General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumswomen justice's rock the hobby lobby case
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/03/women-supreme-court-justices-hobby-lobby-birth-control.htmlThere were two lessons from Tuesdays argument in the Hobby Lobby case in the Supreme Court. First, its very important that there are now three women Justices. Second, its even more important that it takes five votes to win.
The issue in the case is straightforward. The Affordable Care Act requires employers who provide health insurance to their employees to include coverage for contraception. The owners of Hobby Lobby, a large (thirteen-thousand-employee), privately held chain of stores, regard certain kinds of birth control (like the I.U.D. and morning-after pills) as forms of abortion, which is against their religious principles. Does the employees right to choose and obtain birth control trump the employers right to religious freedom?
There was little doubt where the Courts three female Justices stood. After Paul Clement, the lawyer for Hobby Lobby, began his argument, twenty-eight of the first thirty-two questions to him came from Ruth Bader Ginsburg (four questions), Sonia Sotomayor (eleven), and Elena Kagan (thirteen). The queries varied, of course, but they were all variations on a theme. The trio saw the case from the perspective of the women employees. They regarded the employer as the party in the case with the money and the power. Sotomayor asked, Is your claim limited to sensitive materials like contraceptives, or does it include items like blood transfusion, vaccines? For some religions, products made of pork? Is any claim under your theory that has a religious basis, could an employer preclude the use of those items as well? Clement hedged in response. When Clement asserted that Hobby Lobbys owners, because of their Christian values, did care about making sure that their employees had health insurance, Kagan shot back:
Im sure they want to be good employers. But again, thats a different thing than saying that their religious beliefs mandate them to provide health insurance, because here Congress has said that the health insurance that theyre providing is not adequate, its not the full package.
Indeed, Kagan recognized that Clements argument took on much of the Affordable Care Act, not just the contraception provision. Isnt that just a way of saying that you think that this isnt a good statute, because it asks one person to subsidize another person? she asked. But Congress has made a judgment and Congress has given a statutory entitlement and that entitlement is to women and includes contraceptive coverage. And when the employer says, No, I dont want to give that, that woman is quite directly, quite tangibly harmed.
Justices is a plural. Apostrophes don't belong in words that are plural.
I don't understand this trend, apostrophes in plurals.
malthaussen
(17,204 posts)Superfluous apostrophes have been around for 30-odd years at least. I think it may have started from trying to make a plural out of a family name -- Smith's instead of Smiths, e.g. At least, that is where I first noticed it, and then I started seeing it everywhere.
-- Mal
Demit
(11,238 posts)I just don't see where the confusion would be, with a noun that is obviously just a plural. It's not an obscure grammatical rule. Or a tricky thing, like it's and its. The phenomenon (is that better? ) has really exploded in the past few years, in online writing. Lol, it's like nails on a blackboard to me.
malthaussen
(17,204 posts)Not sure why that particular one bugs me so much. There are lots like it, homonyms are hard for some people.
But the apostrophes thing is right up there.
-- Mal
Mariana
(14,858 posts)I'm trying to remember the last time I didn't see "reign" misused for "rein". I can't remember that far back.
juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)also's I's love's apostrophe's too's J/K's
packman
(16,296 posts)[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
Aristus
(66,394 posts)I know we should focus on her legal accomplishments, but I just wanted to say that.
toby jo
(1,269 posts)Hobby lobby, we wouldn't want to do that now, would we?