Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter 38 Share on Facebook 11 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 8 (57 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   13 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Reason #1 SCOTUS Will Regret Hobby Lobby

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 4   Well Said 2   Interesting 2  
View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H2 7/7/14

- Advertisement -

From Supreme Court
Supreme Court
(image by katmeresin)

Reprinted from, by Man from Wasichustan

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....

- Advertisement -

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

- Advertisement -


articles reprinted from

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Rush Limbaugh's Sponsor List

Comcast favors Fox News, charges $204 more for MSNBC package. ACTION NEEDED

Ron Paul takes lead In Iowa, Newt Gingrich falls off cliff

Busted: Scott Walker fell for Prankster posing as David Koch

The Bundy Ranch flashpoint, one Nevadan's perspective

Meet Foster Friess, Billionaire who Bought Iowa for Santorum


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
9 people are discussing this page, with 13 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Matthew 21:12 "And Jesus entered the temple and dr... by Shireen Parsons on Monday, Jul 7, 2014 at 2:26:52 PM
He also said that the Kingdom of Heaven is within ... by Daniel Geery on Monday, Jul 7, 2014 at 5:31:52 PM
This is the brightest silk-purse-from-a-sows-ear t... by Reno Nevada on Monday, Jul 7, 2014 at 2:30:48 PM
I wish there was merit to this argument, but my gu... by Christopher Naughton on Monday, Jul 7, 2014 at 2:48:45 PM
Very important argument. My husband was pointing t... by Amy Fried, Ph.D. on Monday, Jul 7, 2014 at 3:14:49 PM
Considering the ways of the world, why can't the S... by Robert S. Becker on Monday, Jul 7, 2014 at 3:40:44 PM
Absolutely. Which is why this must be pushed to th... by Daniel Geery on Monday, Jul 7, 2014 at 5:37:49 PM
The Felonious Five will regret nothing, they are e... by Dennis Kaiser on Monday, Jul 7, 2014 at 3:46:56 PM
Hence we need to turn the lights on brighter. ... by Daniel Geery on Monday, Jul 7, 2014 at 5:39:16 PM
Makes me like the decision! "Piercing the corporat... by Daniel Geery on Monday, Jul 7, 2014 at 5:30:23 PM
People own corporations and a corporation does not... by Ray Tapajna on Monday, Jul 7, 2014 at 6:08:08 PM
The Constitution is not based on the bible. ... by Amy Fried, Ph.D. on Monday, Jul 7, 2014 at 6:46:31 PM
Still waiting for the Church of Latter-day Saints ... by Maxwell on Tuesday, Jul 8, 2014 at 9:35:19 AM