A big hump day

It is Wednesday.  Hopefully you didn't nee me to tel you that. But hey, always worth noting anyway right.

As predicted elsewhere, the decisions from SCOTUS at the end of its term have lived up to the hype developed while awaiting the same. The halls of justice in the City of Philadelphia must have been emptied these past few days, as the news and social media have been filled with the appearances and comments of all the Philadelphia lawyers in this country.

I have to tell you that I personally find the trend to extend personal liberties to corporations, even closely held corporations to be a bit tenuous.  There is a whole lot of reasoning in this world I find tenuous, even more that I find mind boggling.

I can fathom, and even support the arguments that the decision was wrong based on the argument that corporations aren't people.  Indeed, corporations, and more specifically closely held corporations, are a legally created entity, formed essentially for liability and tax purposes, and to allow for a certain "control" structure.  Someone made a conscious decision to form the entity, and in doing so implicitly agreed to abide by the laws of the land.

Whether the RFRA could be, or should have been extended to a corporate structure of any nature is in my mind a bit questionable.

The five in the 5 - 4 decision has been, and will be lambasted for assaulting women's rights.    The nine in the 9 - 0 decision a day or two earlier were and will be lambasted for assaulting women's rights in striking down the 35 buffer zone for protests at abortion clinics.

The biggest issue I am bothered by I suppose is the near universal arguments relative to the First Amendment and the fact that this decision somehow is a first step in foisting religious beliefs on people.

It bothers me greatly that most people seem to read the first part of the first clause of the first amendment, and then skip right to freed of speech.

The amendment, in its entirety:

Amendment I 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Government can neither establish a religion, nor prohibit the exercise of any religion.  Oh and let's not forget the right at the very end.

But the religion clause is a double edged sword, no matter how convenient it is for some to forget that aspect.

Whether that sword should be wielded for the benefit of corporations will continue to be debated, but until changed has been decided. I note, for those ready to go on a tear, I don't believe corporations apply in this instance.  

But the one caveat I will ad for that if one legal entity should be excluded from the "protection", shouldn't all legal entities be excluded?  

On the Citizens United front, well for purely practical reasons, I would love to see that one fall, so long as it falls not just for corporations, but all "groups" and "entities".

Anyway enough on this.  

Be safe.