Gary Owen

    I don't believe this current court would ever allow this veil to be pierced in both directions.  No matter what the case, the interests of the owners, would be protected and every decision would be 5-4.  I believe that the Hobby Lobby decision proves that the owners of major corporations have now purchased all 3 branches of government and we are well on our way to becoming another 3rd world oligarchy.

  •  The lack of foresight (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yonit

    in this decision is incredible and will have far reaching legal effect. The SCOTUS defines a corp as a person and now assigns religious rights to a corporation, and now Hobby Lobby can act indiscriminately against their workers who may not have a faith, reject faith or are still looking for the right God. Obviously, the GOD of Hobby Lobby is a piece of mythological fiction and their constant harassing of OTHER types of peoples is a the heart of their hidden agenda which is - federally supported churches, or state churches. Bullshit, look how the world burns while the leading religions fuel the flames that ignite the emotions of their rabid followers, all robotic in nature and incapable of independent thought.

  •  Paul Krugmann said this exact thing ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SilentBrook, Gary Owen, Yonit

    back when the case first came to light.  He said this was why other corporations didn't back Wahhabi Lobby then.  They were worried about their separation of owner and company being blurred.

    Popcorn, indeed!

  •  logical but SCOTUS is not being logical (0+ / 0-)

    You get my point.

  •  Overturn Marbury vs Madison (0+ / 0-)

    There was some talk on Thom Hartman this AM that because the opinion said the court had to follow the law (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) that it has overturned Marbury vs Madison and so no longer has the ability to rule on the constitutionality of a given law.

    The Republicans will regret this if the Democrats ever come to power.

  •  Maybe a silver lining for a few (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    belinda ridgewood

    Mike Papantonio, I'll happily be your test case.  Been looking at a seemingly useless judgement award  with a decent amount of zeros on it, against a NV Corp for infringement since 2009...

  •  Can Hypocrisy Hold? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gary Owen, Yonit

    As we know, the Republican Party calls itself the party of individual responsibility.  Many of the rest of us outside of this party know it also as the party of corporate rights.  And this pairing has a flip side: The Republican Party is also the party that aims to deny rights to individuals and to free corporations from responsibility.  To sum up: Corporations ought to have rights, but no responsibility.  Individuals ought to have responsibilities, but no rights.

    There's nothing fair or consistent about this.  I see it as an expression of the naked power of unrestricted campaign financing funneled through corporations.  I appreciate it when lawyers point out hypocrisy and inconsistency in the law and try to squeeze some progressive change out of that, but I don't  perceive any limits to hypocrisy in our political system.  Still, best wishes to you, and good luck!

    •  Hypocrisy is not a moral failing for these people. (0+ / 0-)

      It is a strategy. They can only rule by having a double standard. It is both the reason for and the emblem of their power. Because they are basically antidemocratic, they have to pretend to believe in democracy and clothe their agenda in democratic trappings. They also know that they can fool some of the people enough of the time to get away with it, even though they can't fool all of the people all of the time.

      We can only hope that a majority of people who are actually willing to do something about it will see through their rather poor acting skills.

  •  A corporation is a legal entity that possesses (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gary Owen

    all the rights of a person with none of the accountability.

    Feel trickled on yet?

    by War4Sale on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 01:14:16 PM PDT

  •  MORE! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gary Owen

    And, if DKos data is correct, this article could send even more voters to the polls, to vote for reasonably sane Dems. Good for You! Keep it up!

  •  Can we start calling these guys (0+ / 0-)

    "The Catholic Ayatolahs" yet?

    Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. - Abe Lincoln

    by RustyCannon on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 01:33:10 PM PDT

  •  Counselling the Supremes on Judicial Ethics (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yonit

    I have a deep religious belief that it is important for as many people as possible to provide counseling to the corrupt members of the Supreme Court on judicial ethics. I think very appropriate times for this would be the next Red Mass at St. Matthew's Cathedral and when the next term starts and continues. At the Cathedral from the steps, and at the Supreme Court from the entrance to the garage. Surely these moral degenerates can't object.;

  •  This diary is way too optimistic. The Hobby Lob... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gary Owen, Yonit

    This diary is way too optimistic.

