Support NeoGAF

[teiresias]

Hypothetical for the law people here. At what point do judicial rulings so tie a corporation in with their founders/owners personal beliefs that the ability of someone to separate their own personal wealth and liability by using a corporation is also in jeopardy? Seems to me that if someone wants to espouse their personal convictions via a government sanctioned vehicle that protects personal capital and liability from being at stake in a corporate bankruptcy and that the court holds their allowed to espouse those personal views, then the ability to hide one's personal and make them separate from corporate assets using these vehicles also comes into question.

 

[Averon]

Case in point:

"To be clear: the Court holds that corporations (including for-profit corporations) are "persons" for purposes of RFRA. The additional question was whether corporations can have a religious "belief" within the meaning of RFRA. On that question, the Court limits its holding to closely held corporations, leaving for another day whether larger, publicly traded corporations have religious beliefs."

Who are the SC trying to kid here? They must be smoking something if they thinking making this ruling narrow will somehow prevent the floodgates from opening.

 

[thepotatoman]

The court opinions can be found here. Ginsberg starts her dissent on page 60.

Ginsberg seems to also think this has serious slippery slope potential, so it's apparently not just people on the internet who don't know what they're talking about worrying about it.

There is an overriding interest, I believe, in keeping the courts out of the business of evaluating the relative merits of differing claims, or the sincerity with which an asserted religious belief is held. Indeed, approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation, could be perceived as favoring one religion over another, the very risk the Establishment Clause was designed to preclude. The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield, by its immoderate reading of RFRA.

 

[Fuchsdh]

Why you may not like the Supreme Court, judicial review was pretty plainly intended in the drafting of the Constitution, even before Marbury v Madison. If you want to complain about unwritten rules that are ruining our country, I think every bit of the Senate and House committee and procedures should be tossed first.

 

[Wilsongt]

Aaaaaaand, fuck Hobby Lobby.

Rick Santorum was on C-SPAN today, and during a discussion about U.S. foreign policy and bringing democracy to other nations, Santorum suggested that “maybe it wasn’t” bad that the Founding Fathers placed certain limits on who could vote in U.S. elections at the start.

Aaaaaand, fuck the frothing discharge from anal sex.

 

[Metaphoreus]

The limits on the Supreme Court's holding in Hobby Lobby arise by virtue of the nature of our judicial system, not some short-sightedness or preferential treatment towards some religious beliefs. The Court resolves only the dispute before it. If a dispute is not before it, it won't resolve that dispute. So, here, no publicly traded corporation was before the Court, so their holding doesn't apply to them. Also, providing insurance covering blood transfusions or vaccinations were not before the Court, so their holding doesn't apply to them. Note that the Court isn't saying publicly traded corporations can't bring RFRA claims, and it isn't saying that requiring insurance to cover blood transfusions or vaccinations could not be successfully challenged. They're simply not addressing those topics.

It's really as simple as that.

 

[speculawyer]

Seems fairly ridiculous to just say, "we only want this ruling's logic to apply here because it may make no sense elsewhere." Logic is logic, law is law, if you're going to make an argument how can you selectively rule it this way?

Perhaps what is really happening here is the Supreme Court doing their quasi-capitulation to the Tea Partiers. They realize the big picture view of this will lead to completely ridiculous results such that they are appeasing them by giving them a victory but trying to make it so narrow that it doesn't matter much.

It is sort of like the way the GOP has capitulated to a limited degree to the Tea Partiers.

 

[alstein]

Supremes are corporatists not Tea Partiers.

This is a bow to corps mostly.

 

[speculawyer]

The limits on the Supreme Court's holding in Hobby Lobby arise by virtue of the nature of our judicial system, not some short-sightedness or preferential treatment towards some religious beliefs. The Court resolves only the dispute before it. If a dispute is not before it, it won't resolve that dispute. So, here, no publicly traded corporation was before the Court, so their holding doesn't apply to them. Also, providing insurance covering blood transfusions or vaccinations were not before the Court, so their holding doesn't apply to them. Note that the Court isn't saying publicly traded corporations can't bring RFRA claims, and it isn't saying that requiring insurance to cover blood transfusions or vaccinations could not be successfully challenged. They're simply not addressing those topics.

