Lion of the Blogosphere

Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

Hobby Lobby won. I was wrong.

All of the Catholic Justices, except for Sotomayor, voted in favor of Hobby Lobby. I guess I underestimated how much Catholic justices would hate morning-after contraception which religious Catholics think is like abortion, and thus they would ignore precedent (which they usually follow because they are conservative about following precedent unlike the liberal justices). Those five Catholic justices were picked by Republican presidents using an anti-abortion litmus test, so I guess the litmus test worked.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

June 30, 2014 at EDT pm

Posted in Law

107 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Lion, what do you think the SCOTUS split would look after 8 years of HRC being POTUS? 6-3 lib? 7-2 lib?

    An HRC presidency would set a crushing liberal slant on the bench for the next 30+ years.

    uatu

    July 1, 2014 at EDT am

    • Why would it only be for 30 years? Given the demographics won’t it be forever?

      Bernie

      July 1, 2014 at EDT am

      • No. The Middle East is not liberal. Africa is not liberal. China is not liberal. India is not liberal.

        Liberalism destroys itself and is replaced. Liberals in America with any sense ought to try to conserve the West rather than destroy it, because all groups waiting to replace the West are decidedly less liberal.

        Dan

        July 2, 2014 at EDT am

    • Either Scalia or Kennedy retiring would give liberals a 5-4 majority. Breyer would be the new swing vote as the least liberal of the liberals. It is quite possible both will continue on through 2024. Scalia is unlikely to retire while HRC is president, but he’s old and fat and might die.

      bob

      July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

  2. Religious right is most retarded.

    Foxy

    July 1, 2014 at EDT am

    • This is where our country is headed. People don’t even try to justify their claims with reason anymore. They just KNOW they’re right because of egocentric bias.

      shiva1008

      July 1, 2014 at EDT am

      • Religious right for the middle class and the Lunatic Left for the underclass. Pick your poison!

        JS

        July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

      • And America is strictly business. School, healthcare, housing, you name it, everything is about the bottom line. Expect more 3rd world citizens and NAMs to service you, as corporate companies become more budget conscious and are less concerned with a quality workforce.

        I say landlords should keep raising rents where they drive high-end restaurants out of business. SWPLs will be heading to McDonalds instead.

        JS

        July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

      • Religious right for the middle class and the Lunatic Left for the underclass.

        It’s good that you pointed this out. People seem to have this idea that evangelical conservatism is “prole”, but in reality it’s middle class folks who actually care enough about “values” to embrace a Christian lifestyle. Proles don’t care about anything.

        Samson J.

        July 3, 2014 at EDT pm

    • Women can get their contraception, no problem. Why should anyone be forced to pay for that? Nobody is paying for men to buy condoms. It is completely retarded that employers are required to pay for these things.

      The employer should be able to give an employee money, and they can then buy contraception or whatever they want.

      The liberal state reduces liberty, and people somehow think it is conservatives constraining liberty.

      Dan

      July 1, 2014 at EDT am

      • There’s no evidence that Hobby Lobby will actually save any money on insurance. It could be possible that they have to pay MORE money in order to have a special plan created for them that offers less coverage.

      • “Why should anyone be forced to pay for [contraception]?”

        Keeping alive a blind, mentally retarded low-birth-weight infant can cost an insurance company a million dollars. Ordinary births in a hospital with no complications cost from $18,000 to $21,000.

        Mark Caplan

        July 1, 2014 at EDT am

      • Excellent response. Paying for birth control SAVES the taxpayer a lot of money.

    • Well those who make the babies control the future. So the Religious Right have had many babies in their relative youth 20+ years ago and folks wonder why they are more vocal than ever?

      Gil

      July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

      • But the right is doomed because: demographics. Note the contradiction. If rightist pols can manage to tighten immigration (something a super majority of Americans wants), even for only a decade, the demographic equation changes totally. White liberals don’t have a lot of kids, the black population is stable, and Hispanics punch below their weight politically. The future may belong to the religious right.

        Dave Pinsen

        July 2, 2014 at EDT am

      • Left wingers are mostly the decendants of right wing religious folk. These left wingers have an intense genetic religious impulse, which is directed toward their secular leftist equalism, and whatever left-theological truth is the latest flavor of the week.

