Bernie or Hillary? Of none of the above?

Soon we will have a choice. For the purposes of this thread, let's let the R's sort out their own mess. This is for the D mess.

Bernie or Hillary? Or can someone make the case for Chafee, O'Malley or Webb? Lessing, anyone? Both the Redhead and I are vacillating. My son fell into the Bern. We drove up to Portland to see him (which was a surprising experience. I was expecting Portland Weird to raise its head, but most people who were they could have gone from the rally to Sunday worship at my church and would not be noticed.)

Can Bernie win? Is Hillary a safer bet? Or is there any way the momentum can switch to O'Malley?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Now that gun control is on the front pages, Sanders has to tread carefully. His supporters, some of them, are trying to make it look principled, his opposition to gun control, but surely it's been necessary to ensure election in Vermont. So he has some oligarchic germs in him as well. I think if he handles it with candor, he maintains his edge over Clinton.

I rather like O'Malley. Mostly because he's not the others and seems very likable.

but surely it's been necessary to ensure election in Vermont

He might also believe it. Things look different from the second-safest state in the country, and among the most armed. Vermont has 1.0 murders per 100,000 inhabitants—as safe as France—yet a gun ownership rate of 42%.

if he believes it, he has an insular view. I doubt that he does. You can see the rest of the country from Vermont, and as a senator one is obliged to.

I would vote for Sanders. I wouldn't vote for Hilary. I'd vote for the Green Party candidate if Hilary was the Democratic Party nominee. Not that I think it would matter that much because NYS is not a state that's up for grabs in any way----IMO.

Why?

Why wouldn't I vote for Hilary? Because I don't think she's worth wasting a vote on. Not only has she been an active part of a democratic party establishment that's been betraying its core constituency on numerous issues for decades but a center rightist IMO--not a person of the left. Sanders has been consistently on the vast majority of his message for decades and I like that he's not a 'democrat' per se--just running for the democratic nomination. Anyway though I am peculiar--I'd probably identify myself somewhere between a socialist and an anarchist. That should tell you enough right there why I wouldn't vote for her but to add a bit more critique I don't think either of the Clinton's ever had much integrity or real belief in anything but their own ambitions.

>3 timspalding:
"Things look different from the second-safest state in the country, and among the most armed. Vermont has 1.0 murders per 100,000 inhabitants—as safe as France—yet a gun ownership rate of 42%."

Vermont is ranked 6th in education as well....which may have a lot to do with less gun violence. Not sure but it seems to make sense.
Another thing this country doesn't seem all that interested in, education. Cut, cut and more cuts. $618 billion in defense spending. Trillions spent in the Middle East.
If there is anything about Hillary I distrust it would be her attitude towards war and defense. To ensure the best health and the highest education for the people of the U.S., the government needs to start investing in such things. Not in the training of five middle eastern soldiers.

I will vote for the Democratic nomine. I voted for Ross Perro (sp), I voted Nader. I've voted Green Party several times but in reality.....it isn't going to happen. So, based on the horrific damage done to the States, economically by Regan and, in all other ways I can think, of by Bush, I do not want to see a Republican in charge of the White House. I am also a woman and Republican's seem determined to undermine a life time of making any headway towards equality.

Both Hillary and Sanders will keep their nose out of a woman's healthcare choices. And do not seem threatened by a stronger female population.

Democrat's have a problem with viable younger candidates. Republican's seem to have a rash of hard headed, heavy handed young men, Dem's not so much. Why is this, I wonder ?

>8 faceinbook: Democrat's have a problem with viable younger candidates. Republican's seem to have a rash of hard headed, heavy handed young men, Dem's not so much. Why is this, I wonder ?

Barack Obama ate them all.

>9 southernbooklady:
"Barack Obama ate them all."

Good as an explanation as any I guess. Him being from the "Dark Continent" and all.

I was thinking maybe it was due to intelligence combined with a firm grasp of reality ........who the heck would want the job.

I've been paying mild attention. About the only distinction I've seen in the campaigns of Clinton and sanders is that she has been issuing actual policy position papers while no else has, either Dem or Repub.

Personally, I'm disappointed at the age of the Dems running. Bernie is WAY too old; Clinton is too old; O'Malley is the right age.

Sanders' is a refreshing socialist populist and popular philosophically with me. However, that is precisely what may make him unelectable. There's no running away from that label.

Clinton is an establishment Dem at a time when populism is high. Yet, national polling shows she'd beat any of the remaining Repubs head-to-head, which will make her a strong nominee.