It's really as simple as that.

No, that is not really true. They are really not consistent about that. When they want to duck an issue they will duck an issue. When they want to decide an issue, they'll sometimes decide an issue that wasn't really even present in the case as presented to them. Citizen's United is such a case of conservative judicial activism.

 

[Metaphoreus]

No, that is not really true. They are really not consistent about that. When they want to duck an issue they will duck an issue. When they want to decide an issue, they'll sometimes decide an issue that wasn't really even present in the case as presented to them. Citizen's United is such a case of conservative judicial activism.

However you want to classify Citizens United in this regard, it's nevertheless true that not addressing an issue is not the same as addressing and deciding an issue. Objections to blood transfusions or vaccinations, or whether public corporations are RFRA "persons" are questions belonging in the former category, not the latter.

 

[Aylinato]

This court is very much like the Lochner era of the Supreme Court

Which is very bad for everyone but corporations

 

[kingkitty]

What an arbitrary decision.

 

[Black Mamba]

Wow. Can't remember the last time I got a SCOTUS decision so wrong. It's been a long time.

The reading of the decision is fucking atrocious. Alito's reasoning is absurd. Ginsburg, yet again, hits every nail on the head.

Reminds me of the twisted opinion given in Raich.

I cannot fucking wait til the makeup of this court is finally changed.

 

[Wilsongt]

And, as expected, the GOP rejoiced about "religious freedom".

Erick Erickson ✔ @EWErickson
Follow

Thank you Jesus.
10:26 AM - 30 Jun 2014

Erick Erickson ✔ @EWErickson
Follow

Hey liberals, guess what?! Your birth control isn't your boss’s business now! Thanks Supreme Court!

@KatiePavlich
Follow

Strong message outside after SCOTUS ruling: Mandate strike down is good for women, especially female business owners, and good for America.

@toddstarnes
Follow

Obama's plan to force Christians to fund abortions is thwarted! #hobbylobby

@DLoesch
Follow

Going to Hobby Lobby later today in honor of religious freedom.

@RickSantorum
Follow

SCOTUS restored a vital piece our Constitution today. It’s a great day for all Americans! #HobbyLobby #ReligiousFreedom

@SenRandPaul
Follow

Our nation was founded on the principle of freedom, & w/ this decision America will continue to serve as a safe haven for religious liberty.

@SenTedCruz
Follow

#SCOTUS handed our nation a landmark victory for religious liberty in #HobbyLobby decision http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1477 …

Liberal a bloobloobloo

@ZerlinaMaxwell
Follow

I'm going to go find my sanity in Ginsburg's dissent.
10:24 AM - 30 Jun 2014


@Jimmyspolitics
Follow

Scotus Hobby Lobby decision most sweeping assault on privacy/equal rts since Plessy. Biz reigns over humans now law of the land.

@JohnFugelsang
Follow

The Supreme Court #HobbyLobby ruling proves once again that Scalia Law is a lot like Sharia Law.

@hilaryr
Follow

When all the #HobbyLobby celebrants are holding signs that say "Ban Abortion" it is hard to think of this SCOTUS act as a narrow decision.

@RevDebra
Follow

Do NOT let anyone claim that this is a victory for religious freedom. Religious freedom is your right to make YOUR decisions. #SCOTUS

Donna Brazile ✔ @donnabrazile
Follow

#SCOTUS ruling on #HobbyLobby is wrong! Your Boss will now get in your personal business. I've lost faith in the Supreme Court.

 

[kaching]

Objections to blood transfusions or vaccinations, or whether public corporations are RFRA "persons" are questions belonging in the former category, not the latter.