    The Hobby Lobby decision will open the floodgates to bigoted business owners who want to discriminate against those they dislike, using "religious belief" as their reason.

    When that starts happening...and it will...business owners who support those being discriminated against should start firing and refusing to hire fundamentalist "Christians", using religious belief as the reason.

  •  LUC for my LLC (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gary Owen, belinda ridgewood

    Is my LLC -- apparently a for-profit church if I choose -- now allowed to have "missionaries" and bypass all that messy immigration green-card stuff?

  •  SCOTUS (0+ / 0-)

    So which 'religion' gets to Dictate next in the United States?  Will Sharia Law Prevail due to SCOTUS?  This set a precedent for a Religious Ruler in America if he/she owns enough Money.

  •  Radical S☭OTUF卐 justices have no conscious (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gary Owen, Yonit

    Roberts and the other right wing justices don't care about the possibility of an avalanche of lawsuits.
    They will probably take on any that screw the 99% and enrich the oligarchs.
    Like the gop they are a wholly own subsidiarity of the rich.
    The best long term solution is to keep republicans out of the White House.
    Supporting any local, state or federal member of the republican crime syndicate is like digging your own grave.
    While the GOP and their racist TeaNandertal storm tropperz are digging graves for our children.

  •  I don't claim to be a lawyer, but I wrote somet... (0+ / 0-)

    I don't claim to be a lawyer, but I wrote something similar on another thread. Frankly I wouldn't have expected SCOTUS to make such an obvious misstep.

  •  These 5 judges are unlikely to rule against cor... (0+ / 0-)

    These 5 judges are unlikely to rule against corporate owners interests

  •  And let the lawsuits commence.... (0+ / 0-)

    ...in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1!!!

  •  Tort attorneys are sharks. This is blood in (0+ / 0-)

    the water.  EXACTLY!!  Making such "an unprecedented and idiosyncratic tear in the corporate veil" just invites some attorney to extend a slip and fall or other tort suit against the corporation to the owners, who being shareholders in a 'C' corporation, were protected prior to this.

    And what about the IRS?  If HL is a 'sham corporation' then ALL those sheltered benefits for the owners become taxable, AND they'll owe income tax at the higher personal rate.  Plus penalties and interest.  The IRS rule is, 'if it walks like a duck,...'

    If not us, who? If not now, when?

    by FamilyDocForDean on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 04:15:54 PM PDT

  •  Lawsuits are coming (0+ / 0-)

    "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."

  •  Maybe the majority has also drawn judicial immu... (0+ / 0-)

    Maybe the majority has also drawn judicial immunity into question by deciding, in effect, that their religious beliefs will dictate their decisionmaking. Perhaps a nice intentional infliction of emotional distress action against Scalia could kick things off.

  •  It's About Time! (0+ / 0-)

    Corporations murder people all the time. In many, many ways. And they said regulation was bad...

  •  Best news all week! (0+ / 0-)

    Thanks!!!

  •  It will be funny (0+ / 0-)

    To hear all the people now talking about the "corporate veil" as if they know what they are talking about and it's something they've been discussing this whole time.  To me it's a riot that leftists talk about "sheep" and "talking points" when these are both very clearly descriptors of ignorant leftists (for the most part--I certainly don't think there is an absence of conservative OR republican people.  

    •  careful, mwothe - your right wing slips (0+ / 0-)

      are showing!  

      not hr'ing cuz you are just too funny to remove for now.

      EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

      by edrie on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 05:37:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And if you are wrong... (0+ / 0-)

      will you come back here and publicly admit to being wrong?

      Have you ever been wrong about anything, and then had the courage to admit that you were?

      If so, that makes you different than 95% of the Republicans an Tea Party people I know.

      If you can't ever admit to making a mistake, how can you ever change anything?  Oh, that's right - change is a bad, evil thing, to be avoided at all costs.

      Change for change's sake is not always a good thing, but change, in and of itself, is not a bad thing.

  •  i would tip your tip jar but that "666" number (0+ / 0-)

    of rec's is just too delicious to tamper with - so, consider this the virtual "tip" for your diary!

    still chuckling...  666 on the GOS - how appropriate!

    EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

    by edrie on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 05:36:26 PM PDT

  •  Hobby Lobby (0+ / 0-)

    Hobby Hobby made fools out of the SCOTUS with their willingness to comply with the demands of religious freedom. Makes you wonder of they know what sepration of chruch and state is really about. Actually its not a problem that voting Democratic this November won't cure. With a Democratic Senate and Cngress a bill can be passed to set the religous right and the supreme court back on track and keep them there. After all the court has to enforce the laws that come out of the congress.

  •  Two things to consider: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    War4Sale

    1. "By letting Hobby Lobby's owners assert their personal religious rights over an entire corporation..." These people are not asserting religious "rights." The Constitutional right to freedom of religion doesn't extend to telling others how to worship (or observe). These people are asserting their personal religious "beliefs" over an entire corporation, or more accurately, the people who work for that corporation.

    2. With regard to the corporate "veil," this SCOTUS would have no compunction about piercing the veil in one direction, while leaving it intact in the other. Roberts and his right-wing majority are simply out to give corporations powers they've never been granted before.

    Look out: I fear this is only the beginning.

    Be pretty if you can, be witty if you must, but be gracious if it kills you...Elsie de Wolfe

    by Hilltop Mama on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 06:17:50 PM PDT

  •  The court is not a court anymore (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    War4Sale

    The court is just an extension of the Republican/Tea Party and has stopped even trying to pretend it is a judicial body. Rather than applying judicial analysis in the pursuit of constitutionality they pursue an ideological agenda with no pretense otherwise. By "they" of course I mean the five elderly, white, Catholic, conservative Republican/Tea Party members who are controlling the product of the court.

    Roberts has developed and implemented a strategy of allaying peoples fears by proclaiming some decisions are without any weight or bearing on future precedent and than coming back and using those same cases as precedent for more impactful decisions. Jeffery Toobin explains the Roberts strategy here http://www.newyorker.com/... and much better than I could.

    What I do understand though is that the this veneer of judicial impartiality has been destroyed by the obvious partisan rulings. It is one of the great disappointments of our times that the court can no longer be trusted and brings to mind the stench of decisions like the Dredd Scott case, Muller v Oregon, and Ex Parte Quirin. There are unfortunately several cases of more recent vintage just as damaging to the countries morals and values.        

  •  Contraceptive Bypass (0+ / 0-)

    There is an article from Slate floating around today:  

    http://www.slate.com/...

    But, it is a February, 2012 article.  Here's my question, why didn't this bypass work in the Hobby Lobby case?

    Vote Democratic! We're not perfect, but THEY are nuts!

    by Rumpole2 on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 06:21:36 PM PDT

  •  I'm hoping (0+ / 0-)

    the supreme court five get run out of town. They are good for little and will never change.

  •  FINALLY SOMEONE GETS IT RIGHT (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fumie

    They are NOT Conservatives by any measure.

    They are RELIGIOUS EXTREMISTS.

    To keep calling them conservative implies they just have a different point of view on the spectrum of reasonable ideas.

    Their notions are NOT reasonable.

    They are extremist.

    They demonized the term Liberal for far less.

    The least we can do is call them what they are EXTREMISTS.

  •  A poor crop. (0+ / 0-)

    Maybe we need a better way of confirming Supreme Court justices than the present Congressional hearings.   The present crop is long on corporate butt-kissers who don't think very deep on issues they rule on.

  •  Hobby Lobby (0+ / 0-)

    Time for my corporation to file a lawsuit because my religious beliefs takes precedent of over the Constitution and all amendments and the religious rights of everyone else. Republican 5 I am suing for my religious right to not furnish health insurance for all women, gay,transgender people and males  of color, my religious right to ignore any regulation that doesn't allow me to pollute the air, pollute everyone's drinking water and to never clean up any hazardous chemical spills and to have 12 wives and as many mistresses as I want and the government will be mandated to pay my Viagra and other health related stuff and my religious right to not pay any taxes while the government pays my corporation corp welfare and buys me a new jet, yacht, helicopter and another mansion
    By the way my religious rights also give me the right to remove you 5 from the bench and for me to be the ONLYSupreme Court Justice in the land.