O'Malley is a smiling feel-gooder so far. I think if he makes it to the primary debates he's going to have to show some foreign policy chops.

Process of elimination at this point makes Clinton most qualified and most likely to secure the presidency for the Dems. Have to see how everyone performs in the debates.

Of course, Biden's entry into the race creates a brand new dynamic. But he, too, is far too old.

>11 Limelite:

Is O'Malley running for VP?

>12 timspalding:

I'm feeling my leg being pulled. No one runs for VP, the presidential nominee selects his #2 running mate.

>13 Limelite:

No, of course. But it's an expression, and I think a fitting one. He wouldn't be the first to do it, or, what also happens, to run for president next time.

The big winner of last night’s debate was the Democratic Party, whose candidates conducted a rational debate of political issues. Floppy shoes and grease paint were not in evidence.

As a seasoned debater, Ms Clinton was steady, in command of the issues. In a word: presidential.

Mssrs Webb, Chafee, and O’Malley largely faded into the background with the exception of Webb’s whining about lack of speaking time and his odd humble brag about killing someone on the field of battle.

This debate was all about Mr Sanders. Emerging from the Vermont wilderness, the debate was his first moment on the national stage. However, it appeared he thought he was speaking at a Democratic Socialists of America conference or to students at the Brecht Forum. It’s one thing to rail against “casino capitalism.” It’s another to think a President can single-handedly transform capitalism. Righteous indignation aimed at the 1% aside, he offered no practical way out of the current downturn in economic development. Mr Sanders’ song of praise for Nordic Socialism (a rehash of the “Third Way” discussions of the 1980s) suggests a person with a political philosophy that is unfettered by the practical conditions of US political culture.

Mr Sanders is well meaning, but his message was au courant decades ago. He should tone down the angry-man-on-a-soap-box demeanor during the next debate. For a positive model of comportment, he could look to Mr Corbyn in the UK.

I rather like O'Malley. Mostly because he's not the others and seems very likable

Tim, PLEASE come live in Maryland and deal with the problems that O'Money has wrought over the state. He is the LAST I'd consider for any political position after dealing with him here.

Honestly, It was O'Malley's incompetence in running Maryland that lead a traditionally Democrat held state to elect it's first Republican governor in almost 20 years...

>16 gilroy:

anything specific you can point to? i haven't heard enough about him to know either way. (recorded the debate and will watch it tonight!)

>17 overlycriticalme:

Let's see...
Education system dropped from one of the top 3rd ones in the nation to the bottom 3rd of the nation.
Taxes have gone UP every year he was governor. Including the institution of a Rain Tax.
The state has a budget deficit of almost $2 billion and growing.
The mess in Baltimore over Freddy Gray? That's part of O'Malley's rotating door criminal justice system.

And that's just the quick stuff I can think of without doing more research...

#15--a lot of younger voters are not as scared off by Sander's 'democratic socialist' identification. FWIW if Elizabeth Warren had decided to run Hilary might not even have a lead. There's at least some disappointment with the promises made by Obama not acted upon as he moved rightward from the left to the center during his 7 years as POTUS. He became more the same of what we could expect from previous democratic party POTUS's and I don't think a very high % of people want more of the same that they've gotten from either party. The Occupy protest started out as a critique of a government that bailed out Wall St. while ignoring the millions of kids coming out of college or university with tons of debt and only part time retail employment to pay it off with for a future. Some people are still not dialed into this as yet--they hold parties where invitations are doled out to people who can afford $2500 + for a dinner and a speech. It's so far removed from reality for most people. That's the Clinton campaign---with the PAC's and the contributions from major corporations. To my eyes anyway one can expect from her pretty much what we've seen from Obama and from her husband Bill when he was POTUS. If you're happy with that---that's fine but to me it's business interests coming before the actual needs of the population and our government and representatives should always put the needs of the population first.

At this point in time it's likely that Clinton will prevail and win the democratic nomination.

The question though of how effective a Sanders' administration would be? is a good one. It's likely that much of his agenda would not make it through congress--that the pitchforks from the majority on the opposite side would be sharpened to fine points. How much might Hilary accomplish? is another good question. It won't be an easy ride for her either. One of the things the Republican congress does is shoot down everything they can from the opposite side of the aisle. It's what they do. No point even thinking about future accomplishments--you create and accomplish what you can and hopefully it's worthwhile for the public as a whole. I think Sanders has a lot more constructive ideas on a host of issues than Hilary does and he'll bring younger voters towards the Democratic Party in droves. I'm not sure that those same younger voters are going to have quite the same enthusiasm for Hilary.