        Dan

        July 2, 2014 at EDT am

  3. So, regulation of health care, which is not an enumerated power of Congress, is OK, but if someone has a religious objection, then part of the law is waived, despite the constitutional demand that we do not establish religion.

    I forget who it was that said when he was in law school, for awhile he was confused that what he was learning in his constitutional law class had no relationship with the actual constitution. It gradually dawned on him that the reason why he could not see the relationship is that there is none.

    Monkeys throwing darts at a board would get a better percent correct than the post-new deal Supreme Court.

    BehindTheLines

    July 1, 2014 at EDT am

    • I disagree with your take- there’s no ‘establishment’ going on here. And it’s really a shame how younger, internet-bred folks missed out on the great magazine writers of the recent past. So, the best quote about law was by Michael Kinsley, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, Harper’s and The New Republic. He said, “no one has less respect for law than lawyers.”

      department 11

      July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

    • Well what a bullshit recollection. You study the Constitution in con law, along with 200 years of constitutional caselaw. Good luck apply the Constitution without interpretation of any kind.

      caroljm36

      July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

    • Possibly Obama was his ConLaw prof.?

      Truth

      July 6, 2014 at EDT am

  4. Well, where does it end (exemption)? Did the court ruling provide some guidance?

    CamelCaseRob

    July 1, 2014 at EDT am

    • It ends when the liberals get the fifth vote on the Supreme Court. As LOTB mentioned above, image what a Supreme Court with five or six jurist who have the same beliefs as Ginsburg or Sotomayor believe. They will sign off on whatever the liberals in Congress want.

      superdestroyer

      July 1, 2014 at EDT am

      • Not to worry. Soon enough, we will get a real life version of President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho, and the judges he appoints to SCOTUS will make Sotomayor look like the greatest jurist of all time.

        Sgt. Joe Friday

        July 1, 2014 at EDT am

      • I didn’t mean temporally. I mean the slippery slope Lion mentioned. Has the court provided some guidance to lower courts to decide when religious belief doesn’t allow for exemption to a law?

        CamelCaseRob

        July 1, 2014 at EDT am

      • Places where it ends:
        a) when there’s not a less burdensome mechanism available to the govt
        b) when Congress decides to exempt a law from the RFRA
        c) when the company is not closely held or all owners do not agree or the stated mission of the business is not religious in nature

        Jody

        July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

  5. The decision has no effect on the availability of contraception. None.

    As to the Catholicism of the justices, that is suspect. After all, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and John Kerry are all nominal Catholics. And even my mother, a French-Canadian Catholic, thought Humanae Vitae was stupid. In all likelihood the six Catholics on the Court are all lapsed.

    bob sykes

    July 1, 2014 at EDT am

    • Scalia has nine children and 28 grandchildren. I think he is a practicing Catholic.

      Dan

      July 1, 2014 at EDT am

      • Good man!

        caroljm36

        July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

  6. My understanding is that they’re exempt because it violates the religious beliefs of the owners of a closely held business. It wouldn’t apply to a public corporation. I think this is an excellent decision. Not because I’m concerned about birth control but because it aligns with my libertarian tendencies. I’m sure some will cringe at this comparison but I’ve previously and repeatedly argued that a private business should be allowed to discriminate for any reason whatsoever. If it’s their business or property then it should be their choice. If they make a bad choice by discriminating against more productive workers then it will cost them money. If it costs them enough money then they’ll go bankrupt.Either way, it’s their choice. That’s what private property means. However, I’ve also argued that the government and businesses that receive govt contracts should be prohibited from discriminating. The difference is that no one has to trade with a privately owned business. But everyone is under the government so the government should treat everyone equally.

    It’s a shame scotus hasn’t been more consistent in upholding private property rights. But at least they got this one right.

    destructure

    July 1, 2014 at EDT am

    • And not just any private business. The decision applies only to private businesses in which five or fewer individuals own at least 50% of the stock.

      Peter

      ironrailsironweights

      July 1, 2014 at EDT am

  7. I don’t think Catholicism entered much into this at all. The owners are protestants for one thing. The main reason the ruling makes sense is that an enacted law, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act comes into conflict with regulations by a government agency, HHS. In general, the constitution takes precedence over acts of congress and acts of congress take precedence over bureaucratic rule-making.

    dbp

    July 1, 2014 at EDT am

    • Exactly right. How did Lion miss this? It’s almost as if he once got beat up up in Howard Beach or something.

