Skip to comments.The Four Horsemen of Hobby Lobby
Posted on 06/16/2014 5:28:01 AM PDT by rootin tootin
The Supreme Court is expected to hand down its ruling in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby on June 26, and the closer we get to that date the more frantic liberals become. Their fear of a decision in favor of the arts and crafts chain, whose owners have challenged the constitutionality of Obamacares contraception mandate on the grounds that it violates their religious liberty, has reached such a pitch that they are making claims that transcend the merely portentous. Their warnings concerning the consequences of a high court win for the Green family, the companys owners, have now become downright apocalyptic.
The supporters of Obamacares contraception mandate seem to believe that a ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby will turn the sun as black as sackcloth and the moon blood red. The four horsemen of their imagined apocalypse will burst forth upon the nation thus: There will be a catastrophic curtailment in the reproductive rights of women, the de facto nullification of various anti-discrimination laws designed to protect workers from venal employers, a dramatic reduction in employee access to a long list of essential health care benefits, and the destruction of Jeffersons fabled wall of separation between church and state.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
As far as I can see, it's double dipping on the part of Planned Parenthood.
For a conservative the Wall of Separation limits the influence of government on the church. For a liberal the Wall limits the influence of the church on government. Conservatives restrict the government from dictating to God. Liberals are God.
There is no Wall of Separation in the Constitution. It was simply a term used by Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists (snip)
“On New Year’s Day, 1802, President Jefferson penned a missive to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut. The Baptists had written the President a “fan” letter in October 1801, congratulating him on his election to the “chief Magistracy in the United States.” They celebrated Jefferson’s zealous advocacy for religious liberty and chastised those who had criticized him “as an enemy of religion[,] Law & good order because he will not, dares not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.”
In a carefully crafted reply, Jefferson endorsed the persecuted Baptists’ aspirations for religious liberty:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
Although today Jefferson’s Danbury letter is thought of as a principled statement on the prudential and constitutional relationship between church and state, it was in fact a political statement written to reassure pious Baptist constituents that Jefferson was indeed a friend of religion and to strike back at the Federalist-Congregationalist establishment in Connecticut for shamelessly vilifying him as an infidel and atheist in the recent campaign. James H. Hutson of the Library of Congress has concluded that the President “regarded his reply to the Danbury Baptists as a political letter, not as a dispassionate theoretical pronouncement on the relations between government and religion.”
Marking my calendar.
It would be nice if the court said that the government has no authority to get into the nuts-and-bolts or what is and is not included in health care plans in general, not limited to contraception.
I wouldn’t put any hope in the Reagan-GWB appointees Kennedy and Roberts.
The liberal arguments here are absolutely insane. They claim that enforcing the clear language of the “free exercise” clause of the first amendment would somehow violate a “separation” principle that appears nowhere in the constitution and must therefore be discarded. To believe this is to believe that the Court has the power to rewrite the constitution at will to accommodate the prevailing political fashions of the day. This, of course, is tyranny.
6 of the justices are Catholic
Of the six how many are heretics?
Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsburg have flights booked for Fire Island for the July 4 weekend. To avoid possible delays, they have already recorded their votes and opinions before reading any briefs or hearing any testimony.
I am sure the bad guys know who is voting their way and who is in need of squeezing..
I read an article the other day about Speaker Boehner frequents a favorite Italian restaurant in DC where he is allowed to smoke in a certain room. I thought there was no smoking in any restaurant these days. From my perspective this is a small issue but shows the contempt of the law by the political (Read: Criminal) class.
“To believe this is to believe that the Court has the power to rewrite the constitution at will to accommodate the prevailing political fashions of the day. “
The left DOES believe this, as long as it goes their way.
Obama-Obama-Obama, I am sick of hearing that name, and really sick n tired of Democrat liberals pushing their agenda which is destroying the United States of America!
hey what’s the whole un-severability thing going to do if this goes Hobby Lobby’s way?
I did read the entire article but it did not go into outcomes of the decision going either way.
but i do recall that 0bamacare bill did not include severability - so that one part being found unconstitutional would make the whole bill unconstitutional...
I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think the law's non-severability would have any effect on the constitutionality of the rest of the law, because the contraceptive mandate is not written in the law itself, but rather, in the regulations that the law gives the HHS to promulgate. So I'm pretty sure the only effect would be to invalidate that particular requirement.
- so that one part being found unconstitutional would make the whole bill unconstitutional...
- so PRAY!
"[A] decision in favor of Hobby Lobby would undermine both corporate law and the separation of church and state. Oddly, he fails to explain how a victory for the arts and crafts chain could produce such an implausible result.
Yet, like Professor Paul, numerous church-state separation groups have perversely interpreted this case as an attempt to foist a state religion on an unsuspecting populace.
The logic they use for this preposterous claim reflects their world view, and confirms what Mark Levin has been saying for a long time: that liberals are really "corporatists" (another word for fascists) - they view corporations as agents of the government. Therefore, any policy a corporation adopts is, in their view, a policy of the government.
Thanks for pointing that out to me. I lived in FL for quite sometime and I guess I thought it was a nation wide ban. Frankly knowing it is a state by state issue makes me feel better about having some liberty left in the US.
My preferred outcome would be to take the Senate and have enough bipartisan support to override 0bama’s veto of a full repeal. Then walk down to the House end holding the gavel just like Nancy did.
Then after the override vote, say “We won” and “it’s settled law” over and over again.
This is standard operating procedure -- take a look at Kentucky v. King where the decision acknowledges the requirements of the 4th amendment (even the implicit requirement for a warrant for all searches)… and then details a 'test' to ignore the requirement.
What laws should be enforced at the federal level?
Treason, counterfeiting, and tax-evasion/-fraud seem to be the only ones that the Constitution really delegates such authority to deal with.