I don't think anyone is disputing what they very arbitrarily chose not to address. Quite the opposite, really.

 

[Black Mamba]

The limits on the Supreme Court's holding in Hobby Lobby arise by virtue of the nature of our judicial system, not some short-sightedness or preferential treatment towards some religious beliefs. The Court resolves only the dispute before it. If a dispute is not before it, it won't resolve that dispute. So, here, no publicly traded corporation was before the Court, so their holding doesn't apply to them. Also, providing insurance covering blood transfusions or vaccinations were not before the Court, so their holding doesn't apply to them. Note that the Court isn't saying publicly traded corporations can't bring RFRA claims, and it isn't saying that requiring insurance to cover blood transfusions or vaccinations could not be successfully challenged. They're simply not addressing those topics.

It's really as simple as that.

This is so not correct. The Court can and has used rulings to apply broadly. That is often what an Opinion does. In fact, you could argue that is the whole point to an Opinion. The Opinion serves as a guide to other cases that may seem very or somewhat similar to the on in question. If it didn't, they were just render a Decision and that's it. Why justify it?

Alito did not say they were not deciding on blood transfusions, Alito specifically exempted them from this ruling - meaning if Hobby Lobby argued on blood transfusions, they'd lose. Alito decided that case preemptively.


edit: I'd also like to add to how nonsensical Alito's ruling is. He argued that the gov't can be the middle-mad through regulation. So let me get this straight. Hobby Lobby can't be forced to provide birth control via insurance they purchase for their employees BUT Hobby Lobby can be forced to provide birth control via taxes they pay to the gov't. Hence: nonsensical.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I don't think anyone is disputing what they very arbitrarily chose not to address. Quite the opposite, really.

There's really nothing arbitrary in not deciding questions not presented by a case.

This is so not correct. The Court can and has used rulings to apply broadly. That is often what an Opinion does. In fact, you could argue that is the whole point to an Opinion. The Opinion serves as a guide to other cases that may seem very or somewhat similar to the on in question. If it didn't, they were just render a Decision and that's it. Why justify it?

Alito did not say they were not deciding on blood transfusions, Alito specifically exempted them from this ruling - meaning if Hobby Lobby argued on blood transfusions, they'd lose. Alito decided that case preemptively.

Yes, the Court can issue broad rulings with widespread effects. But, to the extent such broad rulings are not necessary to resolve an issue in the case, they are subject to later attack as dicta. Even if Alito said, "Hey, blood transfusions fail this test. Period," that would still be dicta, and not subject to deference by a lower court or the Supreme Court in later cases. Of course, he didn't say that at all. He said:

In any event, our decision in these cases is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.

EDIT:

edit: I'd also like to add to how nonsensical Alito's ruling is. He argued that the gov't can be the middle-mad through regulation. So let me get this straight. Hobby Lobby can't be forced to provide birth control via insurance they purchase for their employees BUT Hobby Lobby can be forced to provide birth control via taxes they pay to the gov't. Hence: nonsensical.

The lack of general taxpayer standing is well established in American Constitutional law. I think it makes perfect sense to say that a person can challenge being forced to directly spend money on X even when they can't challenge being forced to pay taxes, some tiny indeterminate portion of which may be used by the government to spend on X, but even if you don't, that's not a flaw in Alito's reasoning. The Court remains bound, generally, by stare decisis.

 

[Black Mamba]

He specifically used those examples to warn lower courts.

That's all that matters. You're arguing semantics. It's irrelevant.

 

[Metaphoreus]

He specifically used those examples to warn lower courts.

That's all that matters. You're arguing semantics. It's irrelevant.

Semantics? The question is, did the Supreme Court hold one way with respect to some religious objections, and another way with respect to others? The answer is "no," for the reasons I explain above. The "warning" that they've issued to lower courts is, "This case does not decide those other cases, so you can't just cite this case to resolve such disputes." That's my point when I say they haven't decided these issues.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Alito did not say they were not deciding on blood transfusions, Alito specifically exempted them from this ruling ...

