Hot damn...Senate announces hearing in response to Hobby Lobby ruling -

[dixiegrrrrl]

This just in...

Senate Judiciary Committee announces July 15 hearing on legislation in response to Hobby Lobby ruling -
http://www.breakingnews.com/

I like the immediacy of the response, tho don't know what the Senate can do about the ruling.

[Glitterati]

1. I would prefer they actually DO something

rather than staging a Dog and Pony show.

How about some legislation, instead of hamming it up for the damned cameras?

[DetlefK]

6. Legislation? How???

In Senate it will die in filibuster and in the House Boehner will refuse to hold a vote.

[Atman]

7. BINGO.

The system is totally tied up in knots, and NOTHING can be done. We either vote in a DEM Congress, or a Republican Senate and President...but we've become so polarized it is impossible to do ANYTHING.

[Oilwellian]

9. Well, they could change the goddamned filibuster rules n/t

[Glitterati]

11. That only works if they actually WANT to legislate

instead of creating video snippets to use in campaigns.

[Atman]

13. Exactly.

It's become much more about video bytes for campaign commercials. They don't want to "do anything" because it might give the other guy a lead in the polls. And I point this toward both parties. The only goal now is to make the other guy look bad. Leading, legislating, running the country, that all takes a back seat to fund raising.

[1StrongBlackMan]

25. You don't think the "Campaign video snippets" ...

has value? ... especially, in an election cycle with a grid-locked congress?

Democrats will win the video war having gotten the gop on camera and in transcripts, being blatantly anti-woman/corporate people trumps people people. What better winning campaign material do you hope to find?

[jeff47]

44. And then it dies in the House.

Nothing fixing it will pass before January at the earliest.

[Glitterati]

10. Awww, poor widdle Senators

can't figure out how to LEGISLATE! </sarcasm>

[jeff47]

45. Feel free to explain how Senators get it to pass the House. (nt)

[Glitterati]

55. So you're saying the Senate shouldn't even TRY to do their damned jobs?

What the hell are we paying them for?

[jeff47]

56. Nope. I'm saying legislating involves both houses of Congress.

Meanwhile, you're complaining that Democratic Senators do not have control of the House.

[Glitterati]

57. No, as usual, you're

doing nothing more than making excuses. Not at all surprised.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. Assuming such legislation could be passed what would it do that would not also be struck down? n/t

[joeglow3]

19. Nothing

Frankly, I expected this to be done much later in the year. NOTHING will be accomplished (nor can it be due to the ruling). However, this keeps the issue in the spotlight, which will help us at the polls.

[1StrongBlackMan]

30. Actually. the timing makes sense ...

The hearings will be a good 3 campaign months before the election. And, Congress is on recess the month of August and most of October.

[cstanleytech]

34. Actually there is a bit they could do such as putting into place a law

that states that any company that opts out of providing insurance that has birth control due to its so called religion has to provide 6 to 12 months of paid maternity leave.

[ieoeja]

41. The HHS "Regulation" was struck down as a violation of "Law", not of "Constitution".

There are three legislative solutions:

1. enshrine those Regulation as Law superceding the previous Law,
2. enable HHS to supercede previous law when defining Regulation concerning the ACA, or
3. repeal the previous Law.

All three of these are in accordance with the recent US Supreme Court ruling. And that is just what I came up with off the top of my head. There are probably other solutions.

If not for gridlock this could be resolved easily vis-a-vis the ACA. And #3 would make the USOC ruling mostly** moot as the law on which the ruling was based would no longer exist.

**Not entirely as precedence that a corporation embodies the owners beliefs would still exist with all the problems that cause. If a "closely held" corporation embodies the beliefs of the shareholders, do not the shareholders now embody the actions of the "closely held" corporation?

[jeff47]

47. The ruling was a law allowed Hobby Lobby to do that.

So change the relevant law (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act) to not apply.

[redstatebluegirl]

2. All they want is a sound bite for their next campaign ad.

Not a one of them care about this country, just getting re-elected by an electorate who doesn't pay attention to anything except the ads.

[randome]

20. So they should do nothing like the House?

At least they're trying something.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[mopinko]

36. ^^^^

who needs this stuff? sheesh.
we are supposed to be activists here.

[aggiesal]

51. Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee ...

Of the Democrats needing campaign money only
Dick Durbin and Al Franken are up for re-election.

On the Republican side, Jeff Sessions, Lindsey Graham and John Cornyn,
so their democratic opponent will need campaign money.