The big winner of last night’s debate was the Democratic Party, whose candidates conducted a rational debate of political issues

Agreed, mostly. Webb came off a bit… off. Even so, big improvement. Only 1 or 2 of the Republicans belong in that group.

#15--a lot of younger voters are not as scared off by Sander's 'democratic socialist' identification. FWIW if Elizabeth Warren had decided to run Hilary might not even have a lead.

I just don't see how a Democrat who cares about winning could support either of them. Maybe they're great. Maybe they'd be great presidents. Maybe by gradual degrees the country could be ready for someone like them. But the country is the country. And they are simply too far left for the American people to elect. Misunderstanding the electorate in this way is how Goldwater ended up the Republican nominee.

>20 timspalding: 'Misunderstanding the electorate in this way is how Goldwater ended up the Republican nominee.'

So what you call the left (and I call the old moderates) are as whacky as the Goldwater fringe? Really? The most 'radical' policy ideas are essentially a return to pre-Reagan US. Meantime, what I call the Goldwater fringe is left of nearly all Republican candidates. So what exactly does, for instance, Elizabeth Warren stand for that US Americans won't stand for?

Sanders sees the US economy in a state of class war. And it's the wealthy waging it against the middle class on down. The system funnels overflow capital upward to the top percentile leaving millions of our population struggling or out in the cold. That was the notion of the Occupy movement in large made up of young adults. Trump's interesting perspective on our economic system by the way is--it's not class war--it's more like race war--the Chinese exporting our jobs and the Mexicans crossing the border illegally to steal our jobs. That's the take he delivers. Trump is an aristocrat. He's got the whole shtick down--flamboyant lifestyle--arrogant to the max. His campaign is divisive playing off one segment of the population against another.

Economics is always the main thing. Bush and Cheney tanked our economy after distracting the population into two fucked up wars. It all comes down to what kind of economy you're going to have and how the wealth of the nation is going to be distributed. The more distribution the better for your society. Bush, Cheney divvied up a lot of the nation's wealth to their friends and benefactors. Clearly--unless you're in that top percentile or hovering on the periphery I would have to think anyway that you have to be concerned with wealth distribution. You have to be concerned that kids are coming out of Universities with degrees in this and that--debt up to their eyeballs and no job market apart from part time on a cash register, flipping burgers or stocking shelves. The last 7 years has hardly done anything to rectify this situation. Progress in infrastructure is stagnant. Manufacturing and industrial jobs continue to go overseas helped along by less than quid pro quo trade deals. The wealthy still have their tax loopholes and money making schemes. A case in point---Obama's most celebrated accomplishment---his very watered down health care plan created a subsequent across the board move from full time to part time jobs by employers to avoid those costs.

IMO the democratic party needs to rethink what it is they're after and strategize how they're going to accomplish that. If they're going to keep their own voters and capture the bulk of independents they're going to have to take on that 1%--and for real. Not sell them tickets to a speech and a dinner at $2500 a shot.

So what you call the left (and I call the old moderates) are as whacky as the Goldwater fringe? Really?

I'm not sure how you can misunderstood such a short passage. No, it's not about who is or is not "whacky." Maybe Sanders is the only sane one out there. Whatever.

It's an assessment of where the electorate is at. Warren and Sanders are too liberal for the electorate that currently exists. They'd get creamed. There's a reason this is the first self-described socialist to run in decades. Less than half of Americans (47%) say they'd even consider voting for a socialist—that's well below even atheist (58% Pew). Such a candidate would not merely need to convince people he was the best, he'd need to convince people to change their political persuasions.

I understood your short passage, though I didn't go to an elite school. Maybe I just got lucky.

(What do you mean by creamed?)

I doubt either Warren or Sanders would over the long haul of an election campaign remain unelectable. Did you understand my post? I didn't mean to take too many leaps.

A friend of mine said her sister, who is a conservative Republican, took one of those "Which candidate aligns mostly closely with your political beliefs" quiz, and voila, it was Bernie!

Sanders is a wild card, I admit. But that fact that he is doing as well as he is, is very surprising. The people I know who are impressed with him are not just red diaper lefties, but also relatively conservative Presbyterians.