      17 mile drive

      July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

  8. Justice Scalia’s past jurisprudence stands contradictory to his legal rationale in the Hobby Lobby case. In 1990, he wrote the majority opinion in Employment Division v. Smith. Two men from Oregon sued the state for denying them unemployment benefits. They had been fired by their employer because they failed a drug test. They had ingested peyote, which according to them was in line with their religious beliefs as members of the Native American church. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the company, for the First Amendment “does not require” the government to grant “religious exemptions” from generally applicable laws or civic obligations. Indeed, as Scalia wrote in the 6-3 majority decision, specifying that “[T]he right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability.”

    He penned, “[A]ny society adopting such a system would be courting anarchy…The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind…ranging from compulsory military service, to the payment of taxes, to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races.”

    Fast forward to the Hobby Lobby case. Justice Kagan legally bitch-slapped Scalia during oral arguments. She noted this particular argument offered by Scalia in that 1990 case–judges are unqualified to evaluate the “centrality” of beliefs to a faith, or the “validity” of interpretations brought forth by individuals seeking exemptions from the law.

    She expressed that sentiment to Paul Clement, the lawyer arguing on behalf of Hobby Lobby. “Your understanding of this law, your interpretation of it, would essentially subject the entire U.S. Code to the highest test in constitutional law, to a compelling interest standard. So another employer comes in and that employer says, ‘I have a religious objection to sex discrimination laws; and then another employer comes in, I have a religious objection to minimum wage laws; and then another, family leave; and then another, child labor laws.’ And all of that is subject to the exact same test which you say is this unbelievably high test, the compelling interest standard with the least restrictive alternative. If you look at that parade of horribles — Social Security, minimum wage, discrimination laws, compelled vaccination — every item on that list was included in Justice Scalia’s opinion for the Court in [the Smith case].”

    Her remarks are eerily similar to Scalia, who alluded to the same examples in the 1990 case if religious entities are permitted to claim exemptions from generally applicable laws. 
Interesting, since he also wrote in that 1990 case that “[the court has] never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate.” While the legal decision was narrowly crafted to afford “closely held businesses their religious right to deny specific contraceptive devices to their female employees”, legal analysts are astounded that, for the first time in American jurisprudence. companies are afforded religious protection under the First Amendment. So much for strict interpretation of the Constitution by conservative justices!

    mcg

    July 1, 2014 at EDT am

    • As I said in the earlier post, “normally hyper-rational [conservative] justices become irrational when Christianity is at issue”

      • hahah look at all the statist rage. suck liberals, if its your body then take responsibility for it and pay for it

        eric Cartman

        July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

    • The Religious Freedom Restoration Act had been passed since then. It played a role in Alito’s reasoning.

      Half Canadian

      July 1, 2014 at EDT am

    • The difference between 1990 and today is that Scalia has had 24 years to observe the general trend of left-wing destruction on the body politic. He sees where this is going and he is smart enough to reverse course.

      I understand that this and other sites support abortion because they think it is strip-mining the black population and that somehow a “fast one” has been pulled on the Left. I doubt Leftists are that stupid. I’m sure they are busily trying to correct this unjust inequality. It is only a matter of time before they require abortions to be induced randomly at all voluntary births by white women until the abortion rate (voluntary or not) of white women equals the voluntary abortion rate of non-white women. The future Supreme Court will consider this to be Constitutional.

      Kagan and her “legal research” can go hang. Originalism was always bringing a knife to a gunfight, with the left doing everything it can to impose Leftism by fiat. If originalists are finally picking up a machine gun, well, good for them. It’s about time.

      This whole “slippery slope” nonsense is a farce anyway. The Left is clearly not worried about it, either because they can arrest the slide along a slippery slope at the point of a distinction or they can count on no one actually hoisting them up on their own petard. This needs to change.

      The Right should be working very hard to create a future of a boot kicking a Leftist’s face.

      map

      July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

      • Or, the left can make an unprincipled exception.

        map

        July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

      • “He sees where this is going and he is smart enough to reverse course.”

        No, Scalia is simply being hypocritical.

        “Kagan and her “legal research” can go hang.”

        She correctly pointed out Scalia’s OWN WORDS that he conveniently ignored.

        mcg

        July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

      • “So Scalia’s decision is correct.”

