Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, July 06, 2014

Dahlia Lithwick and Sonja West: [M]oments before they adjourned for their summer recess, the justices proved they can act quite quickly and recklessly when it comes to violating the terms of a controversial opinion they handed down only days earlier. It's as if the loaner car the court gave us in the Hobby Lobby ruling broke down mere blocks from the shop. ... Having explicitly promised that Hobby Lobby would go no further than Hobby Lobby, the court went back on its word, then skipped town for the summer.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

Corky

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

[T]he three dissenting justices last night were the court's three women: Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan. In the event that the religious and gender rift at the court was not already painful to behold, the dissent, penned by Sotomayor, is a forceful and unwavering rejection of both the majority's reasoning and tactics. "I disagree strongly with what the court has done," Sotomayor wrote. "Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word. Not so today. After expressly relying on the availability of the religious-nonprofit accommodation to hold that the contraceptive coverage requirement violates [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act] as applied to closely held for-profit corporations, the Court now, as the dissent in Hobby Lobby feared it might, retreats from that position."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Yet in an unsigned emergency order granted Thursday evening, the very same court said that this very same workaround it had just praised was also unconstitutional, that this workaround also burdened the religious freedom of religious employers.

Overnight, the cure has become the disease. Having explicitly promised that Hobby Lobby would go no further than Hobby Lobby, the court went back on its word, then skipped town for the summer."

"It's the butterfly effect: Any time Wheaton flapped its religious-conscience wings, a woman ends up with an IUD."

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-04 08:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Winning!

#2 | Posted by mysterytoy at 2014-07-04 09:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Not for the Women employees

#3 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-04 09:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

What's the substantive difference between these two orders?

sblog.s3.amazonaws.com

sblog.s3.amazonaws.com

Neither decide anything, they simply enjoin lower court's pending further proceedings and you can bet there will be.

#4 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-04 09:58 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#4
Don't get in the way of their faux outrage counselor...

#5 | Posted by homerj at 2014-07-05 03:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Religious people suck.

#6 | Posted by jpw at 2014-07-05 10:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

#6

Good thing they shot MLK Jr.

#7 | Posted by HanoverFist at 2014-07-06 04:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Not for the Women employees

#3 | Posted by LarryMohr

Crap!!!!!!!! They still have 16 pills to choose from.

#8 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-07-06 06:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

First its for "closely held" Corporations, allegedly because the owners have such important religious beliefs. Then next its all Corporations, because Corporations supposedly hold religious beliefs. Should remind people of the insanity behind Bush vs Gore, where great pains were taken to make sure the law they were creating out of thin air would never ever be usable by the Democrats.

Then intelligent people have to listen to a barrage of propaganda, that Liberal Judges are legislating from the bench and that is illegal.

#9 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-07-06 06:32 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 5

Then next its all Corporations, because Corporations supposedly hold religious beliefs.

You pulled that from your backside, the HL decision said no such thing.

Wheaton, and about 50 other cases, are about an existing accommodation for non-profits. The cases were pending long before the HL decision.

#10 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-06 07:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Waaaaa Waaaaaa Waaaaa

#11 | Posted by mysterytoy at 2014-07-06 07:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

The fundamental issue is the rights of rich owners trump the rights of the employees. In this sense Conservatism stinks.

Policy is for sale. Money spent on propaganda determines Judicial and electoral outcomes.

#12 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-07-06 07:26 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Sucks when you can't force Christians to pay for your abortions.

#13 | Posted by mysterytoy at 2014-07-06 07:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

What do you do for your second act, force a Muslim to make you a ham sandwich?

#14 | Posted by mysterytoy at 2014-07-06 07:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

The fundamental issue is the rights of rich owners trump the rights of the employees.

That is the propaganda spread by opponents of the decision, ignorantly so.

The fundamental issue in HL was whether Congress, in mandating certain health care coverage, can ignore the mandate, that it cannot burden a person's religion, it created with the RFRA. Two statutes headbutting each other.

#15 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-06 08:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

BS, a Corporation is not a person. It is incapable of holding a religious belief. This is just another right wing lie, supported fully by the five partisan hacks on SCOTUS. The granting of religious rights to a Corporation is right wing law absurdictum. These traitors to the constitution are pretending it has limited application even as they plan to expand its impact. They are activists for the ruling Oligarchy.

#16 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-07-06 08:56 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

BS, a Corporation is not a person.

Congress disagrees with you, has since about 1871. http://www.law.cornell.edu/ uscode/text/1/1

It is incapable of holding a religious belief.

True, "Corporations, "separate and apart from" the human beings who own, run, and are employed by them, cannot do anything at all. Hobby Lobby, pp. 18-19.

These traitors to the constitution are pretending it has limited application even as they plan to expand its impact.

Your first error, HL is not about the Constitution but a statute, the RFRA. Your second to the failure to provide a citation for your speculation.

They are activists...

Again with the failure to provide a citation. Then redefining "activist." Since when is applying a statute exactly as written, activist?

#17 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-06 09:35 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Which is why Ginsberg wrote a scathing 35 page dissent. SCOTUS is different than other Courts. Their job is to interpret the Constitutionality of statutes. This question is dodged by the ------ Five. Instead they blindly apply the statute and then we listen to narrow minded ------s blame it all on a Wussie statute. GMAFB. This is double talk with intent to further a ------ agenda.

I have never disputed the stark legal basis claiming Corporations are people entitled to Constitutional rights. I merely point out the obvious, that while this may be a legal precedent, it is absurd on its face.

My understanding of this problem is that it began prior to your reference, which seems to be a pile of definitions.

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) was a matter brought before the United States Supreme Court which dealt with taxation of railroad properties. A headnote issued by the Court Reporter claimed to state the sense of the Court regarding the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as it applies to corporations, without the Court having actually made a decision or issued a written opinion on that issue. This was the first time that the Supreme Court was reported to hold that the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause granted constitutional protections to corporations as well as to natural persons, although numerous other cases, since Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819, had recognized that corporations were entitled to some of the protections of the Constitution.

#18 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-07-06 10:16 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Its all class warfare.

A UN proposal to negotiate a legally-binding treaty to prevent human rights abuses by transnational corporations (TNCs) and the world's business conglomerates. But following the vote, the United States and the EU, have warned they would not cooperate with an intergovernmental working group (IGWG) which is to be established to lay down ground rules for negotiating the proposed treaty.

More proof we do not live in a country which Represents the interests of human beings. All most of our elected officials care about is money into and out of large Corporations. The fate of people is of no consequence. Equally important, they don't want you to know that, so they hire people with skills like Obama.

#19 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-07-07 12:03 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Its all class warfare.

A nut case cannot defend its prior unsubstantiated rhetoric, so it deflects.

Good job! Here's your participation medal.

#20 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-07 12:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

Nutcase, the GOP will defend any stupidity, hatred or poor judicial precedent so long as they think they can exploit it for political advantage or economic gain. In fact, you should probably pipe down before you get the conservative apparatchiks started on lamenting the loss of Plessy v. Ferguson to those liberal activists in Brown v. Board.

#21 | Posted by censored at 2014-07-07 12:52 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

[An agenda advocacy group]will defend any stupidity, hatred or poor judicial precedent so long as they think they can exploit it for political advantage or economic gain.

Like what you promoted.

You're welcome.

#22 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-07 01:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

yeah sure etal, mentioning the Ginsburg dissent was a deflection.

www.rawstory.com

#23 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-07-07 08:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

mentioning the absurdity of the position of the ------ five is another deflection. Sorry I cannot top Ginsburg's dissent. You should read it if you have half a brain.

#24 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-07-07 08:06 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

A federal judge thinks it's time for the Supreme Court to just "stfu." Kopf, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote. "As the kids says, it is time for the Court to stfu."

Pointing out that all five justices who decided in favor of Hobby Lobby are Catholic males appointed by Republican presidents, Kopf argued that the decision "looks stupid and smells worse."

"While 'looks' don't matter to the logic of the law, all of us know from experience that appearances matter to the public's acceptance of the law," he wrote.

#25 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-07-07 04:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

5 Catholic males. Monotheistic cultists run wild.

#26 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-07 04:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort