General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGinsburg Was Right: Hobby Lobby ruling now opening the door for religious to claim extra privileges
On Hobby Lobby, Ginsburg Was Right
The great Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed that important Supreme Court decisions exercise a kind of hydraulic effect. Even if the authors of such decisions assert that their rulings will have limited impact, these cases invariably have a profound influence. So it has been with Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., which is less than six months old.
In Hobby Lobby, a narrow five-to-four majority of the Court held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 gave the proprietors of a chain of retail craft stores the right to exempt themselves from certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Specifically, the A.C.A. requires firms with more than fifty employees to provide insurance that includes birth-control coverage, or else pay a fine. There was an exemption already for religious institutions. Hobby Lobby, a closely held corporation, is a secular, for-profit business, but the Court held that because the owners of Hobby Lobby held a sincere religious belief that certain forms of birth control caused abortions, they could deny employer-paid insurance coverage for them. Justice Samuel Alito insisted, in his opinion for the Court, that his decision would be very limited in its effect. Responding to the dissenting opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who called it a decision of startling breadth, Alito wrote, Our holding is very specific. We do not hold, as the principal dissent alleges, that for-profit corporations and other commercial enterprises can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs. Ginsburg, though, wondered where the guidance was for the lower courts when faced with similar claims from employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovahs Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others).
The exchange between the two Justices gets to the heart of the issue in Hobby Lobby. When do religious convictions allow individuals (or corporations) to excuse themselves from obligations that are binding on everyone else?
A sampling of court actions since Hobby Lobby suggests that Ginsburg has the better of the argument. She was right: the decision is opening the door for the religiously observant to claim privileges that are not available to anyone else.
Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/hobby-lobbys-troubling-aftermath
marym625
(17,997 posts)So glad Ginsburg won't resign!
We are no longer the nation we were meant to be
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)Justice Roberts will most likely go down in history as one of the dumbest Chief Justices.
ProfessorGAC
(65,013 posts). . .will go down as THE dumbest jurist. He'd be a slam dunk except Thomas is there too. Might end up being a tie.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)is that no matter how they parse it, the religious beliefs of the owners are simply not being violated, because they are not themselves being obligated to use birth control. What they personally want to do, or not do, relating to their reproduction, is not really at stake. What is at stake is allowing their employees to exercise THEIR own beliefs and control of their bodies. What the owners of the corporation believe should NEVER be at issue.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Kablooie
(18,634 posts)It is corporate control of an individual's body. And it won't be the last.
Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)
AZ Progressive This message was self-deleted by its author.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)I heard it from that "liberal" Republican sexist asshole running for governor of MA on the GOP ticket!
Wish I was kidding....
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Gee, I wonder where they went.
MADem
(135,425 posts)underthematrix
(5,811 posts)put them out of business
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)ruling was designed this way.
The only difference is that Ginsberg and those that voted with her were honest with the American public about the far reaching implications of The the ruling.