Supreme Court justice; RBG; displays ignorance of Constitution

[Mr Khan]

noname2200 said:

Mr Khan said:

In the real world of human biases, it was likely that this was the cost to get Anthony Kennedy on board with the ruling.

In the world of jurisprudence, it is because a closely-held corporation can more effectively state that the views of the corporation are the reflective of the views of its majority holders compared to a publically traded corporation. Some speculate that Hobby Lobby has effectively sold its own future up the river for this ruling, because now they can't sell stock on the NYSE without having to first relitigate this entire ordeal. Capital raises will be tricky for them in the future (not to mention the entire galaxy of bad press they brought down on themselves here).

Again though, a corporation is legally distinct and separate from all of its shareholders, even if those shareholders number just one. A corporation with just one stockholder can't be represented in court by said stockholder unless he/she is a licensed attorney, for example, and there are tax and liability penalties if the sole stockholder does not keep his/her finances separate and distinct from that of the corporation. This ruling seems wholly inconsistent with the very concept of a corporation to me: at least with decisions like Citizens United I could understand how the corporation is arguably going to have its own political interests to lobby for, but I'm utterly baffled at how a fictitious legal entity is going to hold any religious beliefs! How would we even test whether those claims are genuine, when the thing doesn't actually exist?

Yeah, the standards for scrutiny here are going to make this hard to uphold. If i were the Hobby Lobby employees, i'd sue to prove that their belief is "sincerely held".