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.
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 can’t 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!
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.
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.
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.
new tagline for you:
Being a Cubs fan is a cancer that destroys everything it gets control of.
Sincerely,
Another Cubs fan
BTW Arte was great in "The President's Analyst" as an FBR agent.
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.
It does NOT have the breadth that is being claimed. Complaining like that is nothing more than political posturing.
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.
exactly
Time to retire Ruthie.
I want her to stick it out longer. Perhaps to January 2017.
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.