Posted on 07/01/2014 7:43:50 AM PDT by lifeofgrace
As always, Mother Jones left her dim porch light on for all the Leftist moths to gather. They’ve published the 8 “Best Lines from Ginsburg’s Dissent” on the Hobby Lobby decision. They’re described as “blistering”. I got a blister on my tongue from biting it to keep from laughing too hard. Really. They’re short so I’ll list them in full and save you a few brain cells from having to actually visit MJ.
There’s so many pompous presumptions attached to these comments, but let’s unpack them, shall we?
- "The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage"
- "Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."
- "Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby's or Conestoga's plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman's autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults."
- "It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage."
- "Would the exemption…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[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."
- "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."
- "The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."
“…deny legions of women…access to contraceptive coverage”: the presumption is that women may only purchase health insurance coverage from their employers. Last I checked, this is a free country where anyone can buy any coverage they want, personally by themselves, without asking “bossman, may I?” The totalitarian country Ginsburg envisions would force everyone to buy everything from the vendor, in the manner, at the price, prescribed by the State, apparently.
“Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith.” WTH? Really, this one seems to be fabricated out of whole cloth, because the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)’s 753 words don’t have that anywhere in the text. Neither does the 1st Amendment, which simply states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” Ms. Ginsburg’s definition would presume that the State has the power to define religion, instead of free exercise of religion informing the trustees of government.
“Any decision to use contraceptives…will not be propelled by the Government…will be the woman’s autonomous choice…” Yes, I actually agree with that one. The presumption that somehow an employer will “propel” the choice that the Government won’t—either it’s autonomous or it isn’t—is nonsense. Then again, Ginsburg is perfectly happy with the Government “propelling” employers to pay for the autonomous decision, whether it comports with their religious beliefs or not.
“the cost of an IUD…a month’s full-time pay…minimum wage.” Really. How many minimum wage workers get employer-paid health insurance these days? How many of those employees would make IUD's the top priority on their coverage? I smell straw burning here.
“Would the exemption…” followed by litany of religious objections to medicines. Is Ginsburg a lawyer? You see, I’m not. I’ll defer to Leon H. Wolf’s post (he is a lawyer) to correct Justice Ginsburg. In short, she’s knowingly spewing ridiculous examples. The RFRA states “governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification” and cites a case, Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that a state (Oregon) could deny unemployment benefits to Native Americans who smoked peyote and then went to work, claiming it was a religious rite. It was Justice Scalia who wrote the majority opinion in that case, which found that the Government does have a right to regulate behavior in which the State has an interest, and religious freedom does not exempt in those cases.
In exquisite irony, RFRA was passed by a Democrat controlled Congress and signed by a Democrat president (Clinton) to address this perceived miscarriage of justice, and giving more weight to religious-based exemptions. RFRA still retains a test, which the courts can apply, of “substantial burden.” I believe Ms. Ginsburg would relieve the courts of their job to rule on cases and apply legal tests, and that kind of lawyer-judge stuff. She wants to simply have rules that everyone follows.
“Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy…favoring one religion over another”: the presumption here is that the Government is always right so some religions must be wrong if a court dares to rule on a religious exemption. If one court rules on a case’s merits, it must be religious bias, not the merits of the argument or the Government’s interest. The ravings of a Statist.
"The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield." Just absolute rubbish. The minefield to which she refers is simply that the lower courts have to do their jobs, ruling on religious exemptions as they always have. Now they have better guidance in cases where the owners of closely held corporations, for profit or not, have their rights trampled by an ever-more-powerful State.
I’m so glad that Justice Ginsburg’s blistering dissent has the weight of desiccated toilet tissue. She’s no Antonin Scalia. But her vision is obvious. Mr. Wolf said it far better than I:
Make no mistake; this is the America liberals are trying to create. Both the quality of the opposition itself and the fury with which it is currently being expressed (see here, for instance) show that these people have no tolerance for being stalled in their agenda, and have no willingness to even allow opposing viewpoints from their own to exist. If we allow them to continue to win at the ballot box, America as we know it – that is to say, a relatively free nation – will soon cease to exist.
They lost, we won. Settled law. Get over it.
Why do the ugliest women in America always get to decide what’s best for American women?
She’d be the first to strike down a law requiring all employers to buy a Christmas ham for each of their employees.
Summary of her dissent:
Spluttering hatred for Christians.
