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 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-113 next last
Comment #61 Removed by Moderator

To: GeronL

Gosh. I thought she was dead!


62 posted on 06/30/2014 11:54:35 AM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: steve86

Ask yourself, “why is routine care as expensive as it is?”

Insurance is for catastrophe... except for routine medical care. Why is that?

All those insurance company buildings cost money, as do all those insurance company workers, lawyers, etc etc etc, all that cost has to be paid somewhere.


63 posted on 06/30/2014 11:56:53 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 42 | View Replies]

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

Yep -just prop her up for 24 months.

64 posted on 06/30/2014 11:57:34 AM PDT by Digger (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
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.”

She sounds shocked that the right of the employer paying the cost is supreme to the desires of the employees.
How dare they decide where their monies are best spent!

And yes, they COULD decide that they find baking cakes for homosexual ceremonies violates their religious beliefs in an unconscionable way. Oh the freakin horror. Coerced "cooperation" with the law how these frauds force their agenda on the rest of us. Once it is established that we can opt out, we will go far in restoring some sanity in the legal system.

65 posted on 06/30/2014 11:58:50 AM PDT by Adder (No, Mr. Franklin, we could NOT keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Well, right. It’s more “acceptable” to say women “need” contraceptives, that this is good medical care. However, this is not true, no matter how many people (who haven’t read the package inserts) believe it.


66 posted on 06/30/2014 12:00:54 PM PDT by Tax-chick (I don't feel obligated to provide you with a non-boring gun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

She is Fransisco Franco in drag!


67 posted on 06/30/2014 12:01:04 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

Indeed, if individuals were responsible for their own care costs would decrease dramatically.

Imagine how great it would be not to have to pay for someone else’s sex change, viagra, or prenatal care ( especially if you are a man) For those who can’t pay in one lump sum, payment plans can be worked out.

The cliched old question persists….is health care a basic human right provided for by the government or something you work to afford for yourself?


68 posted on 06/30/2014 12:02:16 PM PDT by longfellowsmuse (last of the living nomads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; Tax-chick; All
I'm with you, S&F.

Wasn't there a feminist slogan that said "Keep your laws off my body"?

Yeah...

69 posted on 06/30/2014 12:03:59 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("Beam me up, Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Liberal Logic in full display:

Hobby Lobby to woman: I am going to give you a job

Hobby Lobby to woman: I am going to pay you money

Hobby Lobby to woman: I am going to give you work experience

Hobby Lobby to woman: I am going to give you health insurance

Woman: Thank you so much

Hobby Lobby to woman: But, You are going to have to buy your
own birth control, $6 a month

Woman: WHAT????, WHY ARE YOU DECLARING WAR ON ME?


70 posted on 06/30/2014 12:05:36 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o; Tax-chick

Liberal Logic in full display:

Hobby Lobby to woman: I am going to give you a job

Hobby Lobby to woman: I am going to pay you money

Hobby Lobby to woman: I am going to give you work experience

Hobby Lobby to woman: I am going to give you health insurance

Woman: Thank you so much

Hobby Lobby to woman: But, You are going to have to buy your
own birth control, $6 a month

Woman: WHAT????, WHY ARE YOU DECLARING WAR ON ME?


71 posted on 06/30/2014 12:06:02 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Wasn't there a feminist slogan that said "Keep your laws off my body"?

Wouldn't that imply there should be no law against rape, since her body is outside the boundaries of law?

72 posted on 06/30/2014 12:07:31 PM PDT by Tax-chick (I don't feel obligated to provide you with a non-boring gun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: longfellowsmuse

Free enterprise generally produces lowering prices and increasing availability, which is the opposite of cartelized markets and government social programs. Free enterprise best serves human rights.


73 posted on 06/30/2014 12:07:58 PM PDT by Ray76 (True change requires true change - A Second Party ...or else it's more of the same...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; Mrs. Don-o

These are people who believe you gestate a baby in your ovaries. I think it’s safe to say that thinking isn’t their best skill.


74 posted on 06/30/2014 12:08:27 PM PDT by Tax-chick (I don't feel obligated to provide you with a non-boring gun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | 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,” Ginsburg wrote.”

Correct me if I am wrong, but is that not the heart of religious liberty?

What would the Founding Fathers have said if someone had proposed that the federal government should have the power to enact laws restricting the free exercise of religion?


75 posted on 06/30/2014 12:08:43 PM PDT by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allendale
My first thought too. She probably needs help signing checks.

Let's hope she can be propped up for another 30 months.

76 posted on 06/30/2014 12:10:44 PM PDT by kitchen (Even the walls have ears.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be perceived as favoring one religion over another, the very risk the Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.”

Forcing a business to systematically endorse and participate in behavior its owners find repellent to their deeply held religious beliefs could be perceived as a government intrusion on the free practice of religion, the very institution the Free Practice Clause was designed to protect.


77 posted on 06/30/2014 12:11:04 PM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dsc

RE: What would the Founding Fathers have said if someone had proposed that the federal government should have the power to enact laws restricting the free exercise of religion?

I’m not defending Ginsberg, but apparently her reasoning is that if we allow this for Hobby Lobby, what’s to stop ANY business owner from providing LEGITIMATE healthcare ( e.g. vaccination, blood transfusion ) under the guise of religious belief?

That’s why I prefer to argue this on the basis of a greater idea -— FREEDOM.

Whether we like it or not, businesses are in the business of making money, not providing for healthcare.

They DO provide healthcare because they believe that doing so will help retain good people.

If their healthcare does not provide the exact service that you want, YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO WORK FOR THEM.

That’s how a free society should work.


78 posted on 06/30/2014 12:16:33 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: dsc
TYPO

I meant....

... what’s to stop ANY business owner from providing WITHHOLDING LEGITIMATE healthcare ( e.g. vaccination, blood transfusion ) under the guise of religious belief?
79 posted on 06/30/2014 12:18:03 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I worked in the kitchen at a 7th Day Adventist owned hospital when I was in college. They are vegetarians and the food served to all patients and in the cafeteria adhered to that. So I went out for lunch.


80 posted on 06/30/2014 12:21:00 PM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-113 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