Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ruth Ginsburg Slams Decision of ‘Startling Breadth’ in Hobby Lobby Dissent
Meidaite ^ | 06/30/2014 | by Evan McMurry

Posted on 06/30/2014 11:23:41 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

In a strong dissent on the so-called Hobby Lobby case Monday morning, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sharply disagreed with the deciding justices in language so harsh Justice Anthony Kennedy felt the need to respond in his own concurring opinion.

“In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs,” Ginsburg wrote.

“In the Court’s view, RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’ religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ.”

Ginsburg excoriated the majority justices for ignoring the intent of the the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and extending its protections, for the first time, to for-profit entities, which she saw as existentially distinct to the point of rendering their owners’ potential religious beliefs irrelevant to their practice of business.

“The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention,” she wrote. “One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight.”

Kennedy, whose opinion was largely concerned with limiting the scope of the decision, disagreed with Ginsburg’s assessment of the majority’s ruling. He argued “that the Court’s opinion does not have the breadth and sweep ascribed to it by the respectful and powerful dissent,” and maintained that the Court disagreed over the interpretation of the RFRA, but not its intent.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aca; bhoscotus; ginsberg; hobbylobby; hobbylobbydecision; ruling; ruthginsberg; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-113 next last

Read the full scathing dissent HERE

. KEY PASSAGES:

“Even if one were to conclude that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga meet the substantial burden requirement, the Government has shown that the contraceptive coverage for which the ACA provides furthers compelling interests in public health and women’s well being, Those interests are concrete, specific, and demonstrated by a wealth of empirical evidence.”

“Suppose an employer’s sincerely held religious belief is offended by health coverage of vaccines, or paying the minimum wage, or according women equal pay for substantially similar work?”

“Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very ‘risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude,”

Would the exemption the Court holds RFRA demands for employers with religiously grounded objections to the use of certain contraceptives extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others)? The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield, by its immoderate reading of RFRA
1 posted on 06/30/2014 11:23:42 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

It was actually a pretty narrow ruling, Darth Vader


2 posted on 06/30/2014 11:25:38 AM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; Mrs. Don-o

This is all predicated on the idea that contraceptives are good for women. Read all the warnings that come with a package of birth control pills, and then try to say, “This is good for you!” with a straight face.


3 posted on 06/30/2014 11:26:38 AM PDT by Tax-chick (I don't feel obligated to provide you with a non-boring gun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Time to retire Ruthie. Your SEX is showing.


4 posted on 06/30/2014 11:26:57 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Isn't this exactly what Obama does. Pick and choose what he wants to enforce?
5 posted on 06/30/2014 11:28:16 AM PDT by Coldwater Creek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Rush has it right — Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg.


6 posted on 06/30/2014 11:28:20 AM PDT by MUDDOG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I will never understand liberal Jews


7 posted on 06/30/2014 11:28:25 AM PDT by wardaddy (we will not take back our way of life through peaceful means.....i have 5 kids....i fear for them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Is “zombie” a sex?


8 posted on 06/30/2014 11:28:33 AM PDT by Tax-chick (I don't feel obligated to provide you with a non-boring gun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
This is all predicated on the idea that contraceptives ABORTIFACIENTS are good for women.

Don't fall for the left's conflating of the two.

9 posted on 06/30/2014 11:29:18 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

They hate Christians, really bad, like all liberals do.


10 posted on 06/30/2014 11:29:55 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Hope she has a Conniption Fit!


11 posted on 06/30/2014 11:30:10 AM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Who’s payin’ for her birth control method of choice? Yewwwww!


12 posted on 06/30/2014 11:32:35 AM PDT by rktman (Ethnicity: Nascarian. Race: Daytonafivehundrian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

They are evil. I will not go back on them. I was put on them at 15 because of regularity and heavy flow issues. Turns out I have PCOS and the pill only masks the symptoms and cures nothing. It was just too easy for my docs to put me on the pill without actually seeing if I had a problem. After I went off of them and adopted a low carb diet, I feel so much better. PCOS? Not with a low carb lifestyle! Imagine that. A free cure.


13 posted on 06/30/2014 11:32:45 AM PDT by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This case illustrates why individuals, not employers, should be responsible for selecting and purchasing health care insurance that meets their needs. Individual choice assures the coverage each person wants, and insures portability, because where one works has no effect on the coverage as it is paid for by individuals...


14 posted on 06/30/2014 11:33:09 AM PDT by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

I meant what I said. The principle of contraception is that it’s wrong to be a healthy woman.


15 posted on 06/30/2014 11:33:40 AM PDT by Tax-chick (I don't feel obligated to provide you with a non-boring gun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Justice Ginsburg did not write that opinion. She no longer has the capacity to do such writing. That opinion was written by her carefully selected left wing clerks. She is just a figurehead being painfully propped up by the Left.


16 posted on 06/30/2014 11:34:28 AM PDT by allendale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick; Mrs. Don-o; All

I’d really like to hear FReeper’s take on Ruthie’s fear that this will open up refusals by various religiously oriented businesses - Jehovah’s Witness ( Blood transfusion ), Christian Scientist (Vaccinations), etc.