This part drives me crazy.

Why stop there? Where is the comprehensive list of exemptions? Why even call this out specifically?

WHARRRRRRRGARBL.jpg

 

[Black Mamba]

Semantics? The question is, did the Supreme Court hold one way with respect to some religious objections, and another way with respect to others? The answer is "no," for the reasons I explain above. The "warning" that they've issued to lower courts is, "This case does not decide those other cases, so you can't just cite this case to resolve such disputes." That's my point when I say they haven't decided these issues.

For all intents and purposes, they did decide it. Alito made it very clear via his wording vaccinations would still be forced. Just because they haven't technically done it is irrelevant.

You're arguing semantics which is almost always a wrong argument.

 

[kaching]

There's really nothing arbitrary in not deciding questions not presented by a case.

If the questions weren't presented by the case, why warn lower courts pre-emptively about the way they answer those questions? The fundamental nature of the question being asked goes well beyond the specific scenario in which it was raised, and every aspect of how this decision appears to have been addressed, both in the assent and dissent, very clearly reflects they're aware of that but arbitrarily choosing not to fully and properly address it.

 

[Metaphoreus]

For all intents and purposes, they did decide it. Alito made it very clear via his wording vaccinations would still be forced. Just because they haven't technically done it is irrelevant.

You're arguing semantics which is almost always a wrong argument.

If the questions weren't presented by the case, why warn lower courts pre-emptively about the way they answer those questions? The fundamental nature of the question being asked goes well beyond the specific scenario in which it was raised, and every aspect of how this decision appears to have been addressed, both in the assent and dissent, very clearly reflects they're aware of that but arbitrarily choosing not to fully and properly address it.

Read the quotation I posted. Alito literally says that they are not deciding those questions. He didn't warn lower courts about how to answer those questions--he told them that this case doesn't answer those questions. Courts commonly point out the limits of their opinions, including certain questions that they are not answering.

 

[thepotatoman]

He specifically used those examples to warn lower courts.

That's all that matters. You're arguing semantics. It's irrelevant.

We're talking about the court of law here. It's the one place where semantics mean everything.

This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs.

In any event, our decision in these cases is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.

The only concrete example given where he's basically preemptively ruling against it is immunizations which prevent the spread of disease. Everything else seems pretty clearly worded to remain open to debate.

 

[Black Mamba]

We're talking about the court of law here. It's the one place where semantics mean everything.





The only concrete example given where he's basically preemptively ruling against it is immunizations which prevent the spread of disease. Everything else seems pretty clearly worded to remain open to debate.

This is only true if you ignore the history of the Court. Alito specifically cited vaccinations and blood transfusions for a reason.

The difference is that if someone brought up Hobby Lobby again, the Court would just say "it just got decided, go away." If someone brought blood transfusions, they wouldn't. But Alito sent a clear message that it should have a different result. This is what the Court does.

As awful as some of the justices can be, they're not idiots. They're trying to make this case about contraceptives and only contraceptives and avoiding opening pandora's box. There's only two outcomes here. Either Hobby Lobby means all religions can challenge numerous things and win or contraception is a special case. If Alito wanted it to be the former, he would have never gone to great lengths to make it seem narrowly tailored. That is exactly why to keep it the latter, he cited those two things (since it was part of the argument).

By making it so obvious how they were not decided those cases, he decided those cases, so to speak.



To expand a bit, the only ways to support Hobby Lobby in this case is to open up all challenges or essentially establish a religion. Alito did the former but tried to hide it as best he could. That's why this ruling is scary. I never saw that option available in my wildest dreams.

 

[dave is ok]

Thanks for the dissent Ginsberg. Now please, please, please retire.

