Here are the highlights of Justice Ginsburg’s fiery Hobby Lobby dissent

Here are the highlights of Justice Ginsburg’s fiery Hobby Lobby dis...

* Ginsburg opens with a bang, immediately describing the decision as one that will have sweeping consequences:

She frames the decision as one that denies women access to healthcare, rather than as one that upholds religious liberty: 

In a similar vein, she rejects that the birth control mandate should be seen as an act of government coercion, describing it instead as one that provides women with the ability to make their own choice:

She affirms her belief that religious organizations and for-profit corporations serve fundamentally different purposes and have fundamentally different rights (and throws some shade at the majority in the process): 

She claims that the majority has actually undermined the very principle, religious freedom, it claimed in its ruling to have upheld: 

She writes that the majority has pushed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act past its original intent: 

Yes Speech Bubble

Tags: choice, consequences, decision, healthcare, intent, principle, purposes, rights

Views: 69

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

What this decision fails to recognize, more than anything else, is that religious belief is PERSONAL, and that attempting to take one's beliefs and extend them beyond oneself is potentially to violate that other person's right to his or her own beliefs.  It's worth noting that they object to funding insurance for certain contraceptives, but that proscription doesn't extend to the employee's salary, yet both those elements are part of an employee's compensation.  One might well ask why not simply forbid employees to use any portion of the proceeds of their work for anything which offends the owners' religious sensibilities.  Sniping at insurance is nothing more than low-hanging fruit to the owners of Hobby Lobby and really amounts to a form of "special pleading."

Restriction of rights on religious grounds runs utterly against the intentions of the First Amendment.  How the five who ruled in Hobby Lobby's favor could not see that is beyond me.

Excellent point Loren. 

I was explaining why Ginsburg has to go with her comments as they are without bringing "religion" into it, and also agreeing with her in saying that the RFRA has went beyond it's original intent.

Suddenly  POOF!  It all disappeared.

Now I'l just say that I agree with Loren.

The moral of this story is: When in doubt, write your longer comments in Notepad or Word, THEN cut-and-paste 'em!

Is it enough to say the SCOTUS is corrupt?    Daily Kos.  Bill Moyers website. 

If so, have any court justices committed  impeachable crimes?  

Scalia?

Roberts Alito Thomas Scalia?

Andy Borowitz satirical take...   "

Writing for the majority, Justice Alito wrote, “It is the duty of this Court, whenever it sees that the rights of people are being threatened, to do our best to safeguard those rights. In this case, it is clear that people’s rights were being threatened by women.”

Acknowledging that some women “might argue that they, too, have some claim to being people,” Justice Alito wrote, “That is an interesting question for another day.

Acknowledging that some women “might argue that they, too, have some claim to being people,” Justice Alito wrote, “That is an interesting question for another day.

Could Alito have been more condescending if he tried? Personally, I'm pretty dubious.

Oh, and while I think about it - *SIGNED!!!*

Sorry Loren. I didnt mean to give false impression. That is part of Borowitz satire article.

Maybe, but why is it that I wouldn't be surprised if one of those self-important schmucks actually SAID that?

I agree. I would love to see impeachment proceedings started.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service