        No, his “new” rationale contradicts his alleged conservative principles.

        “A closely held corporation defaults to the natural rights of the people who ultimately own it…”

        Except, as I correctly pointed out and you conveniently ignored, is that a corporation is an artificial entity that until recently (the last five years) been granted political and religious rights reserved for citizens, i.e. natural persons.

        “The legal fiction of the corporation can be ignored while the natural rights of the owners can be protected.”

        Doesn’t, and hasnt’ historically, work that way. Owners of a company, regardless if they are “family”, are owners of a company who received permission from the state to formally operate.

        “The litigants — the Green and Hahn families, owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties respectively — did not have religious objections to contraception. They might have if they were Catholic, but they weren’t, and they didn’t.

        The Hahns are Mennonites and the Greens Christians of no particular denomination. Both families provided coverage for contraceptives in their health plans. Hobby Lobby provided coverage for 18 different methods of birth control.”

        Home run here! It wasn’t until Obamacare was in full force did the “owners of a family business” object to offering birth control to their employees.

        mcg

        July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

      • mcg,

        “She correctly pointed out Scalia’s OWN WORDS that he conveniently ignored.”

        So what?

        map

        July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

      • mcg,

        “Except, as I correctly pointed out and you conveniently ignored, is that a corporation is an artificial entity that until recently (the last five years) been granted political and religious rights reserved for citizens, i.e. natural persons.”

        So what exactly is your complaint? Obviously, if you don’t agree that a corporation should be treated as a legal person, then the court circumvented that and noted that Hobby Lobby is a very closely held corporation and the rights of the owners do matter. If you agree that a corporation is a legal person, then Hobby Lobby has religious rights that deserve protecting.

        You seem to think conservative principles are some kind of suicide pact. Do you not know by now that law is a weapon being used against people to serve other agendas? You want conservative justices to ignore that reality? To what end?

        The value of this ruling is that if a baker decides that he does not want to bake a cake for homosexuals on religious grounds he can now do it, carving out a religious space in the public that the government has been unconstitutionally pushing out of the public domain under the incorrect establishment cause jurisprudence for the last 60 years.

        map

        July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

      • mcg,

        What you are doing is treating “conservatism” literally, as meaning literally “to conserve.” This view of conservatism and the originalism that is spawns means in practice defending and preserving liberalism. It treats as settled law all of the innovations of the New Deal court that brought us to the situations we are in today.

        I see no point in any kind of conservatism that “conserves” a liberal society. Real conservatism is about either strengthening something that has been weakened or resurrecting something that has been lost.

        map

        July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

      • ““She correctly pointed out Scalia’s OWN WORDS that he conveniently ignored.”

        Map says “So, what”? Apparently hypocrisy does not bother you as a personality flaw.

        “Obviously, if you don’t agree that a corporation should be treated as a legal person, then the court circumvented that…”

        

Exactly. And out the door are the conservative principles of strict constructivism. Never again can conservatives argue that only liberals “legislate from the bench”.

        “You seem to think conservative principles are some kind of suicide pact.”

        No, YOU made this statement.

        “Do you not know by now that law is a weapon being used against people to serve other agendas?”

        Clearly, as evident by the 5-4 decision in the Hobby Lobby case.

        “The value of this ruling is that if a baker decides that he does not want to bake a cake for homosexuals on religious grounds he can now do it.”



        ONLY if the baker is deemed a “closely held corporation” in the eyes of the Court, whatever that means.

        “carving out a religious space in the public that the government has been unconstitutionally pushing out of the public domain under the incorrect establishment cause jurisprudence for the last 60 years.”

        In other words, legislate from the bench, which is a liberal philosophy.

        “What you are doing is treating “conservatism” literally, as meaning literally “to conserve.””



        No, what I am doing is holding “conservatism” accountable whenever it is twisted and turned to suit one’s own ends similar to what liberals do.

        mcg

        July 2, 2014 at EDT am

      • mcg,

        Has accusing liberals of “legislating from the bench” ever altered their behavior? Have they ever responded to this “shaming” language? What was the actual result? Has strict constructivism actually reversed the influence of the New Deal court?

        Answer: No.

        So what good has accusations of hypocrisy or holding conservative justices to their conservative principles actually done? Since conservative legal scholarship means actually maintaining past left-wing legal innovation as sacrosanct, well, we can do with less conservative legal scholarship.