 

[kaching]

Read the quotation I posted. Alito literally says that they are not deciding those questions. He didn't warn lower courts about how to answer those questions--he told them that this case doesn't answer those questions. Courts commonly point out the limits of their opinions, including certain questions that they are not answering.

I understand that. What you're saying is that this is normal, but that doesn't deny the observation that it's incredibly arbitrary. If the questions aren't presented by the case, then how did they decide which questions to tell lower courts they weren't answering? They didn't just come up with a random set of questions to tell lower courts they weren't answering, they listed questions that were specifically spawned from the case as presented.

 

[Black Mamba]

Thanks for the dissent Ginsberg. Now please, please, please retire.

No fucking way. If she retired, the court will be 5-3 until 2016 at least. If by some miracle the GOP allows someone through, it would be about the most moderate a judge Obama could nominate. Fuck that. I'm willing to take a small risk cuz the GOP ain't winning 2016.

Ginsberg is also the best justice there. It's Scalia who need to GTFO.

 

[thepotatoman]

This is only true if you ignore the history of the Court. Alito specifically cited vaccinations and blood transfusions for a reason.

The difference is that if someone brought up Hobby Lobby again, the Court would just say "it just got decided, go away." If someone brought blood transfusions, they wouldn't. But Alito sent a clear message that it should have a different result. This is what the Court does.

As awful as some of the justices can be, they're not idiots. They're trying to make this case about contraceptives and only contraceptives and avoiding opening pandora's box. There's only two outcomes here. Either Hobby Lobby means all religions can challenge numerous things and win or contraception is a special case. If Alito wanted it to be the former, he would have never gone to great lengths to make it seem narrowly tailored. That is exactly why to keep it the latter, he cited those two things (since it was part of the argument).

By making it so obvious how they were not decided those cases, he decided those cases, so to speak.



To expand a bit, the only ways to support Hobby Lobby in this case is to open up all challenges or essentially establish a religion. Alito did the former but tried to hide it as best he could. That's why this ruling is scary. I never saw that option available in my wildest dreams.

Well, yeah, it might have a different result resulting from different arguments in case there are different arguments to be made, but it's not ruling it out as something that will be automatically ruled against from the start.

 

[Black Mamba]

I understand that. What you're saying is that this is normal, but that doesn't deny the observation that it's incredibly arbitrary. If the questions aren't presented by the case, then how did they decide which questions to tell lower courts they weren't answering? They didn't just come up with a random set of questions to tell lower courts they weren't answering, they listed questions that were specifically spawned from the case as presented.

In addition, the fact that they're trying to narrow Hobby Lobby's ruling in itself is scary. If you're saying Catholics can deny coverage for these contraceptives, why are you not extending this same logic to Jehovas Witnesses and blood transfusions??

What is the justification for recognizing one but then arguing others may not fall under the same principle. Why is the ruling so narrow unless you're establishing Catholicism as a national religion?

Well, yeah, it might have a different result resulting from different arguments in case there are different arguments to be made, but it's not ruling it out as something that will be automatically ruled against from the start.

There would be no reason to narrowly tailor this decision, otherwise.

 

[thepotatoman]

There would be no reason to narrowly tailor this decision, otherwise.

It's not narrowly tailored though. This decision gets past the hard part of declaring a corporation protection under RFRA and declaring that at least some insurance mandates are a substantial religious burden.

The reasoning for the substantial burden was that companies had no easy alternative avenues while the government had easy alternative avenues.

The one and only reason he didn't leave it there is that he didn't want to rule out the possibility that other procedures have an additional government interest. But unless the defense can argue that additional government interest, that ruling is going to apply to everything.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I understand that. What you're saying is that this is normal, but that doesn't deny the observation that it's incredibly arbitrary. If the questions aren't presented by the case, then how did they decide which questions to tell lower courts they weren't answering? They didn't just come up with a random set of questions to tell lower courts they weren't answering, they listed questions that were specifically spawned from the case as presented.

