| | | >> It wasn't. When a precedent is set in law, it can be used in other, similar situations.
Bush v. Gore has been cited in a small number of subsequent cases but not in reference to the portion of the majority opinion that was deemed to be restricted to the circumstances in Bush v. Gore. Some have cited the dissents, others have cited it for other issues. Citation of any case can be used to make a particular point. But it would be pretty stupid to cite a case that the Court held not to constitute precedent on the same point(s) the Court decided it on as you would be sure to be shot down, instantly, and it would likely jeopardize the case you were submitting the brief for.
But today's case is will definitely become serious precedent, as it should. There are far more close corporations than publicly held ones.
As I pointed out previously, close corporations are almost always extensions of their owners designed to provide specific legal protections and tax consequences. There is no reason their corporations shouldn't be allowed to maintain their religious views. As an example, I have a physician customer who is highly religious and owns a corporation (Joe Blow, M.D., P.A.). How logical would it be to FORCE that corporation to operate counter to its sole owner's religion? It would just put him in the position having dissolve the corporation and operate as a sole proprietorship, and no one's interests are served.
All this idiotic propaganda aside, the Court, as it does in most cases, made the correct decision. There really isn't a cogent argument to be made from the other point of view. |
|