Too bad there’s no penalty for lying in writings about a court case decision.
Now I know why Ruthie wishes we had S AFrica’s constitution. :-)
She is the one, iirc, that thinks the US Constitution should be shelved in favor of others around the world. Given I can’t think of a group of people with the insights our founding fathers had and that we’ve been just fine with our constitution for 200+ years, she can go pound sand.
Isn’t she doing a damn good job of making the case for DISALLOWING WOMEN TO VOTE?? After all if Women as a whole are not responsible or intelligent enough to take care of their own lives without FORCING someone else to pay for their Personal Decisions, WHY SHOULD THEY BE ALLOWED TO VOTE???
no it wouldn't !!! they are free to buy of the contraceptive coverage they wish!!! to suggest otherwise is to also imply that because Hobby Lobby doesn't buy guns for each of it's employees is to deny them their 2nd amendment rights!
- “Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community.”
Any worker that is bothered by this is free to walk down and apply for a job at BET! Freedom worker BOTH ways! I am free to hire who I wish and you are free to choose to work for who you wish!
- “Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby's or Conestoga’s plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman's autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults.”
wrong, the contraceptive mandate, was just that a MANDATE by the government. It's no business of the government to mandate something of that nature onto a free people.
“It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage.”
ROFL ! that's a flat out LIE!!! birth control pills cost around $20 a month!
- “Would the exemption…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[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision.”
I would hope so! No person or business should be MANDATED to provide ANYTHING it doesn't wish to it's employees!!! WHAT IS SO FREAKING HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT!!!!!!!!!!!! If the potential or current employees don't like that pay or benefits... they are FREE to GET ANOTHER JOB!!!! It's called FREEDOM!
“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.”
“The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.”
As stated above, no it doesn't because there is no double standard, a muslim employer SHOULD be able to deny ANY benefit it chooses to it's employees for ANY reason including religious!!!! Again it's called FREEDOM! and it applies to everyone equally!
take THAT you old communist windbag!
In many ways this is the crux of the issue.
Liberals/progressives are on offense, but they see any attempt to keep them from gaining ground as being an attack on them, as taking something away that is a long-cherished constitutional right.
Much of the discussion of gay marriage and such is almost surrealistic in this regard. Any failure to recognize and celebrate rights that were only invented 10 years ago is sincerely viewed as "an attack" by rightwing mobs.
I especially like the definition of "moderate" relative to these issues. That being someone who moves slightly more slowly that they would like in the progressive direction.
To my mind, conservative should mean moving the ball backwards so we can turn off onto the right road. Progressive means moving the ball in the direction they define as "forward." Moderate would therefore mean leaving the ball where it is now.
Yet somehow any attempt to just leave things where they are now has become defined as "extreme right wing."
There’s more than one old crow who needs to step down.
““the cost of an IUD…a month’s full-time pay…minimum wage.”
Here is a list of the types of contraception provide by Hobby Lobby to its employees at no charge. I don’t know if rings and rods are considered IUDs, but it would seem women working there have a number of no-cost options.
Male condoms
Female condoms
Diaphragms with spermicide
Sponges with spermicide
Cervical caps with spermicide
Spermicide alone
Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)
Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)
Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
Contraceptive patches
Contraceptive rings
Progestin injections
Implantable rods
Vasectomies
Female sterilization surgeries
Female sterilization implants
It is to be expected from someone who was the
mouthpiece for the Communist founded ACLU.
That whole Wicked Witch of the West thing is over the top, besides, every one of these charlatans who said Obamacare is a tax should be impeached. They broke the oath they swore to uphold.
Buzzie’s gone off her rocker for sure.
All three female supremes are unworthy in my book...
"without prejudice" has always been a theme of good law.
Ladies....you're ALL for killing babies....sweet....NOT
For Justice Ginsberg to write such a lengthy and talking-point heavy opinion would appear to be a bit of a miracle in itself. Given her age, health and attention span, one would expect that even a trip to the restroom would require an escort.
It seems more likely the work of staff member(s) who have the energy and ideas.
This is all about the Left’s compelling need to assuage their guilt at the murder of million of innocent unborn babies. They require that we all wash ourselves in the blood of these innocents so that selfish, self-absorbed women might avoid feeling bad about their decisions.
It’s also about protecting the only profitable industry that is wholly owned and operated by the Left - the abortion industry.
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.