Denise Howell How come the majority opinion Justices didn 't see this one coming?

[G+_George Kozi]

Denise Howell How come the majority opinion Justices didn't see this one coming? This hole they poked in  the "corporate veil" will be tested in court I presume. A lot of business owners must be worried right now.

 

Originally shared by Susan Stone

 

quote: linguistically speaking, the employee and the corporation are different “persons,” even where the employee is the corporation’s sole owner. After all, incorporation’s basic purpose is to create a distinct legal entity, with legal rights, obligations, powers, and privileges different from those of the natural individuals who created it, who own it, or whom it employs.

 

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

 

"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

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/07/hobby-lobbys-other-problem

[G+_John Armenia]

It sounds like they did when they said this should be applied to this very special circumstance. We will see how well that holds up.

[G+_Andre Campos]

George Kozi what makes you think they didn't. ?....

[G+_Uncle Joe (Uncle Joe Hi]

OTOH, you have the issue of the exercise of the behavior of the owner. I think that was the crux here. That one's religious conscience can indeed pierce this veil because it a deed may run against one's religious freedom. Religious freedom is unique. It is, by nature, discriminatory in many cases and should be. Imagine if labor laws were applied to churches, for instance. It's a different entity than a corporation but illustrates the point that religious freedom is often an distinction in the law. I think there are dangers for the precedent but the ideal had to be upheld despite the media thinking the sky is falling. This could have been avoided had the SCOTUS properly ruled on the Obamacare in the first place and Roberts hadn't ruled to protect the court.