    REGISTER AND VOTE NOVEMBER 2014

    IMPEACH THE REPUBLICAN-THEIR DECISIONS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL,

  •  "empire wide" (0+ / 0-)

    That's a nice phrase. I might have to steal it

  •  Piercing the corporate veil (0+ / 0-)

    Once the corporation and the owners are one and the same; there is no protection the owners can seek from creditors.  Here's hoping these guys go broke fighting law suits.

  •  Corporations (0+ / 0-)

    Corporations only have limited liability but not limited personhood.

    •  I guess the real question for the forced birthers (0+ / 0-)

      might actually be, does corporate personhood begin at conception?

      So, anyone with an idea of a corporation now has the full rights and responsibilities that corporate personhood brings.

      Or??

      Thanks for joining the daily kos conversation today.  Since the diary you are commenting in is a few days old, I wanted to let you know that you might have better luck engaging with folks if you read and comment in diaries that have been more recently (say within 24 hours) published.

      Maybe this will help you find your way around:

      Welcome to Daily Kos. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Community Guidelines, the Knowledge Base, and the Site Resource Diaries. Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.
      ~~ from the DK Partners & Mentors Team.

      Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

      by a gilas girl on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 07:51:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  No, SCOTUS will not regret this.... (0+ / 0-)

    ... if this ruling is tried to be used for anything else, this SCOTUS is perfectly happy to turn around and contradict themselves.

    Ignore reality. Create your own.

    by sworddance on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 11:28:23 PM PDT

  •  its going to get interesting (0+ / 0-)

    to say the very least. I said that it from the beginning that there would be a huge potential problem if the SC sided with the Lobbyist on this. The question remains, will this be worth it in the end? A major safeguard for being a corporation was to "not be considered a person" and have that veil of protection. I believe that it will totally backfire and open the door to unintended consequences rightly. I a not a woman but I think that this could be a very good tradeoff until sanity and reason get restored.
    Another distressing issue is the supreme court itself. They are suppose to be about law, fairness and facts but not IDEOLOGIES and this lopsided political 'RIGHT SIDE' leaning majority doesn't give me any assurance and throws out the whole meaning of what the court is there for. It is truly amazing what I have seen the GOP tactics resorted to when they cant get what they want through a democratic system and its very alarming to say the least. Justices should not be about party affiliations but about what's right and wrong. Until a great majority of America wakes up and takes part in the direction of their lives then we will continue to see whack crap like this and when the GOP do anything it affects people for a very long long time.
    I am truly astonished that "we the people" have let the GOP do what they have done for the last 6 years. It reminds e of that old saying" if I cant have you then nobody can" and we will destroy it. That's essentially what's happened over the last 6 years.

  •  I have hopes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    portlandzoo

    That if not the last 30 years then the last 6 years will begin to get people involved in the decisions made that affect their life on earth. Life is too short to begin with and the GOP have become really good at DICTATING the misery of life for people for too long. Once people begin to get off the sidelines by letting others control their destinies (by voting) then it will go on and on and on till eternity or until some corp or GOP finally destroy everything on this earth. I think they have a good track record at putting poison over people so we can all TALK and vent or DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT COME EECTION DAY! Money and currency were invented by mankind but yet it has great power to destroy and is used like an atom bomb on people every minute of everyday and the remedy for the average person is to VOTE and end this bullshit.

  •  Man from Wasichustan may be assuming, in error, (0+ / 0-)

    that all corporate interests are the same. In this case piercing the veil for closely held corporations may not be a disadvantage for large corporate players and managers. It's possible that, in the boardrooms of multinational corps. there is little understanding for why closely held corps. are given the same immunity from responsibility as "real" corporations. SCOTUS may have taken it all into account... I fear they know exactly what they are doing.

  •  All five of them ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    portlandzoo

    They've done it before, and we can expect the to keep right on doing it ... "The Supreme Court Five" (Republican appointed judges) all voted for the Hobby Lobby debacle, and the four Democrat appointed judges against it.

    Fact is - this matter should never have come before our Supreme Court, let alone had such an amazingly ridiculous ruling.  Here - no matter what lame rationale the SOTUS 5 give is, is why this ruling is wrong beyond belief:
    = = = = =
    IT CREATES A SPECIAL AND DISTINCT CLASS OF PEOPLE
    = = = = =
    What's even worse, this isn't the first time that they have made such ruling. Hidden in all their mumbo-jumbo talk and extremely hard for the average American to understand, is an ulterior motive ... you decide what that might be for your self, but my take is that they are putting more and more distance between you and I ... the 98%, and their $$-base-$$ of wealthy special interests.

