General Discussion

Ilsa

(64,078 posts)

32. bone marrow grafting for cancer treatment, also. nt

Reply to Fred Sanders (Reply #14)

Wed Mar 26, 2014, 09:54 AM

Mar 2014

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

70 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Here's a point about the Hobby Lobby case that no one is addressing . . . [View all] markpkessinger Mar 2014 OP

An interesting thought, thanks jmowreader Mar 2014 #1

I see it as a "reverse piercing of the corporate veil". Legal term for corporation being SharonAnn Mar 2014 #65

Let's hope the Opus Dei branch of the Supremes figures this one out, too. Warpy Mar 2014 #2

Mike Papantonio talked about this on the Ed Show. cui bono Mar 2014 #3

Thanks for the tip -- I will watch it now! n/t markpkessinger Mar 2014 #5

You're welcome! cui bono Mar 2014 #6

He said the same thing to Thom Hartmann The Blue Flower Mar 2014 #55

Imagine every corporate CEO, CFO, CIO, VP, etc. being *personally* liable for corporate products? Roland99 Mar 2014 #56

Here is SCOTUSblog: blkmusclmachine Mar 2014 #4

And those conservative justices call themselves "strict constructionists". Enthusiast Mar 2014 #8

Actually, I can prove that Scalia is not a "strict constructionist" Fortinbras Armstrong Mar 2014 #12

Thank you, Fortinbras Armstrong. Scalia is a picker and chooser, Enthusiast Mar 2014 #17

Corporations are people my friend passiveporcupine Mar 2014 #7

This is a can of worms. Predatory worms. Enthusiast Mar 2014 #9

YES! Maraya1969 Mar 2014 #10

K&R. Same for some of the Koch's enterprises. JDPriestly Mar 2014 #11

My real problem with the Hobby Lobby case Fortinbras Armstrong Mar 2014 #13

i agree, but I think the conservative response to your point would be . . . markpkessinger Mar 2014 #16

My eldest son works for a Muslim Fortinbras Armstrong Mar 2014 #19

Employees are not slaves ..... oldhippie Mar 2014 #25

But that begs the question... Whiskeytide Mar 2014 #29

One way to look at that question, .... oldhippie Mar 2014 #34

That's a libertarian argument that is in complete opposition to any thought gollygee Mar 2014 #39

Not the first such position taken by that poster. Ikonoklast Mar 2014 #44

I think it was Helen Gurley Brown that said the same Ilsa Mar 2014 #31

Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2014 #57

I have been wondering why Fox has been eerily downplaying the hearing, this Fred Sanders Mar 2014 #14

bone marrow grafting for cancer treatment, also. nt Ilsa Mar 2014 #32

Ruling in favor of HL would definitely pierce the corporate veil. Ikonoklast Mar 2014 #45

This Supreme Court Is Irrational DallasNE Mar 2014 #15

DU is an LLC. Let's pass a law that says, in spite of Skinner's personal beliefs Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2014 #18

Slightly wrong. oldhippie Mar 2014 #26

Noted and appreciated. Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2014 #33

That Is Indeed, Sir, A Camel's Nose In The Tent That is Widely Over-Looked The Magistrate Mar 2014 #20

Another unnoticed elephant in the room randr Mar 2014 #21

Excellent point! theHandpuppet Mar 2014 #28

I'm not sure I want any employer giving me healthcare, whether earned or not ... oldhippie Mar 2014 #35

To Flesh That Out A Bit, Sir The Magistrate Mar 2014 #42

My point exactly randr Mar 2014 #47

Thank you, exactly! n/t RKP5637 Mar 2014 #52

Is HL actually paying any part of the premiums for the health insurance? Roland99 Mar 2014 #62

Turns out there was an amicus brief filed in this case that fleshes out my point above . . . markpkessinger Mar 2014 #22

nice Roland99 Mar 2014 #50

Limited Liability Companies are check the box and offer limited liability joeglow3 Mar 2014 #23

the 'supreme' court should have never allowed this case on their docket. spanone Mar 2014 #24

The Supreme Court needed to consider the case because different Circuit Courts have come to opposite PoliticAverse Mar 2014 #27

You are right, although certain justices would disagree with you an me. lumpy Mar 2014 #37

I agree. By their actions they are seeking to COLGATE4 Mar 2014 #30

That was my impression as well . . . markpkessinger Mar 2014 #38

It's a solution in search of a problem nt COLGATE4 Mar 2014 #40

Special cases are allowed as long as they damage Obamacare. Kablooie Mar 2014 #36

Good point Rider3 Mar 2014 #41

Very good - you are smarter TBF Mar 2014 #43

Here is the "Summary of Argument" from the amicus brief . . . markpkessinger Mar 2014 #46

So..."insider reverse veil piercing" is without precedent? Roland99 Mar 2014 #51

Thank you for posting that! n/t DebJ Mar 2014 #61

In other words, how can a corporation be religious? BlueStreak Mar 2014 #48

Completely accurate...... Swede Atlanta Mar 2014 #49

My religious convictions The Wizard Mar 2014 #53

YES! elleng Mar 2014 #54

Good point, I also have a point which I have not seen mentioned. DrewFlorida Mar 2014 #58

That is actually somewhat problematic . . . markpkessinger Mar 2014 #67

This issue has been bothering me, too. I wonder if the attorneys briefed it? The Velveteen Ocelot Mar 2014 #59

Good point framed very well. Auntie Bush Mar 2014 #60

It should depend on the unemployment rate Lefty Thinker Mar 2014 #63

That's a good point MH1 Mar 2014 #64

Exactly! The corporate SCOTUS know this all too well. mountain grammy Mar 2014 #66

Exactly. applegrove Mar 2014 #68

Fundamentalist Religion will be the demise of this country .. Christian Fascism YOHABLO Mar 2014 #69

Typical of the greed in capitalism... they want their cake and to eat it too. gtar100 Mar 2014 #70