I suspect most people invest in 401k mutual funds with no clue which specific companies are invested in. Some mutual fund investments are in pharmaceutical companies who, among many other things, manufacture contraceptives.

It raises an interesting point, but has nothing to do with today's 5-4 SCOTUS ruling.

The Supreme Court is political, and swims in the same political waters as Congress and, by extension, the rest of America. Roberts crafted a political compromise in Hobby Lobby: By making a (IMO) dubious distinction between a "privately held" corporation and those that are publicly held, he managed to satisfy the religious Right without giving the rest of corporate America carte blanche to pick and choose which aspects of Obamacare they'll implement.

It's dubious because Hobby Lobby is still a big corporation that operates stores in many states and does business on an interstate basis. The fact that Hobby Lobby is privately held doesn't make a difference to employees receiving salary, benefits or any other aspect of employment. Nor can Hobby Lobby require employees to sign affidavits that they support the owning family's religious beliefs and precepts as a condition of employment.

Ironically, Roberts cited the "commerce" clause in upholding Obamacare--another dubious way to achieve a political compromise.

In his opinion, Breyer offers the most forceful defense of what’s often termed “living constitutionalism” to appear in a majority Supreme Court opinion in a generation. Rejecting Antonin Scalia’s 18th-century approach of originalism—in which all that matters is what the framers thought—Breyer in Noel Canning stakes a bold claim for interpreting the Constitution “in light of its text, purposes, and our whole experience.” His is a progressive vision of the Constitution, one articulated previously in his books, like Active Liberty, and in various concurring and dissenting opinions he has authored over the years. But now, in the wake of Canning it is also the opinion of the court. As a result, it will influence how future courts—state and federal, trial and appellate—will apply the Constitution to answer tomorrow’s controversies.

It may seem like a niggling academic problem. But it has real-world consequences. That’s one of the reasons Justice Antonin Scalia—who agreed with Breyer that these recess appointments were unconstitutional—nevertheless disagreed with the court’s opinion so vigorously. While it may be a sign of how far the Roberts court has shifted that Scalia is forced to file his blustery dissents in the form of angry concurrences, the substance of Scalia’s complaint is unchanged: The court “casts aside the plain, original meaning of the constitutional text.” Breyer responds by saying that Scalia’s originalism asks the wrong question. “The question is not: Did the Founders at the time think about” the exact issue before the court? “The question is: Did the Founders intend to restrict the scope” of the Constitution only to the “forms ... then prevalent,” or did they intend the Constitution “to apply, where appropriate, to somewhat changed circumstances”? Fidelity to the Constitution, he suggests, means using its timeless principles to address new and unforeseen situations. You know, like figuring out how to preserve privacy in an age of smartphones—as the court did this term in Riley v. California, another case decided without relying on originalism...

Yet another one bites the dust:

A Colorado state judge has struck down Colorado's gay marriage ban, but has placed it on hold pending an appeal.

By the way, the State of Utah is asking the Supreme Court to grant certiorari to hear its appeal of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that struck down Utah's gay marriage ban.

They're everywhere! They're everywhere!"

"In April, Crystal Moore was fired in what she said was a decision driven by homophobia. Now the town of Latta, South Carolina, has voted to alter the structure of its government and hire her back as police chief, in the process weakening the powers of the mayor who put her on the chopping block."

http://news.yahoo.com/southern-town-lesbian-sheriff-003000842--politics.html

Well, let's not get carried away, Oli. And I'm not even familiar with the case. But people should be hired based on their ability. Period. Because you know what happens next, right?

Quotas for openly gay people. And that opens the door to people lying about their orientation on job applications to increase their chances.

Let them live their lives and go about their business. I'm all for that, and I've always supported their rights on this board. But we don't need anymore "victim" groups that benefit from Affirmative Action, especially if they're going to lie about it. And for the record, I've always been in favor of it to a certain degree .

that people being hired because of ability shit is bullshit

we had C student as president for 8 years....Cs = average

somebody of average intelligence shouldn't lead your country

the proof is in how bad bush fucked up

that people being hired because of ability shit is bullshit

we had C student as president for 8 years....Cs = average

somebody of average intelligence shouldn't lead your country

the proof is in how bad bush fucked up

What's your stance and/ or position on the S.C. issue Oli?

http://news.msn.com/us/us-judge-rules-california-death-penalty-system-unconstitutional

SACRAMENTO Calif. (Reuters) - California's system for imposing and carrying out the death penalty is so long and drawn-out that it amounts to cruel and unusual punishment and thus is unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday.


I agree. It is too long and drawn out. But that's just an argument to shorten it considerably. Do away with 20 years of appeals which do nothing but make defense lawyers rich.

Everyone hates lawyers. Until they need one .