    Some might even conclude that they are a part of a COUP.

  •  How ironic can it get. (0+ / 0-)

    The whole problem with the radical right is not what they believe so much as the thoughtless, unethical methods they use to push them on everyone else.  My grandma always said just remember that everything you do comes right back at you.  If the author of this article is right it might turn out that the Hobby Lobby decision is not such a bad thing.  I ask this question, how different would this world be if major share holders and Boards of Directors of large corporation could actually individually be held responsible both legally and financially for the corporations mistakes, the pain it has cause individuals and the damage it has done? It is possible that the fear of punishment may have prevented the 2008 financial crash, millions of deaths and injuries from the misinformation by big Pharma and perhaps even make big Corporations more ethical and honest in the future.  It was a very stupid decision and that will be proven over and over again.  Those that voted for it should resign - but they lack the ethical and moral fortitude for that.

  •  Doesn't pierce the corporate veil because... (0+ / 0-)

    It's a policy.  Owners have the right to pass policies they think are conducive to a healthy corporate environment.  That the left doesn't agree with that assessment is irrelevant.  Owners have the right to run a company any way they feel is prudent and responsible and responsive to their shareholders.  If the shareholders don't agree, they have the right to replace them.  This was not a religious decision--it was a corporate freedom/liberty decision.

    •  You seem to have missed the point that... (0+ / 0-)

      this "policy" was to ignore Federal law. You OK with corporations picking and choosing whatever laws to comply with, as long as it is "responsive to their shareholders"?

  •  Getting Dizzy (0+ / 0-)

    Please ... not to make light of you being in cancer treatments ... and truly, we wish you all the best in your recovery.

    However, just trying to follow what the SCOTUS and the GOP/TP people do to our nation makes us all a bit dizzy.

    Get Well!  Let the fire you feel for ranting against the Right Wing-nuts burn the cancer from your body, and bring you good health!

    Sometimes, you need a sensa uma!

    by HashHoward on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 10:55:44 AM PDT

  •  Traditional "Medicare for All" (what we need) (0+ / 0-)

    ...would have made all of this Hobby Lobby mess a totally moot point, and every Democrat railing against any Republican over this issue knows it. That is a very significant "lie of omission". We are total dupes. Our attention is easily diverted away from the real issue and onto fake phony side-shows. The 1% wins and we lose either way.

  •  I knew it, they can't have both (0+ / 0-)

    Either they get tax write offs as a non entity and removal from personal financial responsibility (aka they can screw up and yet not be held personally, financially liable, like Banks who screwed over the country).

    Or, they're people who can and should be sued when their negligence kills pollutes and ruins lives, land, water and air.. They can't have it both ways.

    Maybe their own greed will end this dumb move. Not that it should have ever been a possibility to begin with..but then we do have the "Good job Brownie" GOP-Bush appointed court.

    Discrimination against women and Separation of Church and State should have been enough to stop them from this very Bush Judgement...But here these dummies are saying "Corporations are financially responsible now"..and suddenly they say."What Religious me"?? No way"!

    I love it.

    •  Why can't they have it both ways? (0+ / 0-)

      Seriously.  I'm not saying they should have it both ways.  But we don't live in a "government of laws" any more.  We live by the post-Reagan golden rule: them as has the gold, writes the rules.

  •  In the country we older Americans grew up in ... (0+ / 0-)

    ... and in the countries where most non-US Kossacks live, this would be true.

    We once paid at least lip service to the idea that laws should apply with some measure of equality; that freedom and responsibility were linked; that with power and privilege comes accountability; quaint notions like that.  But we don't live in that America any more.  We have been living in Reagan's Corporate America® for more than 30 years now.

    SCOTUS may have punched a hole in the corporate veil, but be sure that they and their allies in Washington and Wall Street will waste no time fitting it with a one-way door.

