Good. Don’t get mad, get even, and vote those regressives OUT!
2 Likes
The brilliance of this court is only overshadowed by their lackluster opinions.
It isn’t like they don’t know who they are hurting and who they are helping, now is it?
4 Likes
Until the next legal challenge.
After every one of these five to four decisions, I see these five conservative miscreants getting off in the privacy of their chambers by whipping themselves into a religio-orgiastic ecstasy with one of those multiple whip-like “discipline” thingys with the crochet knots. Yes,… yes…, yes…,oh…,yes…
1 Like
So Alito lied when he called this travesty a “narrowly-construed decision.”
Quelle surprise.
10 Likes
It would be nice if someone kept a list of all companies who take advantage of this, so I can AVOID doing business with them.
6 Likes
imho, that dope Alito opened up a legal Pandora’s Box in addition to grounds for his own impeachment in doing it.
3 Likes
I have said this before. Alito is the most politically motivated judge there is on the bench. He is even worse than Scalia. He will go down in history as the Roger Taney of the 21st century court.
5 Likes
The paint on the door was still wet, and the five’s fingerprints can be seen all over it.
2 Likes
Eh, not really. The court limited this instance to contraception and acknowledged that religious beliefs (of corporations!) could not result in discrimination based on race (because you just can’t get around that pesky 14th Amendment). But it leaves open:
- Exemptions to discriminate based on grounds other than race (say, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation);
- Exemptions from medical practices forbidden for religious reasons (people have already brought up transfusions, and although Alito says “surely not vaccinations,” the vaccination exemption is coming).
The court left these open by saying they would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. More lawsuits. More empowering of corporations… by protecting their Constitutional right to religious freedom! Gah!
The way to fight back is to challenge the fervent religious belief of the corporation itself, what Ginsburg quietly mocked as the “sincerely held religious beliefs” of an “artificial legal entity.” Look at the corporation’s ENTIRE commitment to its religious beliefs, assess the consistency of its spending and profiting off of those beliefs, then come back and characterize the corporation as insincere. Even the SCOTUS can’t argue back against that, right?
Oh, I forgot: nowadays Scalia can mis-cite his own previous majority opinion in order to write a lame-ass dissent… just because liberals. Never mind. Game over.
8 Likes
Facts and Reality be damned!
And what makes a “closely held” company different from a “publicly” held company? An arbitrary number of stockholders? Seems pretty arbitrary if you ask me!
And what about that 50 employee rule for the ACA, isn’t that just a random number too?
Size isn’t in the Constitution is it, so the SC could interpret the rules any which way with no telling what consequences, precedent be damned.
1 Like
And why does your employer have to be so concerned with what insurance claims you file in the first place? Seems like an intrusion in people’s privacy.
2 Likes
Their written opinion (yesterday) also said it only applied to four specified devices/pill regimens.
So now The Five Supremes are not even waiting for new cases to be argued before all nine Justices before extending yesterday’s “precedent”? What an excellent way of eliminating unnecessary written opinions of dissent.
2 Likes
But you are right tamdai, perhaps the Democrats in the Congress ought to consider, instead of a strongly worded letter of outrage and reprimand, impeachment proceedings against one or all of the 5 (I know, I know, I can count).
If Boehner can sue Obama, the Dems can at least file the papers and make some noise, and tell everyone, that one and only time a mic gets shoved in their faces, why it is exactly that Alito is so derelict and grossly misbegotten in his exercise of judicial powers.
Their decisions have been an unending string of High Crimes against Humanity in favor of Corporatity that people might think about who they’re voting for and why. But hte Dems need to be rready to talk when they get that one opportunity.
Did they “confirm” this “broad application” of yesterday’s “narrow” opinion in writing? Was dissenting opinion to this “broader” interpretation solicited, and in writing?
If not, is a cabal of Justices trying to usurp the entire Supreme Court? Shades of Madison, Wisconsin!
4 Likes
Undergoing chemotherapy can directly threaten a fetus. It is a certainty that some Christianist/Opus Dei Catholic-run company will refuse to provide chemo coverage to young women who are pregnant.
3 Likes
Guns? Can I count guns as birth control?
5 Likes
This shows quite clearly that the real target here is Griswold v. Connecticut
The far-right wants to subjugate women—in a very Victorian way----and the easiest way to do that is to remove their control over their own reproductive lives.
5 Likes
I’m considering incorporating and hiring myself as the only corporate officer of my non-profit. I’ll be making minimum wage, of course, but the company will see to my needs, I’m sure.
Also, my company has a firmly-held religious belief that taxation causes abortions: if there were no taxes, the Federal Government couldn’t have ruled abortions legal in the 70s. Therefore, taxation is an abortifacient, and under this ruling, I believe my First Amendment Rights allow me to opt out of paying any company taxes.
4 Likes
Three immediate impressions from yesterday’s decision:
-
Nothing better illustrates the total absurdity of associating one’s health insurance with the type of job one has. If we removed that association, we would not only render this decision irrelevant, we would remove the costly burden from employers. That seems an idea we could ALL get behind.
-
Nothing better illustrates the need for term limits for Supreme Court justices. Scalia has been serving up his unique brand of personal vendetta for almost three decades now. Enough is enough, no matter who it is, Ginsburg included. In addition, term limits would let voters know in advance how many potential justices a presidential nominee might appoint, so we would be able to raise those issues in an election.
-
John Roberts perjured himself before Congress.
4 Likes