Burwell v. Hobby Lobby

ImageHuge Victory for Individual Freedom

Based on an obscure 1994 law intended to protect Native American burial sites, in a narrow 5-4 decision with all three female justices opposed, the Supreme Court rules that certain employers can make healthcare decisions for their female employees.

hobbyThen some wonder why many woman voters prefer to vote for Democrats.

 

Advertisements

About whungerford

* Contributor at NewNY23rd.com where we discuss the politics, economics, and events of the New New York 23rd Congressional District (Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, (Eastern) Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben,Tioga, Tompkins, and Yates Counties) Please visit and comment on whatever strikes your fancy.
Aside | This entry was posted in Rights, Supreme Court and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Burwell v. Hobby Lobby

  1. Kriegar says:

    We are becoming quite used to Republicans attacking our rights in the name of some obscure reason. It is, as always, disgusting. I wish left wing zealots would not be so unconcerned with the 2nd Amendment.

  2. Deb Meeker says:

    The right shouted: “Supreme Court activism!” when Roe v. Wade became law.
    It is my understanding that is not in the purview of the Supreme Court to ‘make law’, only to interpret and rule on whether or not law has been broken or upheld.
    Now it is the left’s turn to shout.
    I vote Liberal/ Democratic not only because I believe in women having equal rights, but also because I know the difference between a loving Daddy ( I had one) and a stern Father figure – the latter of which can go straight to hell.

  3. josephurban says:

    This just takes us one step closer to a Medicare for all system. People should not have their health care determined by the religion of someone else. Who, in their right mind, can equate that with “freedom”. Give everyone the option of joining Medicare. Choice. Problem solved. Long overdue. Now, where do Robertson and Reed stand on this ?

  4. pystew says:

    I am surprised when the Supreme Court makes ‘narrow’ rulings like this one and the recent Buffer Zone decisions. Why are there small Buffer Zones for Abortion Clinics, but not for Military Funerals, Polling locations and the Supreme Court itself? Does my freedom of speech less of a freedom change at different locations? No. It must mean that the Supreme Court sees certain activities are more important than others. Those values will change when the make up of the Court changes.

    It’s the same with the Hobby Lobby decision. They, the conservative justices, want their decision to be aimed at certain contraceptives and certain corporations. I had to grimace when I read one account that the ruling dealt with Christian Corporations. There must be a mistake–we have other religions in our society and they have their personal taboo topics that they don’t want to pay for. Like the Buffer Zone decision, this one focused on the personal values of certain justices. If they think their decision will stay ‘narrow’ forever, they are wrong.

    I also had to question the idea that the women shouldn’t worry because if the Corporations don’t pay for their contraceptives the Federal Government will. How often have we heard the religious right point out that they don’t want THEIR tax money to pay for abortions? Do you think Rep. Reed or the other Tea Party representatives will approve having the Federal Government pay the bills the corporations don’t want to pay? Maybe they will reduce Food Stamps more to pay for women’s health care.

    This decision is wrong. People should be treated equally,and this Court has their Winners and Losers…and We, the People, are the losers.

    • whungerford says:

      Congress apparently could nullify this ruling by repealing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

      • pystew says:

        Oh you must mean next year when the Democrats take over the House and keeps the Senate.

        • whungerford says:

          Yes, of course.

          Per Wikipedia, “In the case of Adams v. Commissioner, the United States Tax Court rejected the argument of Priscilla M. Lippincott Adams, who was a devout Quaker. She tried to argue that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, she was exempt from federal income taxes. The U.S. Tax Court rejected her argument and ruled that she was not exempt. The Court stated: “…while petitioner’s religious beliefs are substantially burdened by payment of taxes that fund military expenditures, the Supreme Court has established that uniform, mandatory participation in the Federal income tax system, irrespective of religious belief, is a compelling governmental interest.””

          “In the case of Miller v. Commissioner, the taxpayers objected to the use of social security numbers, arguing that such numbers related to the “mark of the beast” from the Bible. In its decision, the U.S. Court discussed the applicability of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, but ruled against the taxpayers.”

          So as Justice Ginsburg warned, the courts need to decide which religious beliefs are sincere and which government interests are compelling.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

    • josephurban says:

      I think these latest decisions are based on being opposed to Mr Obama. And trying to cement the erroneous idea that corporations are persons. . You really have to turn the Constitution into a pretzel to come to these conclusions. It is all about politics. Giving Mr Obama the “finger” whenever possible. Let us not forget that members of the SCOTUS regularly take massive “speaking fees” for speeches in front of political groups. They will not bite the hand that overfeeds them.

      • josephurban says:

        OK. “massive ” is an overstatement. (Although 20-30,000 extra bucks a year is massive to me).. At any rate, they should not be doing any political speaking in my opinion.

  5. whungerford says:

    Are women people? Acknowledging that some women “might argue that they, too, have some claim to being people,” Justice Alito wrote, “That is an interesting question for another day.”
    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2014/06/supreme-court-majority-calls-case-a-dispute-between-women-and-people.html

  6. whungerford says:

    Here we read the opinion of a celebrated Cornell Professor of Law:
    http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/06/the-really-old-constitution-had-a-pretty-good-month/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s