[Font color=Blue size=10]Democrats[/font]
Re-elected in 2010 - Leahy, Patrick J. (VT) , Chairman
Re-elected in 2012 - Feinstein, Dianne (CA)
Re-elected in 2010 - Schumer, Charles E. (NY)
[Font color=Blue]Re-elected in 2008 - Durbin, Richard J. (IL)[/font]
Re-elected in 2012 - Whitehouse, Sheldon (RI)
Re-elected in 2012 - Klobuchar, Amy (MN)
[Font color=Blue]Re-elected in 2008 - Franken, Al (MN)[/font]
Re-elected in 2010 - Coons, Christopher A. (DE)
Re-elected in 2010 - Blumenthal, Richard (CT)
Re-elected in 2012 - Hirono, Mazie K. (HI)

[Font color=Red size=10]Republican[/font]
Re-elected in 2010 - Grassley, Chuck (IA), Ranking Member
Re-elected in 2012 - Hatch, Orrin G. (UT)
[Font color=Red]Re-elected in 2008 - Sessions, Jeff (AL)[/font]
[Font color=Red]Re-elected in 2008 - Graham, Lindsey (SC)[/font]
[Font color=Red]Re-elected in 2008 - Cornyn, John (TX)[/font]
Re-elected in 2010 - Lee, Mike (UT)
Re-elected in 2012 - Cruz, Ted (TX)
Re-elected in 2010 - Flake, Jeff (AZ)

So of the 18 members only 5 will benefit from campaign money.

Whether the SJC can actually affect change, keeping this issue front and center
could benefit the democrats at the ballot box.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Congress can amend the statute that was the basis of the decision.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 was enacted mainly to protect Native American religious practices that were being interfered with by the way the government was using traditionally sacred land, as well as to allow the use of peyote in some ceremonies. The law was well-intentioned but in order to be constitutional it had to apply generally to all religions. As a result it is worded very broadly: “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” The Hobby Lobby case interpreted - one might say, stretched - this broad language so as to allow a corporation owned by religious people to do just about any damn thing it wants. The only way to "fix" the situation short of getting the Supremes to overturn their own decision (not gonna happen any time soon) is to tighten up the RFRA.

[dixiegrrrrl]

16. Apparently that act was ruled unconstitutional in 1997...interesting.

It was introduced by 2 Republicans...which tells me they had a plan on how to use it. The tite gives it away, too.

It was held unconstitutional as applied to the states in the City of Boerne v. Flores decision in 1997, which ruled that the RFRA is not a proper exercise of Congress's enforcement power. However, it continues to be applied to the federal government - for instance, in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal - because Congress has broad authority to carve out exemptions from federal laws and regulations that it itself has authorized. In response to City of Boerne v. Flores, some individual states passed State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that apply to state governments and local municipalities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

the Wiki article goes into a lot of detail about legal cases resulting from the Act. which supports your point of the law needing to be reworked.
Which cannot happen in the current political spectrum of the country.

[unblock]

4. they will have a nice show, raise some campaign contributions, and introduce a bill.

that bill will get quick kill in the house if it even gets passed a senate filibuster.

it's worth making a stink about a stinky court decision, but it won't lead to a concrete accomplishment, at least not until the congressional and/or court makeup changes.

[HockeyMom]

8. Free Antibiotics at Publix Supermarkets

All you need is a script (nothing to do with insurance), and all antibiotics are free at this supermarket chain. How do they do that? Maybe the government, or states, can work something out for free contraceptives with a script at drug store chains, or supermarkets?

[Atman]

14. That is Florida's "health care" plan.

Rick Scott successfully ripped on MILLIONS from American taxpayers, yet now rules over one of the largest populations in America...and he tells them all to FUCK OFF, because he hates Obama. Yet, I'm from Florida. Gladly moved away. All of my ol' friends down there blame OBAMA for their inability to obtain affordable health care. Not Rick Scott, who refused to allow Medicaid expansion. It's all OBAMA's fault. Their pastor told them so.

[HockeyMom]

43. I understand what you are saying

It was RICK SCOTT and the REPUBLICAN Legislature who refused the Medicaid Expansion under the ACA. Obama gave it to them, but they rejected it because of their hatred for HIM.

I will vote for WHOEVER runs against the Space Alien. MICKEY MOUSE would be better than Rick Scott.

[BrotherIvan]

40. I think your suggestion is a great one

I have been wondering the same myself. I know that most generic bc pills cost pennies to make, in fact the case probably costs more than the pills. Pharma acts like they don't make money on them but they do. So how could the gov or a large company do a very no or low cost program? I also am not sure why many forms of low dose bc are still rx only.

Obviously Publix has figured out that the loss leader is worth it to get someone into the store. I hope some people consider this. It is a terrible situation to have to band aid together what should be taken care of. But women and men should not be denied contraception while our fundagelicals try to take over the country.

[HockeyMom]

46. Contraceptives won't get women into their stores?

How often do people need Antibiotics?

[BrotherIvan]

48. I'm agreeing with you.

In every way.