After the debate Sanders "won" most of the focus groups, online polls, and instant polls. Now none of these are scientific, but what is interesting is that CNN did not report on their focus group which they ran during the debate--quite possibly because Sanders was the clear favorite. Same with Fox, and others.

" first self-described socialist "

He's actually not a self-described "socialist", but whatever...

He's actually not a self-described "socialist", but whatever...

How so? He tends to use the phrase "democratic socialist." Obviously I'm not asserting he asserts himself to be an undemocratic one.

It's not an entirely otiose distinction, though one that's probably a bit more nuanced than the electorate warrants.

Well, "socialist" is a cluster term, including a lot of stuff that should not be unfairly imputed to him. Obviously I don't think that's fair. (And also obviously, it would be thrown at him.) But even for what it is, the American electorate is simply not as left as Bernie is left. As such, his victory depends upon a serious change in the American electorate. That's not easy.

Put it this way: would Bush rather run against Clinton or against Sanders?

>23 timspalding:
" Warren and Sanders are too liberal for the electorate that currently exists. They'd get creamed. "

If every woman and every person of color in the United States were to vote in every election, we would always have a Democratic President.....if not a Democratic Socialist. It is amazing to me how much your post is in line with the way my husband thinks. Why on earth do you think the whole rash of voter ID laws ( coupled with the closing of inner city DMV offices) are being drafted ? Why do you think the corporations became "people" ? Why are women getting so much push back from religious Republican men ? Really ? It is a supposition of Bill Maher's that Republican's have put them selves' in a bubble. It is apparent that this just may be the case.

So who do you consider the electorate ? All people regardless of whether they choose to vote or not (in some cases voting is becoming an issue as to whether they are ABLE to vote or not) OR just those who tend to think the way you do. That statement was mind boggling in so many ways.

>29 timspalding:
"Put it this way: would Bush rather run against Clinton or against Sanders?"

Personally, if I were Bush, I would be embarrassed to run against anyone. He seems to think that his brother kept America safe. Mumbling something about how he united all peoples while standing in a pile of rubble that was nonexistent before his watch. He is damn lucky that Republican's tend to ignore critical thinking regarding what constitutes facts and reality.

Bush wouldn't have a prayer against either one of them. The only person who could possibly win is Trump, he is the epidimy of greed and is not above being extremely nasty......something the Trump crowd feels deserves a lot of fist pumping and "we want Trump" chanting.

Elizabeth Warren would make a great leader. She is SO socialistic that she seems to determined to make this country a place where the poor don't have to bend over for the wealthy.

It seems to me that if someone could mobilize the left to actually vote someone like Sanders might be viable.

Against Bush, he's basically a coin toss amongst likely voters.

If every woman and every person of color in the United States were to vote in every election, we would always have a Democratic President.....if not a Democratic Socialist.

Indeed, and if every white evangelical also voted, it would more than counteract the black women, and we've have a Republican president. So? There's no category of votes who, if they all voted--and nobody else changed their voting!--wouldn't change the result.

But aren't black women under-represented? Don't we have a problem of underrepresentation, where blacks, especially ?

No. On the contrary. In recent years blacks vote at a greater rate than whites. (See https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=percent+of+electora.... And, as regards the youth vote, blacks have out-voted whites for decades. (See http://www.civicyouth.org/quick-facts/235-2/). Women too. The highest voting group among young people--black women (see http://www.civicyouth.org/young-women-drive-youth-turnout/?cat_id=14).

This is a good thing. I welcome it. It would be great if everyone voted more, including blacks and women. But it's worth knowing the facts. And I suspect most Americans wrongly believe the opposite.

Why do you think the corporations became "people"?

I'm not sure how this came up. But in the US, the corporations were understood as having legal personhood in the Colonial period, and the matter was definitely settled in 1818. The concept has enormous economic positive economic effects. Without it, corporations would lack the ability to sign contracts for themselves, but would require complex arrangements between shareholders, and when a company got sued, we'd have to dive back into history and figure out who held shares back when the injury was alleged to have done. Similarly, if a corporation went bankrupt, the shareholders--whether an owner or two or thousands of people who just bought the stock--would be liable for any and all debt. Chances are, if you have a career, you own stock, either yourself or through a 401K. Have you ever had to worry about losing your house because a stock in your portfolio went bankrupt?

How far should corporate personhood extend? Obviously not to everything. Corporations clearly do not have the right to vote, serve on juries or collect welfare. But do corporations have a First Amendment right to freedom of worship? Do corporations have a First Amendment right to freedom of the Press? Who knows. Most liberals today would defend the latter to the death, should someone attempt to, say, claim the Washington Post couldn't print the news it wanted because corporations, not being people, have no rights. But they bristle at the notion the rest of the First Amendment applies. I find that dichotomy rather troubling.

