Two reasons:

1. Its too late. SCOTUS can't consider new facts. Only the finder-of-fact at the trial court is allowed to determine whether evidence is creditable. Doesn't matter how well-documented Mother Jones is, or even if Hobby Lobby agrees, its too late to add to the factual record.

2. The Government already…

No, the state already stipulated that Hobby Lobby had a sincere belief. The administration wanted a blanket ruling of law that religious exemptions are not allowed without White House approval. They didn't want to get stuck litigating thousands of factual cases and try to weed out the true believers.

1. Its too late. This would have to be brought up at the trial court a year ago.

Its too late, according to the rules

EXCELLENT

Kind of proves Puzzle's point. Have you ever had a NYer try to show special contempt for someone? Its like a linguistic marathon. Meanwhile, if a SFer drops an F-Bomb one time, the room goes silent

A very good point that is often glassed over by academics. It's not like the student athletes aren't working there asses off to accomplish their dreams (at huge personal risk), its just a holier-than-thou NCAA that tries to pretend that they are anything but a very lucrative and exploitative version of AAA baseball.

As…

Since I was vocal in my complaints, I want to be vocal in my appreciation for the correction. Thanks!

Name states without corporate personhood.

You may say that I am being pedantic and legalese, but you are operating on pure ignorance and its not the way to advocate for change. You are the equivalent of someone who points to a thermometer as evidence in a talk on global warming. Rather than run your mouth espousing…

Because if corporate person hood didn't exist then whoever was the sole proprietor of the no-longer corporation (i.e. the Koch, Dimon, Buffet, Soros, Springsteens, etc. of the world) could just give unlimited amounts in their own name.

You clearly have no idea of what Citizen's United says, what "corporate…

scolding

My point is that Papillion is upbraiding commentators for rising in defense of people the author is pretending does not exist.

Just because someone has some privileges, doesn't mean we should turn the other way when they are ignored or made non-existent (Especially by a writer with more privilege)

Because Corporate Personhood does not mean that corporations can throw money around. Corporate personhood is the ability for entities to enter into contracts and be sued/sue under their own name, without it no one could enter into far-flung commercial or non-commercial enterprises.

The term "personhood" is never used…

That's just because you don't know what the concept means.

Hobby Lobby never finds out what is being submitted for reimbursement. They just pay for a plan that limits what claims the insurance company will accept.

Yeah, the plight of WOC and people of mixed-raced ancestry is such a #FirstWorldProblem.

Yeah, that's what threw me off. Sounded like you were saying it was Section 67, not 62. All is well,

One of us is confused about entity level taxation. For the sake of my upcoming exams, please tell me its you.

I think you are living on an island if you think this is an open and shut case. These types of things don't get to the SCOTUS without valid points on both sides.

But really, your point that anything done by the ICC is constitutional is actually straight-up, unadulterated idiocy. The first 5 Articles of the…