General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby Decision Is the New Bush v. Gore
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/hobby-lobby-supreme-court-bush-v-goreWhy the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby Decision Is the New Bush v. Gore
Conservatives on the court tried to write a limited decision striking down Obamacare's birth control mandate. But the logic behind their decision opens the door to future lawsuits.
By Patrick Caldwell
| Mon Jun. 30, 2014 5:00 PM EDT
On Monday, the Supreme Court issued its decision on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. Hobby Lobby's owners had objected to a provision in Obamacare that forced the the craft supply store chain to provide its employees with health insurance that covers birth control or pay a fine. In a 5-4 ruling, the conservative justices on the court said that the government can't force Hobby Lobbyor any closely held corporationto pay for birth control and emergency contraception if doing so would offend the religious beliefs of the company's owners.
Justice Samuel Alito, the George W. Bush appointee who penned the majority opinion, went to great lengths to write a limited decision, stressing that the ruling should only apply to Obamacare's contraception regulations, and that other employers shouldn't cite Hobby Lobby to justify opposing other laws. "This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate," Alito wrote, "and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employers religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice."
As Alito no doubt knows, that's not how Supreme Court jurisprudence works. The justices often try to limit their decisions to a narrow set of facts. But they're still setting legal precedent, and their logic is certain to be used in future cases in lower courtsoften in unintended ways. There are no take-backsies for Supreme Court decisions.
Bush v. Gore, the 2000 Supreme Court case that shut down the Florida recounts and handed Bush the presidency, is the most famous example of the Supreme Court trying to dissuade other federal courts from referencing its decision in future rulings. "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances," the majority wrote in that opinion. But the justices' attempt to limit the impact of Bush v. Gore didn't work: Several campaigns have cited the ruling when challenging voter suppression laws, and during the 2012 election, a federal court in Ohio bought an argument from the Obama campaign that said the state's efforts to roll back early voting violated the equal protection concepts endorsed by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore.
Bush v. Gore isn't the only example. Last summer, when Justice Anthony Kennedy joined with Supreme Court liberals to strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the majority ruled that it was discriminatory for the federal government not to recognize same-sex unions, but said the opinion shouldn't be read as forcing states to legalize marriage equality. Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia called the liberals' argument a sham. Scalia noted that the majority decision offered logical justification for legalizing marriage nationally and, in his dissent, predicted that lower courts would expand upon the Supreme Court's ruling. "By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition," Scalia wrote. That line has hence been cited in a number of decisions to strike down state bans on gay marriage, fulfilling Scalia's prediction.
In the near term, the Hobby Lobby decision only effects a narrow slice of companies that objected to Obamacare's requirement that they purchase insurance that covers birth control. But if lower courts embrace its underlying logic, its reach could eventually extend much further.
That's exactly what has liberals and progressives worried. "While the Court purports to limit its ruling to closely-held corporations on this issue only, the majority opinion invites a number of 'me too' religious objections by other companies on matters ranging from anti-discrimination law to other medical procedures such as blood transfusions or vaccinations," Elizabeth Wydra, chief counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal think tank, said in a statement Monday. Wydra isn't alone. LGBT activists are already concerned that other companies might seek to expand upon Alito's Hobby Lobby logic to discriminate against gay employees. "We will remain vigilant in the event business owners attempt to use this decision to justify other forms of discrimination, including against LGBT people," the Human Rights Campaign said in a statement.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)that results in absolutely nothing being done to rectify the injustice? Then after that, another massive swing further to the right with the American people cheering all the way?
babylonsister
(171,065 posts)FB blew up; lots of pissed off people out there.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Obama's election in 2008 has not reversed any of this.
Words are meaningless without actions.
Cha
(297,197 posts)so many ways. Thanks Obama!
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Torture still legal
War criminals not arrested and tried
Wall Street criminals not arrested and tried
ACA watered down by insurance companies and hospitals
Legal to murder American citizens by executive fiat
Massive domestic surveillance ongoing
Peace groups considered terrorist organizations while anti-government and anti-abortion terrorism protected
US government secretly negotiating to grant more power to corporations on an international level
All of these things fall under Obama's control, so if he is going to take the credit for the "good" things that have happened, he has to take blame for the bad.
Cha
(297,197 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)more war criminals to defend.
villager
(26,001 posts)...and did as they were told.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)This is NOT a narrow decision as so many here (males, I suppose) want to argue. It's a BFD. It's not even that narrow when you say it's limited to closely-held corporations: 52% of American workers are employed by closely-held corporations of exactly this type. Who knows what kinds of future "objections" America's employers will have to our laws?
How can you make a decision that is based on one provision (contraception) of one law (ACA) and then say it doesn't apply to anything else? Isn't that discrimination of the highest order? Either it applies to everything (and everyone is f*&ked) or it applies to just this one group (and just women who work for insane people are f*&ked). I don't see why one class of people should be discriminated against.
aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)When they can apply a corporate shield and when they can take advantage of a lower corporate tax rate, that's a burden of liability and a burden of taxes that must be made up for by all the citizens. Why should I have to make up for lost tax income when I don't believe in the religious policies of some corporations? They use roads, courts, fire protection services, police, military funded through general taxes all citizens must pay for. For that matter, although I'm not anti-religious, I don't think churches should have tax breaks requiring me to make up the difference for all the tax free services their enjoy through their operations.
If the owners have religious views, let them express them through their own personal lives.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)They know the right wing court has left them an opening to discriminate.
Either the majority justices are stupid (and several of them definitely are) or they know what they've opened up.
Gothmog
(145,199 posts)The actual opinion gutting the Voting Rights Act is still worse in my opinion than this opinion. I am having to deal with voter id laws in my state due to the Shelby County ruling
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)... decision and pretzel law and logic by the USSC today.
They didn't even bother to define what an abortion was!!!!
genwah
(574 posts)corporation need respect.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth