Elizabeth Warren on Hobby Lobby ruling: 'Supreme Court has headed in a very scary direction'

[bigtree]

Last edited Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:28 PM - Edit history (1)

https://twitter.com/elizabethforma



Sen. Warren spoke to the issue before the vote:

We don't run this country for corporations

Hobby Lobby doesn't want to cover its employees' birth control on company insurance plans. In fact, they're so outraged about women having access to birth control that they've taken the issue all the way to the Supreme Court.

I cannot believe that we live in a world where we would even consider letting some big corporation deny the women who work for it access to the basic medical tests, treatments or prescriptions that they need based on vague moral objections.

But here's the scary thing: With the judges we've got on the Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby might actually win.

The current Supreme Court has headed in a very scary direction.

Recently, three well-respected legal scholars examined almost 20,000 Supreme Court cases from the last 65 years. They found that the five conservative justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court are in the top 10 most pro-corporate justices in more than half a century.

And Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts? They were number one and number two.

Take a look at the win rate of the national Chamber of Commerce cases before the Supreme Court. According to the Constitutional Accountability Center, the Chamber was winning 43% of the cases in participated in during the later years of the Burger Court, but that shifted to a 56% win-rate under the Rehnquist Court, and then a 70% win-rate with the Roberts Court.

Follow these pro-corporate trends to their logical conclusion, and pretty soon you'll have a Supreme Court that is a wholly owned subsidiary of big business.

Birth control is at risk in today's case, but we also need to worry about a lot more.

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court unleashed a wave of corporate spending to game the political system and drown the voices of middle class families.

And right now, the Supreme Court is considering McCutcheon v. FEC, a case that could mean the end of campaign contribution limits – allowing the big guys to buy even more influence in Washington.

Republicans may prefer a rigged court that gives their corporate friends and their armies of lawyers and lobbyists every advantage. But that's not the job of judges. Judges don't sit on the bench to hand out favors to their political friends.

On days like today, it matters who is sitting on the Supreme Court. It matters that we have a President who appoints fair and impartial judges to our courts, and it matters that we have a Senate who approves them.

We're in this fight because we believe that we don't run this country for corporations – we run it for people.


read: http://elizabethwarren.com/blog/we-dont-run-this-country-for-corporations


Elizabeth Warren just headlined a rally over the weekend with Alison Grimes, the Democrat running to defeat Mitch McConnell

[MADem]

1. I don't think "scary" quite cuts it.

I think "bullshit-oppressive-sexist" works, though.

[Scuba]

2. But she's not running for you-know-what!

[TDale313]

4. Yet...

[BlancheSplanchnik]

16. run, Elizabeth!!

Sure hope she does.

[BrotherIvan]

3. Tell it

She has become the high water mark for Democrats. This is how I want all Democrats to clearly explain the issues. I don't want anymore mealy-mouthed third way bullshit. You can win on this platform!

[JDPriestly]

13. Well Said.

[Hekate]

5. KnR

[montanacowboy]

6. It headed in a very scary direction long ago

when it fucking picked the president of the United States

when will they be accountable? never! and they will continue on their path to talibanize this country

who will stop them?

[mindwalker_i]

7. This is similar to the way Republicans use "theories"

In Monday's Krugman, he talks about supply-side economics - trickle down - and how that theory has been disproven time and again, but keeps surfacing. It does so because it fills a need - the need to put forth some sort of reasoning, however bad or wrong, to support the conclusions that Republicans want to come to. The supreme court is now making up reasons to support the directions they want to go: Citz-un was an exercise in finding a way to warp reality and allow corporations to buy elections.

[The Wielding Truth]

9. REpublicans & Teabaggers will be sorry when they start feeling the results of their short-sidedness.

[conservaphobe]

8. Hopefully the blowback is more women (like Warren, especially) in Congress.

The nation would be better for it.

[toby jo]

12. That's gotta be it.

This affects men, too. They have to spend more of their dollar, now. Their family planning efforts will be costing them twice as much if their wife works for a Christian company.

The other twist would be men hearing a lot more of 'not tonight, dear' because it's the only choice left .

And welcome to DU conservaphobe - alotta good ideas here, hope you like it.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

17. of course, a high percentage of minimum wage workers

At stores like HchristofascistobbyLobbyists, are women...and a high percentage, maybe even majority, are single heads of families. Poorly paid women already treading water in stormy seas.

[supercats]

10. YOU'RE AWESOME....

RUN FOR PRESIDENT

[ananda]

11. Scotus has been on a very scary path since Cit United.

...

[RufusTFirefly]

14. With respect, I think you're nine years off

From the Bush v. Gore dissent by Justice John Paul Stevens:

What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

[Uncle Joe]

20. + Infinity.

[Baitball Blogger]

15. President Warren.

Just trying it out for size.

[Cha]

18. Mahalo Elizabeth! Thank you, bigtree~

[Uncle Joe]

19. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, bigtree.

[Skittles]

21. it's been headed in a scary direction since they installed Dubya into the White House

assholes

[cascadiance]

22. We need someone like Warren to nominate Ginsberg's and other justices replacements!

It wasn't that long ago that many were complaining that Ginsberg should retire soon so as not to allow a Republican to replace her. I'm GLAD she was on the court this week to give this opinion. I think she KNOWS that without her, there will be a missing needed voice for dissent to the corporatist agenda that's rooted itself heavily in this court.

Recent thread on how she should be retiring soon...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023531149

My thoughts earlier Ginsberg might be holding out to at least negotiate towards Warren having a say in her replacement by Obama if in fact it looks like Warren might win the nomination.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1265745