My personal take is this -— Businesses are not in the business of providing for healthcare. If they don’t provide what you want, you are NOT OBLIGATED to work for them.

That is how a free country should work.

What is your take?


17 posted on 06/30/2014 11:35:22 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
" “Suppose an employer’s sincerely held religious belief is offended by health coverage of vaccines, or paying the minimum wage, or according women equal pay for substantially similar work?”

Well, that's a supposition, isn't it? Stop inventing arguments that aren't being brought before the court and deal strictly with the ones before you!

P.S. - that vaccines thing would be the Jehovah's witnesses of several decades ago, but apparently they got over whatever whacky 'Biblical justification' they had.

18 posted on 06/30/2014 11:35:31 AM PDT by alancarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Scary that 4 judges could completely disregard the clear and obvious meaning of “Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise (of religion)”

But then these are the times we live in.


19 posted on 06/30/2014 11:35:40 AM PDT by Cubs Fan (liberalism is a cancer that destroys everything it gets control of.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441

I’d really like to hear FReeper’s take on Ruthie’s fear that this will open up refusals by various religiously oriented businesses - Jehovah’s Witness ( Blood transfusion ), Christian Scientist (Vaccinations), etc.

My personal take is this -— Businesses are not in the business of providing for healthcare. If they don’t provide what you want, you are NOT OBLIGATED to work for them.

That is how a free country should work.

What is your take?


20 posted on 06/30/2014 11:35:52 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun

Free cures take money away from those who make money off sickness.

Many doctors start from the principle that a healthy female reproductive system is a bad thing. Therefore, why bother to diagnose and genuinely seek to repair anything wrong?


21 posted on 06/30/2014 11:36:04 AM PDT by Tax-chick (I don't feel obligated to provide you with a non-boring gun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Well, there is that, OK.

I’m referring to the ruling. HL was not opposed to “contraception” like the left is trying to say,
but opposed to providing abortifacients.

They need to be corrected every time they conflate the two, so they have to defend their support of baby killing.


22 posted on 06/30/2014 11:36:08 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Ruth probably would have bought the line that work means freedom.


23 posted on 06/30/2014 11:36:14 AM PDT by ealgeone (obama, borderof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

What’s with the left’s assumptive argument that people can’t choose whom they work for?

I guess they’re just looking “forward” to their utopia where you DON’T choose where to work, it’s chosen for you.


24 posted on 06/30/2014 11:37:38 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Thanks for that - didn’t realize that group still didn’t like vaccines.

But to answer your question: if (a) they have a bona fide ‘religion’ - at least one recognized by the government and not just “Bob’s Cults and Koolaid Parlor”, and one of their beliefs is “no vaccines”, then yeah - that should be honored... in the same way that Amish and Muslims were opted out in the original piece-of-trash legislation.


25 posted on 06/30/2014 11:37:58 AM PDT by alancarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: alancarp

RE: P.S. - that vaccines thing would be the Jehovah’s witnesses of several decades ago, but apparently they got over whatever whacky ‘Biblical justification’ they had.

Actually vaccines are an objection from Christian Scientists. Jehovah’s Witnesses object to blood transfusions.

But even if the Jehovah’s Witnesses do, where in the constitution does it tell us that a business SHOULD provide this or that healthcare ( or for that matter, ANY HEALTHCARE ) for its employees?

If they don’t, YOU DON’T HAVE TO WORK FOR THEM.


26 posted on 06/30/2014 11:38:27 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: alancarp

Wish we could edits posts.. there should have been a “(b)” in there!


27 posted on 06/30/2014 11:38:37 AM PDT by alancarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Feh. The only thing Ruth is slamming are shots of Geritol & Dulcolax suppositories.


28 posted on 06/30/2014 11:39:08 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Businesses are not in the business of providing for healthcare.

That's true but we don't want businesses to abandon health insurance as a perk altogether. If they did then all health care would be through government programs, which would bring the controversial benefits right back in again.

29 posted on 06/30/2014 11:39:53 AM PDT by steve86 ( Acerbic by nature, not nurture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: steve86

RE: If they did then all health care would be through government programs

What about PAYING FOR YOUR OWN HEALTHCARE? Why does it have to be a government program?


30 posted on 06/30/2014 11:41:03 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MUDDOG

I’m not sure Ruth Buzzi deserves Ginsberg.


31 posted on 06/30/2014 11:41:05 AM PDT by wally_bert (There are no winners in a game of losers. I'm Tommy Joyce, welcome to the Oriental Lounge.q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Businesses are not in the business of providing for healthcare. If they don’t provide what you want, you are NOT OBLIGATED to work for them.

I just got into a heated discussion in FB on this very topic and you succinctly stated my exact contention. Directive 10-289 is still fiction (so far) and no one is compelled to work for an employer whose benefits they deem insufficient; likewise, no employer is compelled to retain a dissatisfied employee who doesn't perform the work s/he is employed to do (and employment contracts can be broken). I'm in 100% agreement with you.

