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
In reply to the discussion: Ginsburg: 'Radical' Hobby Lobby Ruling May Create 'Havoc' [View all]happyslug
(14,779 posts)23. Here is the Actual Opinion
Last edited Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:24 PM - Edit history (1)
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdfA couple of Comments:
1. The Dissent divided on Corporations. Ginsburg and Somtomayor were willing to rule Corporations can NOT be a person for this litigation, while Breyer and Kagan were more then willing to say Corporations had such a right.
2. This action revolved around the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107 Stat. 1488,
42 U. S. C. §2000bb" NOT the First Amendment.
Now, the RFRA was passed right after the Court Ruled the First Amendment did NOT protect a Native American from a Criminal Conviction for smoking Peyote during a Native American Religious ceremony. The RFRA made it the rule that any Federal Law MUST be the least restrictive means of serving a compelling state interest. This is where the dissent and the Majority divided. The Majority said that it was a violation of the RFRA when the Federal Government told a corporation it must provided Birth Control medical care AND it was NOT a Compelling state reason given that the same Federal Agency had a procedures in place for non-profits that did provide an exception to the Birth Control Mandate.
The Scary part is, reading the opinion, and its refusal to address ANY First Amendment arguments implies to me that if any of the five did NOT think the RFRA did not apply to this case, they would have ruled that Under the First Amendment the Government could mandate that an employer provided medical coverage Hobby Lobby would have lost.
The RFRA was passed to reverse the decision of Justice Scalia in 1991 called "Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith" In that case Scalia ruled that under the First Amendment the previous practice since the 1960s to balance between Religious Freedom and Compelling state interest was NO longer going to be the rule, instead the rule was going to be the law was constitutional if it was neutral on its face, even if it affects someone's strongly held religious beliefs.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/494/872
Thus the First Amendment was avoided to keep Scalia AND Kennedy on the side of the Majority. Both had been on the Court in 1992 when Smith was decided and both agreed with that decision reversing what had been the rule in the US Supreme Court since the 1960s.
Now, Congress was upset about that ruling, for it had far reaching affects, thus Congress in 1994 passed the RFRA to restore what had been the US Supreme Court rule since the 1960s. Thus this decision is based on the RFRA not the First Amendment, and it appears the reason it does NOT mention the First Amendment is Scalia and/or Kennedy would have wrote an concurring opinion OR join the dissent. A concurring opinion would have made this case restricted to the parties named in the case, with limited affect outside this case.
Just a comment on this case.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
143 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The Supremes have turned this country into a constitutionally limited Monarchy
fasttense
Jun 2014
#57
I don't disagree, fundamentally, with what you're saying. But frankly I have no wish to "come
nomorenomore08
Jun 2014
#106
It's a pity at least one of these right-wing justices can't be impeached and then
Louisiana1976
Jun 2014
#76
... that would allow corporations to "opt out of any law … they judge incompatible with their
RKP5637
Jun 2014
#3
One can be absolutely sure the wheels have been set in motion for exactly this. What an
RKP5637
Jun 2014
#34
Yep, that's basically how I see it too. It is such outright discrimination, unbelievable! Whine
RKP5637
Jun 2014
#61
The problem is with forcing people to buy insurance in the first place. Single payer, NOW!
reformist2
Jun 2014
#4
Thom Hartmann's current guest is suggesting something on those lines as a remedy to this.
GoCubsGo
Jun 2014
#17
Are Muslims and Buddhists and Wickans and Hindu employers also celebrating the right to impose
Fred Sanders
Jun 2014
#5
It is so frightening that the women that follow us have LESS freedom and less rights than we did
etherealtruth
Jun 2014
#93
Yeah, the only time I can take Stephanie's show for any length of time anymore is when he is on.
cui bono
Jun 2014
#82
Unbelievable. First they take away access....closing Planned Parenthood Clinics, etc
Horse with no Name
Jun 2014
#6
Exactly. There is a war on Women. I wonder if that'll change after Hillary's
Louisiana1976
Jun 2014
#78
Can't wait for the outrage when a Scientoligist, or a Muslim business tries this...
truebrit71
Jun 2014
#8
Just what Teddy Tea Cruz ordered; pay taxes to your Church and not to the IRS. 501c3 not needed
DhhD
Jun 2014
#74
So if a family-owned business was anti-gay and anti-black too, we'd want to encourage them
Starry Messenger
Jun 2014
#33
That right there - what you just did to B2G - that, that is what is killing DU.
Skip Intro
Jun 2014
#109
OK for everyone who wants to protest & boycott Hobby Lobby stores, the Supreme Court ruled you don't
EV_Ares
Jun 2014
#35
Somebody was saying yesterday they hoped Ginsberg would write the dissent...
malthaussen
Jun 2014
#47
may ... ? Oh, trust me Ginsburg. It already has !! LOL. K and fucking R to the BIG TIME.
Tuesday Afternoon
Jun 2014
#51
So is the Hobby Lobby thing a backdoor way to discriminate based on religion?
progressivebydesign
Jun 2014
#63
So now that the SC has expanded corporate 1st Amendment rights, will they move on to the 2nd?
Thor_MN
Jun 2014
#95
Work for a Scientologist--no mental health care. Work for Christian Scientists--no health care.
McCamy Taylor
Jun 2014
#105
And that is exactly WHY they ruled it. The Supreme Court wants chaos and to dissolve the federal gvt
freshwest
Jun 2014
#107
Hartmann: WHY does SCOTUS have power to strike down passed laws signed by the Prez? (Mar 27, 2012)
freshwest
Jun 2014
#114
Lol. The blowback against corporations will be funny. The decision helps remove the separtion
Katashi_itto
Jul 2014
#139
I'm waiting for some of the DU men to tell her to calm down and not get hysterical.
Arugula Latte
Jul 2014
#140
My post was a jab at the men here who are trying to shush and patronize women
Arugula Latte
Jul 2014
#142