Yeah, I find it pretty unsettling that corporations can't discriminate on the basis of race, myself.

Luckily, they can still slander and libel at will, though.

"if every white evangelical also voted, it would more than counteract the black women, and we've have a Republican president."

Not true. Self-identified Evangelicals overwhelmingly support Clinton both times.

I am surprised by the types of people I am seeing gravitate to Bernie, some of whom are evangelicals.

And it won't be Bush.

>33 timspalding: How far should corporate personhood extend?

Your wording suggests the answer. A corporation is a different category of "person" from the kind of person whose rights were reiterated in the First Amendment -- so it follows that their rights of "personhood" would have different implications and interpretations vs a vs the Constitution. It does not seem out of bounds that corporate personhood, being so defined for a specific legal purpose (contractual agency) would be considered as secondary to individual personhood when it comes to matters of human rights.

>33 timspalding: 'Most liberals today would defend the latter freedom of the press to the death, should someone attempt to, say, claim the Washington Post couldn't print the news it wanted because corporations, not being people, have no rights. But they bristle at the notion the rest of the First Amendment applies. I find that dichotomy rather troubling.'

This utter nonsense after such a good job explaining the concept of corporations as people. I guess imagination ushered the vapidity in? Fine example: Someone claims a newspaper can't print the news cause it's not a person, has no person rights--and then you use this, your own bizarre example to get...troubled. Like David Price, kept in a few batters too long.

>29 timspalding: Put it this way: would Bush rather run against Clinton or against Sanders?

Oh hey, there have been polls about this! Let's look at Florida.

Bush vs. Sanders

Bush vs. Clinton

Yep, Hillary's doing better in the most recent poll: she's only one point behind Bush, vs. 4 points for Sanders.

On the other hand, Sanders was 19 points behind just a couple of months ago.

If I were Bush, I'd probably be more afraid of momentum and enthusiasm. Voter turnout makes a big difference.

FWIW I don't think Jeb Bush is going to get the republican nomination. Despite almost no support from any kind of republican establishment figure(s) it looks to me like it's Trump's race to lose at this point in time. He has more charisma and more media savvy than practically the rest of the field combined and he's running with it pretty well.

Yeah, I find it pretty unsettling that corporations can't discriminate on the basis of race, myself.

People can't discriminate on the basis of race. Corporations are people. QED. :)

Not true. Self-identified Evangelicals overwhelmingly support Clinton both times.

Which Clinton are we talking about now? And you didn't say "white" Evangelicals.

I'll wait on your answer, but this data point—80% of white Evangelicals voted for Romney. See Pew http://www.pewforum.org/2012/11/07/how-the-faithful-voted-2012-preliminary-exit-...

Your wording suggests the answer. A corporation is a different category of "person" from the kind of person whose rights were reiterated in the First Amendment -- so it follows that their rights of "personhood" would have different implications and interpretations vs a vs the Constitution. It does not seem out of bounds that corporate personhood, being so defined for a specific legal purpose (contractual agency) would be considered as secondary to individual personhood when it comes to matters of human rights.

Yes, I completely agree.

My defense of the concept was to the original "'Why do you think the corporations became "people"?'" It's a trope now on the left that this is a crazy idea, whereas it's been the case definitively since at least 1818, and is a corner stone legally and economically. The question is how far this extends.

As I indicated, I think the First Amendment—both clauses—apply to corporations in a significant way. Others disagree, although usually only about the religion clause. Either way, I'd be pretty wary of claims that the Second Amendment allowed corporations to arm themselves. Perhaps someone at the Federalist society is working on that concept. :)

If I were Bush, I'd probably be more afraid of momentum and enthusiasm. Voter turnout makes a big difference.

You make good points. But polls tend to say very little this early. That's why we never had a President Perot, Fred Thompson or Rick Perry. Again and again we've seen things "settle down" and fundamentals assert themselves. When they do, past elections show that candidates too far to the left or right court trouble. The paradigmatic example are Goldwater and McGovern, who lost badly because they were out of step with the American electorate, even though the dedication and enthusiasm of their supports was and remains legendary and, eventually, bore much fruit.

Despite almost no support from any kind of republican establishment figure(s) it looks to me like it's Trump's race to lose at this point in time. He has more charisma and more media savvy than practically the rest of the field combined and he's running with it pretty well.

