SCOTUS Rules In Favor Of Hobby Lobby

[John V]

Sure,

Do you have some examples of that?

the difference here is that we know how Hobby Lobby is investing.

We know because some opponents of Hobby Lobby went digging for the information. Do they actively look for 401k hypocrisy when considering someone's position (including allies) as a matter of course? If not, why not?

So, do you always resort to strawmen when your positions are indefensible?

First, what's the straw man?

Second, I refrained from pointing out that the 401k/hypocrisy issue is a red herring, but now I'll note it. Do you always resort to red herrings when your opponent's positions are defensible?

Back to the story.

Interesting - admission that the 401k/hypocrisy angle is a red herring.

[The Grand Nudger]

We know because some opponents of Hobby Lobby went digging for the information. Do they actively look for 401k hypocrisy when considering someone's position (including allies) as a matter of course? If not, why not?

.......perhaps....and I'm just throwing this out there, but......it might have something to do with Hobby Lobby taking a complaint all the way to the supreme court. How can an observation be a red herring? Explain that to me, take your time.

LOL, look. Hypocrisy isn't illegal, and appealing to hypocrisy won't carry any weight in an argument. Is there hypocrisy here, yes, plenty - but that doesn't affect the strength of their position with regards to the case either logically or legally. This info wouldn't have changed the courts ruling. It just gives us some idea of how sincerely their beliefs were held - and when they chose to hold them. Or, if you prefer, just how soft the ground under a claimants feet can be without impeding them in their attempts at redress of grievances from our Gov.

[John V]

.......perhaps....and I'm just throwing this out there, but......it might have something to do with Hobby Lobby taking a complaint all the way to the supreme court. How can an observation be a red herring? Explain that to me, take your time.

An observation, or anything else, which distracts from the main argument is a red herring. You explain it well yourself:

LOL, look. Hypocrisy isn't illegal, and appealing to hypocrisy won't carry any weight in an argument. Is there hypocrisy here, yes, plenty - but that doesn't affect the strength of their position with regards to the case either logically or legally. This info wouldn't have changed the courts ruling.

It just gives us some idea of how sincerely their beliefs were held - and when they chose to hold them. Or, if you prefer, just how soft the ground under a claimants feet can be without impeding them in their attempts at redress of grievances from our Gov.

Yes, it gives us some idea of how sincerely their beliefs were held. They didn't find the issue important enough to look into their health coverage before it made it into the news, and not important enough to examine all options in their employees' 401k plans. Some people see this as blatant and unexcusable hypocrisy. I see it as a case of busy people being selective in which battles to fight.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Busy people" with time to go to the supreme court - and every motivation to investigate their position carefully along the way. It was not important to them, the reasons are obvious. Their 401k wasn't politically actionable. The whole point of this was to open a line of political credit. Can we agree on that?

(seeing as how this has been -my- contention from the outset, no, I'm sorry- it's not a red herring. It may be in some other case, I'll let others whom you included handle their own business)

[vorlon13]

The sincerity of belief angle is significant. If the religious folks running HL feel no particular urge to exercise due diligence UNTO THE LORD in regards to supporting and not supporting various causes, business plans, economic models, etc., UNTIL Obama is added to the equation, then their objections are ostensibly political in nature, and their stated legal rationale regarding BELIEF is specious.

I'm not saying they don't have a case on other grounds, BTW, but dammit, they have a Commandment that addresses lying . . .

[The Grand Nudger]

That commandment isn't legally binding.

[John V]

"Busy people" with time to go to the supreme court - and every motivation to investigate their position carefully along the way. It was not important to them, the reasons are obvious. Their 401k wasn't politically actionable. The whole point of this was to open a line of political credit. Can we agree on that?

You contradict yourself from one sentence to the next. If it was not important to them for obvious reasons, then it's incorrect to say that they had "every motivation to investigate their position carefully along the way."

(seeing as how this has been -my- contention from the outset, no, I'm sorry- it's not a red herring. It may be in some other case, I'll let others whom you included handle their own business)

I was talking to jaysyn and you jumped in.

[vorlon13]

LOL !!!


Jesus also said not to defend against a lawsuit. So their just showing up in court highlights a certain laxity in belief, and that Hobby Lobby in this case knows better than Jesus.


Some might find that significant too . . .

[The Grand Nudger]

You contradict yourself from one sentence to the next. If it was not important to them for obvious reasons, then it's incorrect to say that they had "every motivation to investigate their position carefully along the way."

........um, no, check the user manual your language filter comes with. They did have every motivation. It was a high profile case with a very specific sort of claim. They knew they were going to face competent opposition. Their rights were - ostensibly- being infringed upon. They could save a few dimes if they won. The strength of their case translated directly to the strength of their overall groups opposition to the law. I'm sure I could go on and on.......but I'd say that's plenty of motivation to act, in fact - every motivation. They didn't act on any of it, they correctly judged that it wouldn't be necessary - it's either that...or their (presumably)very expensive lawyer is a rank fucking amateur in addition to their being hypocrites.

I was talking to jaysyn and you jumped in.

Christ man, we're all "jumping in" - it's a forum. I've also been "jumping in" prior to your comment and opining on their hypocrisy across two threads. Look, if you want to sound smart - red herrings, contradictions and such...l2fucking logic, firstly...and secondly, take the time to read through the damned thread.

[The Grand Nudger]

Some might find that significant too . . .

Some might, but not the law, thankfully. Moments when any case in the US hinges on what "jesus" said are sad moments indeed.