The case has been percolating through the court system for years. I haven't read the government's brief, and I haven't even read the dissenting opinions in this case, but I can guarantee that one or both of those is the source of the particular items addressed by Alito. In other words, he's addressing objections to his opinion raised by those who disagree with it.

 

[Black Mamba]

It's not narrowly tailored though. This decision gets past the hard part of declaring a corporation protection under RFRA and declaring that at least some insurance mandates are a substantial religious burden.

The reasoning for the substantial burden was that companies had no easy alternative avenues while the government had easy alternative avenues.

The one and only reason he didn't leave it there is that he didn't want to rule out the possibility that other procedures have an additional government interest. But unless the defense can argue that additional government interest, that ruling is going to apply to everything.

our decision in these cases is concerned solelywith the contraceptive mandate.

Alito went out of his way to make sure the case was narrowly tailored with respect to what can be challenged religiously. You're right it's not completely narrow in terms of what corporations and stuff. But I'm only concerned about the former in this part of the conversation and it's very narrow on purpose.

And I don't see how anyone can make any argument that there is other gov't interest in other procedures without being a hypocrite. It's very clear to me that the 5 justices against abortion rules against contraception because of their religious beliefs.

Again, there is no reason for Alito to not extend what the Court did to other medications/procedures/etc. The fact that he intentionally makes it clear the Court did not demonstrates how absurd the ruling is and how badly Alito had to write this convoluted mess to keep it narrow.

 

[789shadow]

It feels like every single major decision of the Roberts court will be laughed off by future courts with the reasoning, "because come the fuck on."

 

[speculawyer]

Erick Erickson ✔ @EWErickson
Follow

Hey liberals, guess what?! Your birth control isn't your boss’s business now! Thanks Supreme Court!

Uh .. . but it is. Your boss can can say "No IUD for you!"

 

[Owzers]

Boehner is out of his mind if he thinks " we cant do anything on immigration reform because we don't trust Obama" doesn't translate to " we don't want to do anything about immigration reform" come 2016.

 

[thepotatoman]

Alito went out of his way to make sure the case was narrowly tailored with respect to what can be challenged religiously. You're right it's not completely narrow in terms of what corporations and stuff. But I'm only concerned about the former in this part of the conversation and it's very narrow on purpose.

And I don't see how anyone can make any argument that there is other gov't interest in other procedures without being a hypocrite. It's very clear to me that the 5 justices against abortion rules against contraception because of their religious beliefs.

Again, there is no reason for Alito to not extend what the Court did to other medications/procedures/etc. The fact that he intentionally makes it clear the Court did not demonstrates how absurd the ruling is and how badly Alito had to write this convoluted mess to keep it narrow.

I'm trying to tell you the reason Alito did not extend what the court did to other stuff.

Outwardly, I would say they would need to hear arguements before deciding where the line of government interest and substantial religious burden is drawn, and they do not have enough information to draw that line from this one case. All they know is the obvious fact that immunization to prevent spread of disease makes those on the side of government interest, and that from this case, abortifacients are on the side of substantial burden.

Deciding where that line is drawn with the facts they've learned over the course of this case just isn't really possible, nor is it probably ever possible to draw that line precisely when there's so many different types of procedures and medications. That makes decisions about blood transfusions out of scope and something to be decided later. It's not like you can expect a full page on each medicinal thing covering where on the government interest/substantial burden scale it sits.

Inwardly, I would say the court really does care about seeming like it maintains some sort of reputation. Instead of jumping right to what they want, they're happy to stick with "narrow" decisions to open up cracks which they can finish breaking at a later date. By not explicitly closing any holes outside of the immunization one, they are leaving it open to do exactly that.

Either way, there's clearly enough opening to create a legal challenge, no matter what alito really meant when writing that.

 

[Aylinato]

It feels like every single major decision of the Roberts court will be laughed off by future courts with the reasoning, "because come the fuck on."

I predict it will be treated exactly like the dark era of the Lochner Era, and mocked just as appropriately by our ancestors.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

This part drives me crazy.

Why stop there? Where is the comprehensive list of exemptions? Why even call this out specifically?

WHARRRRRRRGARBL.jpg

Because they're acting as politicians. They sympathize with hobby lobbys desire to limit women's sexual freedom. Not any constitutional principle or respect for religious liberty. They decided this case because they oppose birth control and abortion. Them saying this would apply to others is because they support those.

They're narrow because they don't want to force precedent becuase it would hurt them in the future if a religion the don't like wants to exert power. The court is blantently pro Christian. See town of greece

 

[GaimeGuy]

Semantics? The question is, did the Supreme Court hold one way with respect to some religious objections, and another way with respect to others? The answer is "no," for the reasons I explain above. The "warning" that they've issued to lower courts is, "This case does not decide those other cases, so you can't just cite this case to resolve such disputes." That's my point when I say they haven't decided these issues.

But why would things change for blood transfusions as opposed to contraception? Hobby Lobby's involvement in the process would be exactly the same. So what makes one okay but not the other?

The answer is the public acceptance/tolerance of such beliefs.... which gets to the heart of the Establishment Clause, as Ginsburg pointed out.

 

[benjipwns]

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...-2016-how-she-won-over-left-become-invincible

INVINCIBLE HERO OF THE LEFT!

 

[NYCmetsfan]

But why would things change for blood transfusions as opposed to contraception? Hobby Lobby's involvement in the process would be exactly the same. So what makes one okay but not the other?

The answer is the public acceptance/tolerance of such beliefs.... which gets to the heart of the Establishment Clause, as Ginsburg pointed out.

As I stated above the court is pro Christian. 5 Catholics vs 3 Jews and 1 catholic

 

[Black Mamba]

I'm trying to tell you the reason Alito did not extend what the court did to other stuff.

Outwardly, I would say they would need to hear arguements before deciding where the line of government interest and substantial religious burden is drawn, and they do not have enough information to draw that line from this one case. All they know is the obvious fact that immunization to prevent spread of disease makes those on the side of government interest, and that from this case, abortifacients are on the side of substantial burden.

Deciding where that line is drawn with the facts they've learned over the course of this case just isn't really possible, nor is it probably ever possible to draw that line precisely when there's so many different types of procedures and medications. That makes decisions about blood transfusions out of scope and something to be decided later. It's not like you can expect a full page on each medicinal thing covering where on the government interest/substantial burden scale it sits.

Inwardly, I would say the court really does care about seeming like it maintains some sort of reputation. Instead of jumping right to what they want, they're happy to stick with "narrow" decisions to open up cracks which they can finish breaking at a later date. By not explicitly closing any holes outside of the immunization one, they are leaving it open to do exactly that.

Either way, there's clearly enough opening to create a legal challenge, no matter what alito really meant when writing that.

There are only two possible outcomes from Alito's opinion. Either everything fails like in Hobby Lobby or the Courts get to pick and choose, but the problem is that by picking and choosing you are establishing religion (the justifications for all these cases are the exact same).

This is a trick by the Conservative Justices they just pulled. Because when an actual challenge arises, the Courts will deny it because to deny vaccinations from Scientologists will be viewed as clinically insane. Both liberal and conservative ones will side together. So it won't be seen as anything nefarious.

What Alito did was establish a national religious doctrine where views on abortion matter more than other religious views.

As APKman states, this ruling is because those justices don't agree with abortion because of their religion, so they sided with Hobby Lobby. But their religion doesn't agree with the other challenges, so Alito intentionally made the case as narrow as possible to address the pandora's box aspect.

Put it this way. Either there is religious freedom from all in this purview or the SCOTUS established religion. By not extending Hobby Lobby to all, Alito specifically decided to establish religion but tried to hide it from plain sight.