[jeff47]

49. The way they do that is by passing a law.

If you can't get a law passed to fix the SCOTUS decision directly, you aren't going to get a law passed to work around the SCOTUS decision.

[LittleBlue]

12. ^ This, unfortunately

It's all campaign kabuki

[1StrongBlackMan]

33. I think changing the make up of Congress ...

is the point of this hearing.

I think this is made for "Campaign video snippets" ... especially, as we go into the height of an election cycle with a grid-locked congress.

Democrats will win the video war having gotten the gop on camera and in transcripts, being blatantly anti-woman/corporate people trumps people people. What better winning campaign material do you hope to find ... and it won't cost Democratic candidates a penny?

[tk2kewl]

5. how about an investigation into how the case came to be in the first place?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025195045

Dollars to donuts the Green family got some quid pro quo for bringing the case.

[dixiegrrrrl]

18. Oh, thank you for linking to that post.

I had not seen it, and it has important info.

[tk2kewl]

58. more than welcom

[MannyGoldstein]

17. IIRC, SCOTUS said "You can't do X as it's instituted now, but here's how you *can* do X..."

I have no doubt that for the rest of time folks will post "remember how Manny defended the Hobby Lobby decision?", which will be bull@#$%. It was the wrong decision, but they did state how the same thing could be implemented a different way. Maybe Congress will enact legislation to "fix" this for SCOTUS.

[BrotherIvan]

42. And they should use that loophole to create a Medicare buy in for anyone who faces discrimination

The SCOTUS thought the waiver would do, then struck that down a few days later. They should give an employee a chance to opt out and some kind of tax to the employer to make up for it, like increasing Medicare tax. Find a way to take the power to choose away from the employer. It's hilarious that everyone acts like the employer pays 100% of the insurance costs. I have never in my life, nor do I know anyone who doesn't partially pay for their health insurance. On top of that, it is supposed to be part of a compensation package, so it is an earned benefit, not something the employer can alter at will. And yet now women are being forced to pay into health insurance that is discriminatory. FIX IT.

[jeff47]

50. That, or you could fix the law the SCOTUS used to deny it.

the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" was the law the SCOTUS said made the mandate illegal. So they could change that law.

As for your fix, the idea that the House would vote to pay for birth control is utterly laughable.

[MannyGoldstein]

52. I didn't mean to imply that they'd get it done. nt

[conservaphobe]

21. The Senate can't do much more than that without the House.

People concerned about them not doing enough are either disingenuous or ignorant of civics.

[Takket]

22. Who cares about the filibuster and the house?

Bring forth a bill to defend womens' rights and MAKE THE GOP GO ON RECORD as killing it.

[Iliyah]

23. Ditto

time for exposure. Will corporate media cover the hearings, probably not because they will be focus on anything that seems like a scandal. But, social media will.

[misterhighwasted]

27. YESSS!! Have to make some noise & keep this drumbeat going thru the election in November.

Do it for the exposure if nothing else. Would help if the media would cover it with as much emphasis as the fake benghazi & IRS hearings.

[rustydog]

24. What can they do? One way to remove a Supreme

is Impeachment...It isn't just a GOP threat.

[tammywammy]

26. They can amend the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. n/t

[FBaggins]

28. The Senate can't impeach anyone

The House obviously isn't interested.

[tclambert]

29. Two suggestions: Impeach a few Supreme Court Justices,

and/or a constitutional amendment stating categorically that corporations are NOT people.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

54. Neither of those things will happen in the current political climate.

Only one Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached by the House, but he was acquitted by the Senate. That was Samuel Chase in 1805 - more than two hundred years ago. It hasn't happened since. And a constitutional amendment is also highly unlikely. Since 1789, over 11,000 amendments have been proposed, and only 27 have actually been adopted.

[Comrade Grumpy]

31. Another reason to demand nationalized health care.

We have this World War II-era jerry-rigged system of employer-provided health insurance. It leaves employees' health care decisions at the whim of their employers.

[Keefer]

32. There isn't much, if anything

the senate can do except bang the republicans over the head with this because the house is never going to do anything about it.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

35. they could pick a conservative issue to show how much harm

the Hobby Lobby decision has caused.

Precedent has been estsblished for all religious business owners.

[mopinko]

37. they can take the ruling, and beat it like it stole somethin

is what they can do. they can remind people why voting for the sc matters, is what they can do.
there is an election coming. focusing on issues is what they are supposed to do.

[eallen]

38. The ruling was based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Alas, its repeal seems unlikely.

That's the theoretical way for Congress to undo the ruling. It won't happen, for all the usual reasons.

[MoreGOPoop]

39. K & R

There should be some interesting activism on Bastille Day, the
day before. : )

[Warpy]

53. Constitutional amendment proclaiming the Bill of Rights

covers only human beings who have been born.

It would be nice if women had at least as many bodily rights as corpses do.