  •  Scalia's logic...read on for his view in 1990 (0+ / 0-)

    In the 1990 Supreme Court Case 'Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith' two Native American workers were fired for smoking peyote, which the workers argued was a part of their religious practices and denying them the use of such infringed on their first amendment rights. When it got to the SC it was ruled that one's religious beliefs do not overrule the law. Scalia wrote this in the Majority Opinion:

    "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

  •  Here's a thought if corporations are people the... (0+ / 0-)

    Here's a thought if corporations are people then they are responsible for their actions? For example somebody dies in the General Motors car and they can prove negligence then the Entire board of GM should be put in jail maybe on death row certainly all the corporations that supply Parts said cars accessory to negligent and subject to do jail time like any other person. The business would have to be closed and padlocked until they could prove their innocence in court? Lol

  •  Disincorporate (0+ / 0-)

    My thoughts on this case from pretty much the get-go was that SCOTUS should tell Hobby Lobby that if they don't like the restrictions and obligations that come with being a corporation, then they should disincorporate - and assume whatever risks that come along with that decision.

    The right-wingers on the Court instead decided to redefine what it means to be a corporation.

Meteor Blades, Egg, Pat K California, fly, claude, Thumb, Alumbrados, Angie in WA State, Joe Bob, Sylv, From the choir, RF, Sean Robertson, Mogolori, Chi, True North, Odysseus, MadRuth, jotter, hester, Brainwrap, mwm341, deben, pjwhite530, bob in ny, kd4dean, Geenius at Wrok, Gator, FamilyDocForDean, Pandora, NYmom, lost, cls180, karlpk, sara seattle, MouseThatRoared, Debby, Shockwave, wu ming, Heimyankel, Sherri in TX, LynChi, Wintermute, billlaurelMD, CleverNickName, cotterperson, SanJoseLady, meg, Stein, mslat27, John Campanelli, eeff, TX Unmuzzled, mzinformed, Gary in NY, elfling, red moon dog, windwardguy46, Walt starr, jancw, dpeifer1949, hubcap, GreekGirl, Creosote, Birdman, Heart of the Rockies, scribe, opinionated, concernedamerican, dalliance13, Babsnc, susans, TracieLynn, smugbug, annrose, whenwego, djMikulec, ellefarr, CoolOnion, Pithy Cherub, Minerva, niterobin, farmerhunt, pedrito, ivote2004, vmckimmey, jennifree2bme, itskevin, jalbert, librarianman, Iberian, splashy, Alna Dem, hopeful, sidnora, dksbook, aitchdee, wader, k9disc, revsue, jdmorg, Lilyvt, asterlil, RLF, tomephil, edrie, psnyder, MrSandman, emmasnacker, NYC Sophia, Marblex, johnnyintexas, pat bunny, Eyesbright, brainwave, yet another liberal, Bulldawg, NYFM, Jujuree, DSC on the Plateau, Sychotic1, defluxion10, houyhnhnm, AmyCat, RebeccaG, Timbuk3, lcrp, BlogDog, 2dot, fritzrth, walkshills, Chris Reeves, ybruti, Sembtex, KellyB, randallt, Hillbilly Dem, Vicky, tomjones, NapaJulie, jcrit, rambler american, Josiah Bartlett, Sybil Liberty, Sassy, J Orygun, Frank Vyan Walton, Gowrie Gal, sb, rapala, CPT Doom, Skennet Boch, G2geek, tovan, maybeeso in michigan, marina, Tinfoil Hat, TxTiger, greycat, ichibon, jfdunphy, BluejayRN, blueyedace2, yuriwho, caul, LarisaW, unclejohn, klamothe, sangemon, mjd in florida, Jensequitur, democracy inaction, OpherGopher, sap, Alice