Let's bet on that, shall we? Handshake for bragging rights?

Yeah, I find it pretty unsettling that corporations can't discriminate on the basis of race, myself.

People can't discriminate on the basis of race. Corporations are people. QED. :)

Precisely. We already put limitations on speech and exercise of religion when dealing with people. Corporations are people.

>33 timspalding:, answered by >38 RickHarsch:, ignored by the proprietor of LT: "'Most liberals today would defend the latter freedom of the press to the death, should someone attempt to, say, claim the Washington Post couldn't print the news it wanted because corporations, not being people, have no rights. But they bristle at the notion the rest of the First Amendment applies. I find that dichotomy rather troubling.'

This utter nonsense after such a good job explaining the concept of corporations as people. I guess imagination ushered the vapidity in? Fine example: Someone claims a newspaper can't print the news cause it's not a person, has no person rights--and then you use this, your own bizarre example to get...troubled. Like David Price, kept in a few batters too long."

Is it a violation of TOS to refer to private messages sent and unanswered, by the way?

The connection is that it's like an email privacy thing, but more nuanced in that the place where the messages are sent/received/sent/received is this domain, which seems less important than the matters of state domain.

In other words, Tim, can I post what I wrote you privately if you didn't respond?

As I indicated, I think the First Amendment—both clauses—apply to corporations in a significant way.

Both clauses? Which two of the five rights protected by the first amendment do you think apply to corporations? And which three do you think don't?

>43 RickHarsch:

I'm not terribly interested in replying to a post that contains no arguments, but only disparagement. What, shall I reply—"Nuh-uh!"?

Anyway, the topic has come up elsewhere on LT, and needs not derail this thread.

In other words, Tim, can I post what I wrote you privately if you didn't respond?

The restriction is on revealing what others said. In a detailed conversation, the to and fro often get mixed up. But I don't think we've ever engaged in a to-and-fro on the topic. If we did, and your message to me includes quotes or other private views of mine, excise them?

I would say, however, that you seem somewhat fixated on me as "proprietor." We're all just folks here. We have disagreed before on my non-replying. I do not feel obligated to reply to everything anyone says online, even if directed to me. I recognize that can be irritating. I think it's healthy, actually.

Precisely. We already put limitations on speech and exercise of religion when dealing with people. Corporations are people.

Well, those limitations are in turn limited by the Constitution. That's what we're arguing about.

If you want to argue for limitations no more extensive than that put on natural persons, okay. But I think you want limitations well beyond that applying to natural persons. I want that too, for what it's worth. All I'm interested in arguing here is that "corporations are people" is neither new nor crazy. I have my views on how far that extends, as do others. Few think it extends to everything.

All I'm interested in arguing here is that "corporations are people" is neither new nor crazy.

I'll give you the first. The second might be arguable, especially as you and I both believe that there are probably limits on how far that extends.

>48 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

Well, I'd like to see another way. I don't think there's any legal system out there now that doesn't have legal persons. I know that, when LibraryThing was an LLC, I was not a little terrified that, if Amazon sued us, I'd lose my house. :(

>46 timspalding: Actually, nuh-uh. The post shows/argues that you establish your own dichotomy to trouble yourself--that the dichotomy exists in your own mind.

>41 timspalding: I think the First Amendment—both clauses—apply to corporations in a significant way. Others disagree, although usually only about the religion clause.

I think that is a simplistic way of stating the issue. People don't object to anyone practicing their religion. They object to them forcing their religion on others. In other words, it is the person who has faith, and a corporation is not enough of a person to have faith in itself. And thus, a corporation should not be able to cite religious freedom as a rational for imposing its will on its employees, especially to the extent their own civil rights are violated.

I'd be pretty wary of claims that the Second Amendment allowed corporations to arm themselves.

How about the reverse? What if an Amish company cites the First Amendment as the reason to insist its employees disarm?

Bernie and Hillary debated Denmark as role model. In comparison of unemployed persons in Michigan and Ontario, author calls Canadian safety net imperfect, but achievable.

Forget Denmark: The United States Should Emulate Canada. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/forget-denmark-emulate-canad...

#52---a really interesting read--thanks for sharing that margd.

How about the reverse? What if an Amish company cites the First Amendment as the reason to insist its employees disarm?

Your case is false. The companies are not "disarming" people of their contraceptives, they're refusing to be the agent of purchasing.

