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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-113 next last
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]

To: steve86

RE: “Those” doesn’t include all of us by any means.

Well, if you’re under the government’s plan... remember this -— I am paying for your healthcare ( or all of us are ). Which also means, if you want an abortion, I am paying it too, whether I like it or not.


51 posted on 06/30/2014 11:51:54 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Ahem, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CONTRACEPTION. THIS ABOUT HELPING A WOMAN KILL HER BABY. They keep throwing that word around. Contraception. The woman has already conceived. These drugs are abortifacients.


52 posted on 06/30/2014 11:52:00 AM PDT by servo1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Our Founders would’ve found leftist arguments that the government needs to be paying for baby murder completely insane.

The leftist position is THEIR secular religious beliefs trump our Christian beliefs. F&$% them and the horse they rode in on.

All this idiocy can be traced back to Congress expanding “interstate commerce” to its current lunacy, and the courts finding “separation of church and state” where it doesn’t exist.


53 posted on 06/30/2014 11:52:57 AM PDT by afsnco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Cubs Fan

new tagline for you:

Being a Cubs fan is a cancer that destroys everything it gets control of.

Sincerely,
Another Cubs fan


54 posted on 06/30/2014 11:53:17 AM PDT by AlmaKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: wally_bert
If they remake "Laugh-In," she can whack Arte Johnson over the head.

BTW Arte was great in "The President's Analyst" as an FBR agent.

55 posted on 06/30/2014 11:53:55 AM PDT by MUDDOG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

But, like every despicable the left wants to do, they give it the “cover” of something that is more acceptable.

That’s what they’re doing here.


56 posted on 06/30/2014 11:53:56 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 44 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

It does NOT have the breadth that is being claimed. Complaining like that is nothing more than political posturing.


57 posted on 06/30/2014 11:54:01 AM PDT by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Judge Ginsburg might want to look back two years to see when the courts created this minefield. It was making Obamacare legal as a tax that started the chaos.


58 posted on 06/30/2014 11:54:05 AM PDT by ilgipper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

exactly


59 posted on 06/30/2014 11:54:20 AM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Time to retire Ruthie.

I want her to stick it out longer. Perhaps to January 2017.


60 posted on 06/30/2014 11:54:23 AM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-113 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