Venturi, Flint, one of 8, basquebob, dewtx, snacksandpop, Kdoug, TigerMom, Kevskos, reflectionsv37, eru, bleeding blue, majcmb1, SaraBeth, Pam from Calif, Sun Tzu, where4art, cspivey, Kayakbiker, Overseas, Ice Blue, most peculiar mama, WolfmanSpike, BayAreaKen, blue jersey mom, Ozymandius, jane123, RichterScale, sunbro, Sandino, kaliope, Isara, PinHole, Tunk, spunhard, Savvy813, Blu Gal in DE, Shotput8, ellenandron, Ginny in CO, wigwam, FindingMyVoice, kerplunk, turdraker, jilikins, Eileen B, Cory Bantic, bookwoman, peacestpete, Ekaterin, kkjohnson, mightymouse, Alan Arizona, Blue Bronc, kathny, bently, noweasels, dedwords, Mother Mags, martini, third Party please, redcedar, snazzzybird, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, myboo, cybersaur, Mr Bojangles, tobendaro, emeraldmaiden, dopper0189, Yellow Canary, seefleur, mooshter, victoria2dc, Prognosticator, technomage, AoT, Catesby, KenBee, The Wizard, Wary, arlene, fou, SherriG, MJ via Chicago, global citizen, Lashe, philipmerrill, twigg, Rosaura, agnostic, katrinka, Preston S, MarciaJ720, joelsongs, ER Doc, middleagedhousewife, llbear, Turbonerd, onionjim, BlueMississippi, IL clb, rage, CA Nana, geekydee, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, blueoregon, kurt, Compostings, shaharazade, NancyWH, Bernie68, dochackenbush, Temmoku, PatConnors, Aaa T Tudeattack, NonnyO, BentLiberal, ammasdarling, anna shane, dabr, Sapere aude, pgm 01, john07801, Philip Woods, Cronesense, Habitat Vic, merrylib, Wanda517, Loudoun County Dem, camlbacker, weneedahero, Debs2, offgrid, bfbenn, gloriana, yoduuuh do or do not, Outrider, Wino, edsbrooklyn, LillithMc, Mary Mike, RisingSign, la urracca, jeanette0605, terabytes, Dave in Northridge, mommyof3, LamontCranston, sfbob, Shadowmage36, eOz, bnasley, mbh1023, NoMoJoe, Seneca Doane, HCKAD, jayden, jedennis, cyncynical, Back In Blue, jnhobbs, Bridge Master, gchaucer2, carpunder, RudiB, Wreck Smurfy, Timmethy, leonard145b, vet, on the cusp, TomP, Empower Ink, gizmo59, rmonroe, Mike Williams, JDWolverton, revm3up, pdkesq, TruthFreedomKindness, also mom of 5, Roger Fox, JeffW, BobBlueMass, gfv6800, salliezoo, MikePhoenix, OleHippieChick, bythesea, Swamp Cat, VA gentlewoman, CDH in Brooklyn, lineatus, DCBlue, jakebob, mikeconwell, monkeybrainpolitics, Calamity Jean, Lujane, tofumagoo, royce, pamelabrown, RandomNonviolence, hwmnbn, triplepoint, Jeff Y, glendaw271, petulans, 3rdOption, TexanJane, Piren, Al Fondy, Executive Odor, JamieG from Md, Mayfly, tristan57, dmhlt 66, toom, GrannyOPhilly, Diogenes2008, tuckerm, statsone, legendmn, maggiejean, prettygirlxoxoxo, Bule Betawi, Rhysling, Ran3dy, MufsMom, number nine dream, J M F, scwlaw, Ravenstream, ARS, snackdoodle, Magick Maven, bobatkinson, dharmasyd, cantelow, Carol in San Antonio, janmtairy, sweeper, shopkeeper, mkor7, LibrErica, newyorknewyork, followyourbliss, geebeebee, manucpa, UnaSpenser, robcan25, MKSinSA, TheOpinionGuy, jomi, papahaha, Denise Oliver Velez, Shelley99, Munchkn, sfarkash, SheLawyer, 57andFemale, Shuruq, ArthurPoet, ayjaymay, DoggiesWatches, jfromga, astral66, Tommymac, LookingUp, Larsstephens, ruscle, Railfan, hotdamn, smileycreek, Ejeanbob1, Christy1947, pyegar, David PA, NJpeach, serendipityisabitch, Susan Grigsby, Observerinvancouver, leftywright, piers, kjoftherock, secret38b, Anima, klompendanser, LOrion, Things Come