To make your example right: If the Federal Government required companies to purchase guns for all their employees, then yes, I'd say the Amish could refuse to provide those guns. If the government thought everyone should have guns anyway, then it should provide those guns, not force others to violate their conscience to do it. And if for some reason the government had to force employers--if that was indeed the least restrictive means of achieving the end—then I would let that trump the Amish's right.

So too here. I support everyone being able to get contraception for free. I think that's a worthy government goal. I'd vote for it any day of the week. But I also think it's one the government is well equipped to do—one it need not force employers to do. Now, if there were no reasonable way for the government to do that than to require employers to provide it—if that were the "least restrictive means"—then I would accept the overriding state interest. It's possible that that the federal government might have to force insurers to provide it. I'm not sure why, but I'd definitely listen to that argument(1). But forcing employers to choose to buy something is not the least restrictive means.

---

1. That is sort of where we've ended up, incidentally.

>54 timspalding: And if for some reason the government had to force employers--if that was indeed the least restrictive means of achieving the end—then I would let that trump the Amish's right.

Which is exactly the situation people felt we were faced with in terms of birth control being mandated coverage by health insurance. So short of the "socialist" option -- taking health insurance out of the hands of the private sector and making it entirely government-provided, there is going to be a conflict between the religious rights of the employer and the civil rights of the employee. And since a) corporations don't have "faith" and b) an individual business owner doesn't have to "violate their conscience" by using birth control if they don't want to, and since c) the rights of an individual to make medical decisions about their own body remains paramount....the religious rights of "a corporation" in this case shouldn't even have a place at the table.

ETA: you added while I was responding, but I'll just note that "the least restrictive means" seems to be, according to you, "provided by the government." This is not the path usually taken by conservatives, who are as a rule in favor of less government, not more.

>55 southernbooklady:

Yes, as I've noted, the conservatives—or anyway the particular far-right groups that are involved here—don't want that option. And liberals don't want it either. The legal issue is in both cases secondary to the culture-war issue. Letting the government do it would require conceding the point too.

So the least restrictive (and most effective) means is neglected. That is politics.

By the way, you keep saying "corporations." But don't you think a sole proprietorship, which is legally identical to its proprietor, should be similarly constrained to buy contraception for it's employees?

>56 timspalding: Letting the government do it would require conceding the point too.

Which in turn, would require that people violate their conscience, wouldn't it? For such an avenue to work would mean that people would have to ...if not pay for birth control themselves, then pay for it indirectly as part of the common good. That would also mean they would need to vote for people who would commit to continuing the funding. Since this hardly seems likely, what would really happen is that funding would be restricted to narrower and narrower eligible cases, until it was eventually defunded altogether. A similar scenario is playing out regarding funding for abortion services.

So in the end, the "least restrictive means" is really to not provide the service at all. And when a person's right to health care is weighed in the balance against another's right to freedom of religion, it is the latter that wins out at the cost of the physical body of the former. In effect, the test of how "free" our conscience is becomes to what extent we can justify causing suffering in others in its name.

>57 southernbooklady:

No, the least restrictive means is the least restrictive way of achieving a valid government end which touches on a Constitutional liberty. It's often at stake in First Amendment questions, and is a subset of Strict Scrutiny.

See http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Least+Restrictive+Means+Test

>41 timspalding: People can't discriminate on the basis of race. Corporations are people. QED. :)

The right to assemble presumably includes the right to choose who to assemble with. I don't know of any case where a person's right to discriminate on the basis of race was prohibited except in the case of business (well, and housing). In Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual Group of Boston the court ruled that "The state courts' application of the Massachusetts public accommodations law to require private citizens who organize a parade to include among the marchers a group imparting a message that the organizers do not wish to convey violates the First Amendment." (Not racial, but sexual orientation discrimination.)

Businesses do not have the right to freely assemble, even to the extreme level of choosing who to hire, if that would be racial discrimination. This could also impact religious rights; does a business that claims to adhere to the Nation of Islam have the right to racially discriminate in hiring? This has been well-tested in religious cases; a church qua church can hire based on religion, but a business, even owned by a church, can't.

Given how fundamental the right to hire who a business wants is to a business, I have a hard time reconciling those cases with the desire for a business to not pay for certain contraceptions being protected as a religious right.

The Washington Post case also seems quite different; the freedom of speech was created to protect the Washington Post. That is the core case. The freedom of religion in the US was not created so that people would be protected from funding at a distance things their religion might be unhappy with. The freedom of religion has gone along just fine without Hobby Lobby.

