Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRuth Bader Ginsburg Was Right, and We Already Have Proof
http://www.thenation.com/blog/180509/supreme-court-has-already-expanded-its-narrow-hobby-lobby-rulingAmong the many questions raised by the Supreme Courts ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby is how sweeping its legacy will be. Supporters of the decision have insisted that the ruling is narrow, as it explicitly addresses closely held corporations objecting to four specific types of birth controlincluding IUDs and Plan Bbecause the bussiness owners consider them (inaccurately) to cause abortion. Besides, the Court argued, the government can just fill any coverage gaps itself, and its only women whom corporations are now permitted to discriminate against. Our decision in these cases is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate, claimed Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employers religious beliefs.
Bullshit, is essentially what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had to say about the majoritys claim to have issued a limited ruling. In her dissent, Ginsburg deemed it a decision of startling breadth. She noted that closely held is not synonymous with small, citing corporations like Cargill, which employs 140,000 workers. Even more alarming is the majoritys endorsement of the idea that corporations can hold religious beliefs that warrant protection under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
In fact, it only took a day for the Courts narrow decision to start to crack open. On Tuesday, the Court indicated that its ruling applies to for-profit employers who object to all twenty forms of birth control included in the Affordable Care Acts contraceptive mandate, not just the four methods at issue in the two cases decided on Monday.
In light of its ruling on Hobby Lobby and a related suit, the Supreme Court ordered three appeals courts to reconsider cases in which they had rejected challenges from corporations that object to providing insurance that covers any contraceptive services at all. The plaintiffs in all three cases are Catholics who own businesses in the Midwest, including Michigan-based organic food company Eden Foods. Meanwhile, the High Court declined to review petitions from the government seeking to overturn lower court rulings that upheld religiously based challenges to all preventative services under the mandate.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
5 replies, 1768 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (48)
ReplyReply to this post
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Was Right, and We Already Have Proof (Original Post)
xchrom
Jul 2014
OP
Roland99
(53,342 posts)1. What a tangled web they weave.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)3. when for the 300th time they strive to deceive
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)2. I heard an NPR segment on just this ...
the interviewer cited to RBG's citing of the case of the employer that stated a deeply held religious objection to integration and asked how that case would be decided in light of Hobby Lobby. The Law school guy used the Court's "narrowly tailored" language; but after a moment or two of discussion, conceded: (paraphrasing) "race cases are different because ... well ... they are different. And they will be unaffected because ... well ... they just won't."
That's not very reassuring ... and from his tone, I'm not sure he had convinced himself that this decision would someday be used to legalize racial discrimination.
countryjake
(8,554 posts)4. K&R!
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)5. And so the minefield begins.