 

[Black Mamba]

In fact, it's simply notable that all three of the court's current female justices dissented from the court's opinion, in which it ruled that for-profit corporations owned by people religiously opposed to contraception may refuse to provide insurance covering it. In the long line of decisions about women's reproductive rights that have not been made by women, this is yet another.

The difference between the majority opinion of five of the court's men and the dissent of its three women (plus Justice Stephen Breyer) is instructive. The majority opinion is largely about the rights of corporations, employers and those with religious beliefs; the dissent is very much about women — about their health, the sums they spend to access care and the costs they pay when none is available.

The 49-page majority opinion mentions "women" or "woman" a mere 13 times (I've excluded footnotes and URLs here). It does not mention women's well-being once.

Ginsburg's dissent, at 35 pages, mentions women (singular or plural) 43 times, their well-being four times.

Also like to add, Ginsburg's dissent is, once again, wonderfully written unlike Alito's jumbled mess.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Also like to add, Ginsburg's dissent is, once again, wonderfully written unlike Alito's jumbled mess.

Also, the roman catholics ruled in favor of hobby lobby 5-1, while the 3 jews unanimously dissented. Coincidentally, it's catholics which raise a hissy fit over contraceptives. But the 5 catholic justices don't want this to necessarily mean jehova's witnesses could refuse insuring blood transfusions. That would be bad. And not catholic


Motherfuckers shouldn't be on the bench

 

[kaching]

The case has been percolating through the court system for years. I haven't read the government's brief, and I haven't even read the dissenting opinions in this case, but I can guarantee that one or both of those is the source of the particular items addressed by Alito. In other words, he's addressing objections to his opinion raised by those who disagree with it.

...

therefore questions raised by the case as presented which they have arbitrarily chosen not to address.

 

[Metaphoreus]

...

therefore questions raised by the case as presented which they have arbitrarily chosen not to address.

No, that's not how that works. Only holdings that are necessary to resolve the actual case or controversy before the Court are binding precedent. Anything beyond that--including, but how would that work in this case over here?--needn't be addressed, and wouldn't be binding if it were addressed.

 

[benjipwns]

Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, dissenting separately, write: "We need not and do not decide whether either for-profit corporations or their owners may bring claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993."

I like how this is basically their entire dissent.

 

[benjipwns]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/best-lines-hobby-lobby-decision

http://thefederalist.com/2014/06/30/6-stupid-arguments-about-hobby-lobby-from-dumb-liberals/

Guess the dumb liberals win 8 to 6.

 

[Wilsongt]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/best-lines-hobby-lobby-decision

http://thefederalist.com/2014/06/30/6-stupid-arguments-about-hobby-lobby-from-dumb-liberals/

Guess the dumb liberals win 8 to 6.

The truth of the matter is that the case was about abortion, specifically four types of contraception that can result in the destruction of a fertilized egg.

Except, Plan B prevents fertilization from happening, meaning that a "person" will not be "destroyed".

Emergency contraceptive pills prevent pregnancy primarily, or perhaps exclusively, by delaying or inhibiting ovulation. There is no evidence to suggest that either of the FDA-approved emergency contraceptive options, levonorgestrel (LNG, such as Plan B One-Step, Take Action, Next Choice One Dose or My Way ) or ulipristal acetate (UPA, such as ella) works after an egg is fertilized. In two recent studies1,2 of the levonorgestrel regimen, women who presented for EC were monitored to identify their menstrual cycle day and ascertain which women took EC before ovulation, and which took it after. Among women taking LNG before ovulation, there were no pregnancies. Among those who took it on the day of ovulation or after, there were about the number of pregnancies that would be expected with no use of EC; if LNG were effective at preventing implantation, it would most certainly be more effective when taken after ovulation. A 2010 study 3 of ulipristal acetate (ella) found that at certain doses, it can decrease the thickness of the endometrium (by 0.6 to 2.2 mm), but it is not clear that this would in fact prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg.

Of course, you can't argue science against religious beliefs