It is ridiculous how health insurance is tied up with employment. I would be more sympathetic with Hobby Lobby if its owners were demanding the government take this weight off its shoulders, instead of objecting to the more universal protections of ObamaCare.

>59 prosfilaes:

I think you're stretching the right of assembly a little far. Parades are parades. They obviously have some relationship to "assembly." Hiring is not "assembly." I doubt the clause has ever been used in that way.

So while there may or may not be a right to pick your employees, trumped by other factors. But it won't be found here. Since that's what you're grounding everything on, I'm pretty skeptical about your argument.

>60 timspalding: Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. As Wikipedia puts it "the constitutional right to freedom of association allows a private organization like the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to exclude a person from membership when 'the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.'" Employment seems a much deeper level of assembly, 40 hours a week, tens of thousands of dollars a year, and legally responsible (in some ways) for their actions, then mere membership.

Beyond that, freedom of religion as an argument has been well litigated. Catholics have free reign over their ministerial appointments, but not when it comes down to a business they just own. Someone may sincerely believe that God made men over women and whites over blacks, that person may what their store to stand as symbol of the White Patriarchy, but that doesn't mean the law doesn't compel them to put a black woman as manager over a store if the only justification for not doing so is her race and gender. That doesn't apply to non-businesses.

>61 prosfilaes:

Right. But the Boy Scouts are an association. Freedom of assembly and freedom of association are joined at the hip, spoken of, for example, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale as the right of "expressive association." I'm sorry, but I don't think you'll find anywhere the idea that employment is a deeper level of assembly. And if you read Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, which you mention, you will see it's argument would be very hard to apply to a business. Similar arguments against Civil Rights law have failed for just this reason--the court does not see hiring as equivalent to, let alone a stronger example, of expressive association.

As you say, we're talking about freedom of religion, not association.

>62 timspalding: And if you read Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, which you mention, you will see it's argument would be very hard to apply to a business.

Why? "It seems indisputable that an association that seeks to transmit such a system of values engages in expressive activity." To quote from http://www.rei.com/about-rei.html :

"Each year, REI donates millions of dollars to support conservation efforts nationwide and sends dedicated teams of volunteers—members, customers and REI employees—to build trails, clean up beaches, restore local habitats and more.... Through responsible business practices across the company, we strive to reduce our environmental footprint. {...} But no matter how large we grow, our roots remain firmly planted in the outdoors. Our passion for outdoor adventure is clear, whether you visit any of our stores across the country, phone us, or interact with us online. {...} Our core purpose guides everything we do: we all work to inspire, educate and outfit for a lifetime of outdoor adventure and stewardship."

Does not REI seek to transmit a system of values and thus engage in expressive activity? If Dale has spoken openly on behalf of a church who considers man's stewardship of the Earth to consist of logging every mountain, could REI chose not to hire him because of that? Could REI choose to deny him a membership to their stores? I think the answer is clear, that a business couldn't take either of those actions legally.

In Boy Scouts of America, Rehnquist wrote "First, associations do not have to associate for the "purpose" of disseminating a certain message in order to be entitled to the protections of the First Amendment. An association must merely engage in expressive activity that could be impaired in order to be entitled to protection. For example, the purpose of the St. Patrick's Day parade in Hurley was not to espouse any views about sexual orientation, but we held that the parade organizers had a right to exclude certain participants nonetheless."

You can't tell me that "Black Power : a store for all your Nation of Islam needs" or "Bubba's shop of KKK Uniforms, Male Power T-Shirts and bait" do not engage in expressive activity that could be impaired by having the wrong type of employees.

Rehnquist distinguishes this from Board of Directors, Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte, where Rotary Clubs were required to accept female members; but note that the Rotary Club were tried under an act "which entitles all persons, regardless of sex, to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, and services in all business establishments in the State". Businesses simply get less rights in this regard.

the court does not see hiring as equivalent to, let alone a stronger example, of expressive association.

Sure. Because businesses don't have the same rights that associations have, much less normal people. More generally, actions related to commerce don't have the rights that other actions do; the Washington Post is much more legally limited in its advertising columns then its editorial page.

As you say, we're talking about freedom of religion, not association.

And again, hiring is one of the most important activities that businesses do, involving a huge amount of discretion, and yet even a business owned by a church can not hire or fire based on someone's religion, like it seems a Mormon Boy Scout group could.

I got kicked out of the Boy Scouts for eating Brownies.