Skip to comments.Ruth Ginsburg Slams Decision of ‘Startling Breadth’ in Hobby Lobby Dissent
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 Courts view, RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporations religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners religious faithin 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 Courts 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 Ginsburgs assessment of the majoritys ruling. He argued that the Courts 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.
It was actually a pretty narrow ruling, Darth Vader
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.
Time to retire Ruthie. Your SEX is showing.
Rush has it right — Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg.
I will never understand liberal Jews
Is “zombie” a sex?
Don't fall for the left's conflating of the two.
They hate Christians, really bad, like all liberals do.
Hope she has a Conniption Fit!
Who’s payin’ for her birth control method of choice? Yewwwww!
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.
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...
I meant what I said. The principle of contraception is that it’s wrong to be a healthy woman.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Id really like to hear FReepers take on Ruthies fear that this will open up refusals by various religiously oriented businesses - Jehovahs Witness ( Blood transfusion ), Christian Scientist (Vaccinations), etc.
My personal take is this - Businesses are not in the business of providing for healthcare. If they dont provide what you want, you are NOT OBLIGATED to work for them.
That is how a free country should work.
What is your take?
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?
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.
Ruth probably would have bought the line that work means freedom.
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.
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.
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.
Wish we could edits posts.. there should have been a “(b)” in there!
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.
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?
I’m not sure Ruth Buzzi deserves Ginsberg.
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.
According to the commie abortion is “public health and womens well being”.
How about the “startling breadth” of Federal overreach in our everyday lives in mandating health care, Ruthie?
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.
Probably a very accurate observation.
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.
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”
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.
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.
Well, that's terrific for those who can. "Those" doesn't include all of us by any means.
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???
Good point. I observed earlier today that the point of all this is to establish a "right" to free abortion.
Does this mean Christian bakers can’t be forced to make wedding cakes for homosexuals?
I sure hope so...
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.
RE: Does this mean Christian bakers cant be forced to make wedding cakes for homosexuals?
Unfortunately, that issue is unrelated to health insurance or healthcare.
Especially those that believe in abortion as eugenics .boggles the mind.
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.
Who the hell woke Ruthie up anyway!