Undone, Simple, ATFILLINOIS, NM Ray, womankind, tellthestories, pixxer, kacemo, Hoopgreen, Puddytat, Kristina40, Egalitare, NYWheeler, Jaimas, ban48, deniserobb, Texnance, nirbama, Betty Pinson, Patate, kenwards, ericlewis0, Loose Fur, petesmom, fiercefilms, soaglow, stevenaxelrod, Save America, slice, dot farmer, praying manatheist, Maximilien Robespierre, spindr27, kerflooey, I love OCD, Dretutz, ozsea1, StateofEuphoria, Catherine R, nervousnellie, sherryzee, slowbutsure, stone clearing, implicate order, La Gitane, poorbuster, Susipsych, bootsykronos, Seitanist, FarWestGirl, Hatrax, kevin k, deeproots, Teiresias70, Deleuzional, Haf2Read, marleycat, Jasonhouse, lwbrown, BarackStarObama, muddy boots, Coastrange, chickeeee, tardis10, Grandma Susie, MRA NY, createpeace, RMForbes, TRPChicago, peregrine kate, chira2, myrmecia gulosa, ditsylilg, Liberal Mole, Merry Light, Caddis Fly, diffrntdrummr, Andrew F Cockburn, goleft333, Vatexia, pwreid, cactusgal, SoCalSal, Book of Hearts, rschndr, leftykook, Alfreda89, jham710, AmazingBlaise, Rashaverak, caryltoo, nyer11Oak, ParkRanger, ArtemisBSG, Mathazar, BlueDragon, AnnetteK, Istillhope, mod2lib, KansasNancy, chmood, BlueZone, Cordyc, bluezen, OldDragon, Heart n Mind, anodnhajo, isabelle hayes, leathersmith, cwsmoke, molecularlevel, IndieGuy, ahumbleopinion, scyellowdogdem, rexxnyc, Eric Nelson, nellgwen, pitbullgirl65, midgebaker, AnnieR, a2nite, Farkletoo, 2thanks, JGibson, Steve Masover, dandy lion, joeschmeaux, Mike RinRI, mapamp, peachcreek, kellius, Forward is D not R, LittleSilver, belinda ridgewood, tucanaz, reginahny, MartyM, Canines and Crocodiles, parakeet, lunachickie, Rixar13, wxorknot, avsp, RottenRoddy, AverageJoe42, ItsaMathJoke, stvnjon, Glen The Plumber, T C Gibian, dotdash2u, George3, maf1029, Robynhood too, ShoshannaD, Hammerhand, BobTheHappyDinosaur, TheLawnRanger, Imzadi, Greenfinches, MarkW53, Jim Sylvester, Blue Bell Bookworm, nomandates, jusjtim35, Linda1961, kickthecan, BroadBlogs, twocrows1023, Tim DeLaney, 84thProblem, goodpractice, Joy of Fishes, HedwigKos, Dewstino, aresea, Alhambra, leeleedee, ggfkate, Jollie Ollie Orange, optimistic pizza, JerryNA, northerntier, GreenMother, Smoh, GrannyRedBird, BadKitties, ET3117, Planet73, blue91, librarisingnsf, maregug, saxoman1, martianexpatriate, oslyn7, PatMcDowell, CwV, skepticalcitizen, dreamweaver1, Gardener in PA, danjb, debn, The Marti, Annie B, richardvjohnson, hjgardner, Dr Arcadia, eagleray, ExpatGirl, Just A Mom, luerwulf, Bartskid1, Fish Man, gnosticator, trkingmomoe, gmfp, Gurnt, Ellamenta, zmonkey, Independent Progressive, JimValent, rhoneyman, IsaacKuo, mlbowers97, SueZbell, oldhippy48, hrhprissy, Aurora Moon, CookieThumper, hbk, happyshadow, Sandika, robertcwatson, Geode, portlandzoo, e2247, Cynthia Hobgood Strauss, dcnblues, kfunk937, liberaldad2, MVH1, eclecticguy, jodylanec, JJKelly, metalnun, agitatednactivated, BMScott, Anika, raspberryberet, ddublu31, Betsrutan, Gunnar Thomas, jackdabastard, NewRomeIsBurning, bobcat41702, Doctor Jazz, Ksolomon, YorkieMum, RGalli, Floridacowboy, Older and Wiser Now, RN that thinks, jessbell911, aransdell, nicestjerk, Blackwolf53, StvPrc, PurpleElectric, august88, DonJ, dollymajig, rufuschoate, leftneckgirl, MJMarkic, darleneh, surf1625, Andren42, TheocracyKills, pwaak, NoBlueSkies, riffles

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site