Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby Debacle

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/supreme-courts-hobby-lobby-debacle



The Supreme Court’s right-wing majority has struck another major blow against women and Obamacare, ruling on Monday that private employers do not have to include contraceptive coverage in employee health plans if the business owners’ religion is opposed to abortion-related services. The ruling, which dissenting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called "extreme" in comments from the bench, affirmed that corporations—not just individuals—possess religious rights and freedoms protected by the First Amendment.

“We must decide whether the challenged HHS [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services] regulations substantially burden the exercise of religion, and we hold that they do,” wrote Justice Samual Alito, writing for the 5-4 majority. “Government action that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise must serve a compelling government interest, and we assume that the HHS regulations satisfy this requirement. But in order for the HHS mandate to be sustained, it must also constitute the least restrictive means of serving that interest, and the mandate plainly fails that test.”

The Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, requires private employers to provide contraception but it exempted religious non-profit organizations—like Catholic hospitals—that believe birth control is against their beliefs. That did not suffice for conservatives who said that the law violated their religious liberty.

“In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs,” Justice Ginsburg said in her dissent joined by all the Court’s women justices and Justice Stephen Breyer. “The exemption sought by [Christian businesses] Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would override significant interests of the corporations’ employees and covered dependents. It would deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage that the ACA would otherwise secure.”

[PoliticAverse]

1. But the majority decision specifically indicated that companies were not free to opt out of any law

in fact they included examples of health care related laws that couldn't be avoided using the standard of
'compelling government interest'.

[merrily]

2. They let them opt out of this health care law, though.

[PoliticAverse]

3. Only a very narrow part of the PPACA and he majority reasoned that was only ok because the Federal

Government could just provide the contraceptive services that Hobby Lobby objected to.

[merrily]

6. It's not that narrow! And the reasoning was stupid and possibly unconstitutional.

The government could also provide everything related to health care. So, that does not justify any exception to what the government, aka Congress and the President, did choose to provide.


What government should provide is the kind of decision the Constitution entrusts solely to Congress. It is not for the SCOTUS to justify exceptions to laws by announcing that Congress is free to pass another law that fills the holes we leave.

The SCOTUS made decisions only legislators should make. In so doing, the Court overstepped its constitution role, even as the Court sees its role.

[PoliticAverse]

8. The rational for the decision was a law passed by Congress...

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The majority interpreted that law as conflicting with the
PPACA's requiring Hobby Lobby to provide insurance for something the owners religiously objected to.

The Court is often called on to resolve ambiguities in laws and conflicts between laws.

I've thought several Supreme Court decisions were stupid, but my opinion holds no force of law.

Note that Congress can make the Court's decision moot by simply amending the act to
specifically cover this situation.

[merrily]

10. "The Court is often called on to resolve ambiguities in laws and conflicts between laws."

Last edited Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:58 AM - Edit history (1)

Did you really think you had to point out something like that to a poster who knew the facts and reasoning of the Amish case off the top of her head?

In any event, that a very general statement that does not justify this decision in the least.

Note that Congress can make the Court's decision moot by simply amending the act to
specifically cover this situation.

I already addressed that point. It doesn't justify the decision, either. Congress already passed the law about health care that Congress thought it should pass and the Court has no Constitutional authority to decide which laws Congress ought to pass to fill gaps in ACA left by the Court's decision. The Court has to justify its decision solely on Constitutional grounds, not by overstepping its bounds to wander into Congress's legislative prerogatives, which the Constitution entrusts solely to Congress.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The majority interpreted that law as conflicting with the
PPACA's requiring Hobby Lobby to provide insurance for something the owners religiously objected to.

A bit of makeweight baloney on the Court's part. The Constitution trumps any act passed by Congress. If this were only a statutory interpretation decision, Congress could overrule it by amending that Act. Obviously, that can't happen because the Court was interpreting the free exercise clause, not the Act. In so doing, it invented a fake ability on the part of corporations to hold and exercise religious beliefs.

My stake in arguing against this awful decision this is a general respect for the rule of law, as embodied in the Constitution, including separation of powers and women's constitutional right to reproductive choice, and a firm belief in separation of church and state.

You obviously have some stake in arguing pro this awful decision. What is it?


Added on edit: Not only does no act of Congress trump the Constitution, but there is no rational justification for allowing the Religion Restoration Act to trump the later Affordable Care Act. To the contrary, there is every reason to assume that Congress intended the Affordable Care Act to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the RRA and vice versa--something the Court's own precedents require as well.

[PoliticAverse]

12. So suppose Democrats gain control of the House and hold the Senate and modify the

Religious Freedom Restoration Act to undermine the majority's reasoning in this case -
what do you think the Court will do when a similar case then comes up?

[merrily]

4. Freedom of religion can override health care as to contraception for

adults, which the Catholic Church prohibits, but not as to vaccinations for adults, which the Jehovah's Witness religions and the Christian Science religion allows only if required by law (so, grudgingly, I'm guessing).

So, now, federal courts are in the business of deciding which religious beliefs are worthy of overriding secular law and which are not?

Is it a coincidence that seven of nine SCOTUS Justices are Catholic, and none are Christian Scientists or Jehovah's Witnesses?

Considering the religion of Justices goes against my own moral and ethical beliefs. I cannot help but know it, thanks to media. However, I believe their religion should be their own business, period, not mine. Yet, how could I not wonder if religion affected the way that the Justices picked and chose among religious beliefs vis a vis the ACA?