32 posted on 06/30/2014 11:41:43 AM PDT by Fast Moving Angel (It is no more than a dream remembered, a Civilization gone with the wind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

According to the commie abortion is “public health and women’s well being”.


33 posted on 06/30/2014 11:42:04 AM PDT by Ray76 (True change requires true change - A Second Party ...or else it's more of the same...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

How about the “startling breadth” of Federal overreach in our everyday lives in mandating health care, Ruthie?


34 posted on 06/30/2014 11:42:04 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Right: I outlined my basic answer in #25 but personally I would go a lot stronger...I’m with you. Given this ruling, then Ginzu got slapped - and she’s complaining, but there’s no justification why Obamacare should trump constitutional protections of any kind. Of course, we have Justice Roberts to thank for that.


35 posted on 06/30/2014 11:42:13 AM PDT by alancarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: allendale

Probably a very accurate observation.


36 posted on 06/30/2014 11:42:58 AM PDT by Balding_Eagle (Want to keep your doctor? Remove your Democrat Senator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; Mrs. Don-o
If they don’t provide what you want, you are NOT OBLIGATED to work for them. That is how a free country should work.

I agree with that. I don't think anyone should be compelled to pay for anyone's anything, except for national defense and police force and so on, "public goods." Private pay or private charity for almost everything else.

In the case of medical insurance, a useful question is, "Does this treat or prevent an injury or an illness?" Blood transfusion treats an injury. Vaccination prevents an illness.

Birth control pills may be used to treat reproductive pathologies, but they are rarely the best choice of treatment, merely the easiest.

37 posted on 06/30/2014 11:43:20 AM PDT by Tax-chick (I don't feel obligated to provide you with a non-boring gun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Hang in there, Ruthie! A little over 2 years till retirement.


38 posted on 06/30/2014 11:43:48 AM PDT by Oratam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Being a devote commie Ginsberg believes that women have the “right” to make decisions for how a third party should spend their money. “Me me me me me wha wha wha wha wha”


39 posted on 06/30/2014 11:44:49 AM PDT by Ray76 (True change requires true change - A Second Party ...or else it's more of the same...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Leftists NEVER give an inch, not even a millimeter! Any event or change of law that goes our way must be stopped or minimized at all costs.

I wish we were good at this on the conservative side but we have many asleep people and a liberal media to contend with.

Example: in 2012 North Carolina citizens voted over 60% for a constitutional amendment to forbid same sex weddings. This was a great conservative victory but if we had the same vote today I think we would lose big.

The leftists didn’t give up and say “we lost that battle, guess we were wrong...” NO, they find workarounds and employ the media and Facebag to equate being gay with slavery and anyone who disagrees with it ‘evil’. They will continue to attack like a disease until they make progress. In this case, they will continue to attack Hobby Lobby and other Christian organizations until they turn public opinion against them. The supreme court decision won’t matter when HL is out of business.


40 posted on 06/30/2014 11:44:49 AM PDT by bigtoona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Businesses are not in the business of providing for healthcare. If they don’t provide what you want, you are NOT OBLIGATED to work for them

You're exactly right.  And that notion should be the centerpiece for why the employer mandate (which Obama has kicked down the road until after the elections) is unconstitutional in addition to it being a bad idea in its own right.

 

41 posted on 06/30/2014 11:45:12 AM PDT by MNnice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
What about PAYING FOR YOUR OWN HEALTHCARE?

Well, that's terrific for those who can. "Those" doesn't include all of us by any means.

42 posted on 06/30/2014 11:45:32 AM PDT by steve86 ( Acerbic by nature, not nurture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
“In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs,”

The hell you say. Picking and choosing which laws they think apply to them.

Who the hell do these people think they are? Pres--ent Obama???

43 posted on 06/30/2014 11:46:58 AM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB
They need to be corrected every time they conflate the two, so they have to defend their support of baby killing.

Good point. I observed earlier today that the point of all this is to establish a "right" to free abortion.

44 posted on 06/30/2014 11:47:13 AM PDT by Tax-chick (I don't feel obligated to provide you with a non-boring gun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Does this mean Christian bakers can’t be forced to make wedding cakes for homosexuals?

I sure hope so...


45 posted on 06/30/2014 11:47:34 AM PDT by mac_truck ( Aide toi et dieu t aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws)...

I thought Obamacare was a tax law.


46 posted on 06/30/2014 11:48:18 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck

RE: Does this mean Christian bakers can’t be forced to make wedding cakes for homosexuals?

Unfortunately, that issue is unrelated to health insurance or healthcare.


47 posted on 06/30/2014 11:48:37 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

Especially those that believe in abortion as eugenics….boggles the mind.


48 posted on 06/30/2014 11:49:14 AM PDT by longfellowsmuse (last of the living nomads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: steve86

I suppose your scenario is most likely ( i.e. single payer ) But a system for health insurance that eliminated the employer and made health care the responsibility of the individual ( not the government) would be a good thing.


49 posted on 06/30/2014 11:51:10 AM PDT by longfellowsmuse (last of the living nomads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Who the hell woke Ruthie up anyway!


50 posted on 06/30/2014 11:51:33 AM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (The future must not belong to those who slander bacon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-113 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson