Forty four corporate law professors have filed a brief in the Obamacare mandate cases (Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood). I took 44 of them (plus the three lawyers who actually wrote the brief) to rebut just little old me and my theory that reverse veil peircing solves the problem. I will have more to say about the substance of the brief, which strikes me as fundamentally misguided on the merits. But I want to note what I see as the seemingly odd moral inconsistencies in the brief.
On the one hand, many of the signers are associated with the shareholder rights movement. In their normal roles as advocates of shareholder empowerment, they think shareholders ought to have a bigger say in corporate management and policy. Except it seems when it comes to Catholic and other religiously-motivated shareholders seeking to affect corporate policy on abortion and contraception health insurance coverage.
On the other hand, many of the signers are associated with the corporate social responsibility movement. In their vocational role as advocates of that view, they argue that corporations should consider the good of society when making corporate decisions. Except it seems when when Catholic and other religiously-motivated shareholders want the corporation to address the social issue of abortion.
I find all that more than just a little inconsistent.