And since when do corporations have religious beliefs, let alone exercise them?

[PoliticAverse]

5. Federal courts have been in that business for quite a while. Did you know that

self-employed Amish don't have to pay Social Security taxes, for example?

[merrily]

7. They are not in that business at all. The Court errs. And, yes, I knew that.

The reasoning in that case, right or wrong, was that the Amish don't apply for Social Security because their religion requires them to take care of each other. Ergo, they should not have to pay into it. And P.S. that had nothing to do with corporations exercising alleged religious beliefs, only individuals.

Here, Holly Hobby wants the benefits of being an employer. Its alleged religion does not prohibit getting those benefits, either. Nor does its alleged religion require HH to provide the service. Ergo, Holly Hobby should have the obligations of employers, too.
.
So, the Amish Social Security case is completely inapposite to the Holly Hobby case on three important points.

Please don't bring up any more cases that are inapposite. Life is too short to spend time this way.

[PoliticAverse]

9. Yes this case does extend the right to 'closely held' for-profit companies.

Again, the Amish case does show that it isn't just 'now' that "the federal courts are in the business of deciding
which religious beliefs are worthy of overriding secular law and which are not?" but that is something the courts
have been doing since the Constitution was ratified.

Note also that some 'employers' were already exempt from the contraception requirements of the ACA -
religious non-profits.

[merrily]

11. The Amish case is totally distinguishable on facts and reasoning.

Therefore it is not precedent for this decision at all. I already showed that and you did not rebut. Why are you bringing it up again?

Note also that some 'employers' were already exempt from the contraception requirements of the ACA -religious non-profits.

I disagree with that exemption as well, but that exemption was for Churches, not for secular, commercial enterprises like Holly Hobby. Again, totally inapposite to the facts of the Holly Hobby case.

Look, I don't want to dance around this, pretending I think this is just an innocent discussion. What is your real stake in defending this horrific decision? Unless you surface that, I have no interest in discussing the issue with you. Again, life is too short.

[merrily]

13. PS, In the Amish case, the court did not pick and choose among

different religions. In the Amish case, the issue was whether the Amish's religious belief in taking care of each other and NOT relying on outside sources of help made it okay to force individuals to pay into Social Security without ever taking from it. Religion of humans vs. government, the classic scenario.

There was no issue of whether the Amish beliefs were worth to exempted from Social Security while the beliefs of members of other religions were not worthy. However, that element exists in the Holly Hobby decision.

Nor, as I have already stated, did the Holly Hobby decision require the lie that a corporation not only has a religious belief but that the First Amendment was intended to protect the fictitious religious beliefs of corporations.

I personally think the Amish decision was wrong. However, that is beside the point. As also stated previously, the case is easily distinguishable on several important points and therefore is not precedent for this case at all.

[PoliticAverse]

14. I don't think Hobby Lobby should have been exempted from certain provisions of the ACA and

I also think the Amish shouldn't have any special rights with regards to Social Security taxes.

[merrily]

15. I agree on both points, but that is not how your posts before this one were

reading.

[gwheezie]

16. The narrow decision makes it clear

They singled out women. We are not equal. It's clear to me what the court did.

[merrily]

18. I agree. And the SCOTUS saying its own decision is narrow does not impress me much.

This decision was huge.

[Freddie]

20. That's what's making my blood boil

The ONLY way they can inflict their "religious liberty" on people is by denying *women only* vital health care. Only Fundies are "sincere" in their beliefs, not Jehovah's Witnesses or Christian Scientists or, of course, Muslims.

[merrily]

22. Or the Court that decided Roe v. Wade or

Thomas Jefferson and others who believe the Constitution was intended from day one to effect strict separation of Church and State--and not only the Anglican Church.

[merrily]

17. The Court has no business deciding that corporations have constitutional rights.

Corporate law has long held that corporations are artificial beings. They do not occur in nature. They are created solely by legislatures. Therefore, they have no rights, except the rights that legislatures give them by statute. Specifically, the state legislatures that created them, not the federal government, except of course, for corporations created by Congress, but Citizens United and Holly Hobby were not created by Congress.

The above was also the state of corporate law in 1789, when the Bill of Rights was put into the Constitution.

The Court will duck every important political decision that it can possibly duck by citing political issue or standing or mootness or some other ground, none of which are in the Constitution, that the Court invented to excuse itself from making certain kinds of decisions. Fair enough. But, where were those alleged principles of the Court in Citizens United and Holly Hobby? Why not tell the truth, that this was a matter for state legislatures, not federal courts?

In deciding Citizens' United and the Holly Hobby case, the Court overturned centuries of corporate law in the guise of ascertaining the original intent of the Framers/Founders when writing the First Amendment. In so doing, the Court left the realm of the federal judiciary and entered the realm of state legislatures, in violation of separation of powers, separation of church and state and the rights reserved to the states by the Bill of Rights itself. Why, except for pandering to Republicans?

I do not profess to recall or even know, which SCOTUS benches have rendered which decisions, but I suspect that the Roberts Court is the worst court in U.S. history, though perhaps the best credentialed (with the exception of Thomas).

[merrily]

19. Thanks for the thread, xchrom.

You put up a lot of important threads. That's a real service to the board.

[xchrom]

21. ...