Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is not a 1st Amendment case. Nothing was ruled unconstitutional in Hobby Lobby.
And the President didn't. ACA was passed by Congress and signed by the President.
They did not use a 1st Amendment claim before the Supreme Court, because there is no such claim. I am not familiar with their cases below.
Justice Ginsberg reasoning is more thorough and thoughtful than the majority's. It is also much more limited. The majority is "legislating from the bench" in this case. It rewrote RFRA in order to rewrite the ACA.
The HL owners did raise a 1st Amendment claim. Because they won on the RFRA claim, the majority found it unnecessary to address that claim. See the next to last paragraph of the majority decision. It is Ginsberg's opinion that the owners would lose the 1st Amendment argument. Considering she is wrong on the RFRA, your reliance on her isn't too persuasive.
It is obviously your opinion that the majority legislated from the bench. It's my opinion that's what happened in the case re the individual mandate.
Justice Ginsberg tried to lay out the history of RFRA so that she could construe the law as written to mean something else. The Opinion of the Court made that very clear. It was the dissenters who tried "legislating from the bench" in this case.
I'm not really sure why you're using doublespeak to try and project something that never happened but it's clear to everyone who was trying to twist the way RFRA was written into something that they meant to write but failed to do so.
She did lay out the history of RFRA, and construed it as it was written, properly deferring to the judgment of Congress. Look at the dissent from pages 8-12, "as RFRA’s statements of purpose and legislative
history make clear, Congress intended only to restore, not to scrap or alter, the balancing test as this Court had applied it pre-Smith."
The majority takes an unsupported stance in this case. It dramatically expands RFRA to cover for-profit corporations, that for-profit corporations are capable of exercising religion, to dramatically depart from pre-Smith 1st Amendment caselaw, and to require religious exemption from regulations when a court can think of a less restrictive regulation, even if the exemption disadvantages other people who are the intended beneficiaries of the regulation.
The HL owners did raise a 1st Amendment claim. Because they won on the RFRA claim, the majority found it unnecessary to address that claim. See the next to last paragraph of the majority decision. It is Ginsberg's opinion that the owners would lose the 1st Amendment argument. Considering she is wrong on the RFRA, your reliance on her isn't too persuasive.
It is obviously your opinion that the majority legislated from the bench. It's my opinion that's what happened in the case re the individual mandate.
You are right about them raising the 1st, thanks for pointing that out--I missed it. But it would be a departure from 1st Amendment case law for them to win on that issue. I disagree that she is wrong on RFRA. Think about the new layer of bureaucracy that will be necessary to weigh and create RFRA exemptions to generally applicable laws. Do you really think that is what Congress intended?
Do you really think that Congress intended to depart from the 1st Amendment and create a whole new entitlement with RFRA? Why hasn't anyone relied on that entitlement until the ACA?
Mistakes happen. The question is not about frequency, but about one's right to choose for themselves free of religious pressure.
EDIT: Also, the morning-after pill is not abortive.
What religious pressure? No one from Hobby Lobby is going to be standing outside of a doctors office trying to pressure their employees into not taking a pill.
What religious pressure? No one from Hobby Lobby is going to be standing outside of a doctors office trying to pressure their employees into not taking a pill.
No, but they are content to dictate the terms of their employees' health care insurance on a religious basis, even though emergency contraception is not abortive. Ergo, what's the point?
No, but they are content to dictate the terms of their employees' health care insurance on a religious basis, even though emergency contraception is not abortive. Ergo, what's the point?
It was actually HHS who attempted to dictate HL's insurance plan which had been in place for years without a single complaint.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Priests for life comment on Hobby Lobby---
