Jeffrey Toobin in the New Yorker:
The Supreme Court concluded its term today with a pair of decisions widely described as “narrow”—that is, of limited application except to the parties in the lawsuits. Don’t believe it.
In fact, the Court’s decisions in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and Harris v. Quinn conform to an established pattern for the Roberts Court. It’s generally a two-step process: in confronting a politically charged issue, the court first decides a case in a “narrow” way, but then uses that decision as a precedent to move in a more dramatic, conservative direction in a subsequent case.
Harris, about the rights of workers and their unions, provides a classic example of the process in action. The larger issue here concerns government workers who are covered by a union contract but don’t want to pay dues. Excusing these employees from contributing to union coffers would cripple the political and economic power of unions. This particular case concerned home-health-care workers in Illinois. By a vote of five-to-four, the five Republican appointees to the court allowed these workers—and only these workers—to avoid contributing to the union. But in his opinion Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and John Roberts, clearly indicates that the majority would have been willing extend its judgment to all government workers—and wound unions even more deeply.
The Hobby Lobby decision follows the same pattern. Again, Justice Alito’s opinion (for the same five-to-four majority) expressed its ruling in narrow terms. Alito asserted that the case concerned only a single “closely held” private company whose owners had religious objections to providing certain forms of birth control. According to the court, federal law required that those wishes be honored.
But, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out in her dissent, there is almost no limitation on the logic of the majority’s view. Almost any closely held companies—which make up a substantial chunk of the American economy—can now claim a religious orientation, and they can now seek to excuse themselves from all sorts of obligations, including honoring certain anti-discrimination laws. And after today’s “narrow” rulings, those cases will come.
Thanks, Steve Duckett.
Another of Bill Clinton’s debacles, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, was passed 20 years ago. That law was the basis for the original Hobby Lobby lawsuit and the justification given by the Supreme Court for its ruling. Bill Clinton’s presidency was an unmitigated disaster. Which brings us to today. 33% of the American people think that Obama is the worst president since World War 2. That group represents Republican racists, neo-con warmongers, the oligarchy (1%), Zionists and old, white men. Some Clintonites also belong to this 33%. 28% of Americans believe that Bush the idiot was the worst president in 70 years.
RFRA was instrumental in shutting Scalia up about Apaches taking peyote. That part (about individual religious praxis) was a good deal. Teddy Kennedy and Orrin Hatch were the authors, Clinton just signed it.
Scalia thought the government had a compelling interest in reducing the consumption of hallucinogenic drugs. Context be damned.
Gee, an entire bill geared toward protecting the Indians right to smoke peyote. Undrwhelming. Check the history because every time Kennedy and Hatch got together and got something passed we all suffered. Then Clinton signed it. Along with NAFTA, DOMA, the repeal of Taft-Hartley, Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell……should we continue? “Context be damned” be damned.
Actually they were *chewing* peyote, and ‘context be damned’ was in reference to Scalia’s so-called reasoning. But glad you took it to heart.