        Don’t worry, as noted elsewhere, when the demographics guarantee hard left-wing Sct Justices forever, you will never again have to worry about hypocrisy.

        map

        July 2, 2014 at EDT am

      • “Has accusing liberals of “legislating from the bench” ever altered their behavior? Have they ever responded to this “shaming” language?”

Why don’t you tell us.

        “Has strict constructivism actually reversed the influence of the New Deal court?”

        Numerous occasions. In its 1935 session the Court gutted much of the First New Deal, ruling that the National Industrial Recovery Act (Schechter v. United States [1935]) and the Agricultural Adjustment Act (United States v. Butler [1936]), among others, were unconstitutional. The Court in eight of the ten cases evaluating early New Deal legislation the majority found the acts constitutionally deficient.

        You’re going all the map. Literally. Let’s stay on point, shall we?

        “Since conservative legal scholarship means actually maintaining past left-wing legal innovation as sacrosanct, well, we can do with less conservative legal scholarship.”

        

No, conservative legal scholarship means actually sticking to the principles of limited government and strict constructivism. What you are doing here are making excuses for conduct normally associated with liberalism. How noble.

        mcg

        July 2, 2014 at EDT pm

      • Conservative Justices are generally truly conservative according to the dictionary definition, “cautious about change.” Thus they usually adhere to stare decisis.

      • originalism?

        that was ALWAYS just jive talk.

        the supremes are politicians, not judges. but do they know this?

        as i’ve said so many times, success in america requires intelligence, but it ALSO requires a very special kind of stupidity.

        jorge videla

        July 2, 2014 at EDT pm

      • no! stare decisis and original intent are adhered to only in so far as they would result in conservative opinions.

        jorge videla

        July 2, 2014 at EDT pm

      • mcg,

        “Numerous occasions. In its 1935 session the Court gutted much of the First New Deal, ruling that the National Industrial Recovery Act (Schechter v. United States [1935]) and the Agricultural Adjustment Act (United States v. Butler [1936]), among others, were unconstitutional. The Court in eight of the ten cases evaluating early New Deal legislation the majority found the acts constitutionally deficient.”

        In 1935, this was not known as originalism or strict constructivism. This was known as ordinary jurisprudence. Cab drivers could come to the same conclusion as the Court. Hence, Roosevelt tried to pack the Court with additional Justices.

        But in the end, the New Deal won and Supreme Court Justices have been legislating from the bench since Thurgood Marshall.

        Think about it: “originalism” and “strict constructivism” did not become descriptive terms until Scalia was nominated to the Supreme Court.

        You are also collapsing distinctions and thus all over the map. “Strict constructivism” and “limited government” are not the same thing. SC eventually collapses to “stare decisis” and “stare decisis” is what preserve leftist legal decisions.

        map

        July 3, 2014 at EDT am

    • “They had been fired by their employer because they failed a drug test. They had ingested peyote”

      That is not what happened. Peyote is expensive to test for, and its use rate is extremely low, so it is not a normal part of employment drug testing. Rather it looks like they admitted their use in order to litigate a test case to the Supreme Court, which they did.

      bob

      July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

  9. I’m shocked hobby lobby won. That said i felt they should’ve won because neither the constitution, or religious freedom restoration act, distinguishes between individuals and groups.

    There are people (liberals) that believe groups don’t have the same rights as individuals. These idiots shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

    And hobby lobby only opposed 4/20 birth control methods in obamacare. I’m shocked the msm is lying about hobby lobby’s position.

    dsgntd_plyr

    July 1, 2014 at EDT am

    • Certain groups DON’T have the same rights as individuals. Businesses, for example, are NOT groups of individuals, they are entities borne by a charter. In other words, they are artificially created. The Constitution is specifically designed for natural persons, i.e. individuals and groups of people.

      Political and religious speech is reserved for citizens. Citizens are people. Corporations are not people; thus, they are NOT subject to political or religious rights.

      Under the law, a corporation is an artificial person; its personhood status is a legal fiction we employ as a convenience to facilitate commerce. Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward: “A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it.” Corporations as “people” was NOT the intent of the framers of the Constitution.

      Moreover, the text of the Fourteenth Amendment does NOT include corporations, and there was nothing in the legislative history of the amendment to indicate corporations were intended to be beneficiaries of its protections, especially political or religious rights.

      mcg

      July 1, 2014 at EDT am

      • mcg,

        So Scalia’s decision is correct. A closely held corporation defaults to the natural rights of the people who ultimately own it, the five or six individuals that constitute the majority shareholders in the firm and that are part of the same family. The legal fiction of the corporation can be ignored while the natural rights of the owners can be protected.

        map

        July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

    • “And hobby lobby only opposed 4/20 birth control methods in obamacare. I’m shocked the msm is lying about hobby lobby’s position.”

      I have a hard time recalling any instance in recent memory when MSM said something that was true.

      Dan

      July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

  10. They’re missing the forest for the trees.

    We have plenty of evidence that all these Pillz that Fluke & co. crave are affecting our environment and health. No one can say it too loud because they would be punished by The Party, but at some point the problem will get too ugly to ignore.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2882189/

    Fiddlesticks

    July 1, 2014 at EDT am

    • It should be up to Congress to make those determinations and not the Supreme Court. which is the standard belief of conservative justices when Christianity isn’t an issue.

      • congress violated the religious freedom restoration act because there are alternatives (medicaid pays for contraception, alito pointed out making medicaid pay for contraception for all women would be 100% legal) to forcing christians to violate their beliefs.

        aki (@DSGNTD_PLYR)

        July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

      • @Lion – I think “conservative” is an unfortunate term in the SCOTUS context and plays into the hands of political liberals and the MSM who then characterize the court as just politics – sometimes the conservatives vote right, sometimes the liberals vote left; it’s all a game and mostly evens out on both sides. When in fact Rhenquist, Thomas, Scalia, etc. are trying to apply the constitution and laws, whereas Marshall, Blackmun, Kagan, Wise Latina, etc. are just looking for political results they like (Marshall told his clerks how he wanted his decisions to come out and then had the clerks invent some way to justify his desired result). I believe originalists, constitutionalist, strict constructionist, etc. better convey that one wing is playing fair and one side doesn’t care as long as it moves society in a more progressive direction.

        Truth

        July 6, 2014 at EDT am

  11. OT: Here is a development that will truly exacerbate the “pay gap” but go right over the heads of the usual goofy SWPL avengers.

    Lockheed Martin, like Boeing before it, is shifting its salaried employees from defined-benefit to 401k pensions.

    The blue-collar guys will still be sitting pretty, but the administrative assistants, accountants, customer-service employees and other office personnel will take a big hit. Good ol’ disparate impact.

    http://www.nasdaq.com/article/lockheed-martin-says-will-freeze-pension-plan-for-usbased-salaried-employees-20140701-00449

    Fiddlesticks

    July 1, 2014 at EDT am

    • 401k is a sweet deal if you max it out into cheap index funds (if you can) and not hide in cash equivalents..or worse, cash out in a down market. I can’t believe the coworkers I respected who did just that in 2009.

      caroljm36

      July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

  12. Hobby Lobby – A prole retail outlet, typically of most American businesses, that doesn’t provide health insurance that covers contraception. Further, a health care system is that is more byzantine than our tax system, for the average lay person to understand the rules.

    Next, the powers to be will debate if illegals can get contraception in America, and if they can get it for free.

    A woman from Spain whom I know, who’s also a citizen of the United States, told me how efficient the free health clinics in her native country are. Just walk into one, they take down your name and personal information, and a physician sees you in less than 10 minutes. Compare this with the free services in the states, where you fill out pages and pages of paperwork, before you can even see a medical professional. Worse, in NYC, you have to get by the first round by dealing with NAMs, and even a NAM doctor, when it comes to subsidized healthcare.

    A very good reason as to why smart Americans are leaving this country!

    JS

    July 1, 2014 at EDT am

    • Free contraception for illegal immigrants is a great idea, it will decrease the number of US Citizens born to illegal immigrants.

      • Uh,no. The Left won’t allow that.

        map

        July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

      • dont you know contraception is only for empowered white women. for everyone else its racist

        eric Cartman

        July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

      • Free contraception for illegal immigrants is a great idea, it will decrease the number of US Citizens born to illegal immigrants.

        This ruling has no effect over whether the poor have access to contraception. Poor minorities get insurance through the government programs that cover most or all of contraception’s cost. Private sector employers insure the lower middle class and higher; employees who can easily afford OTC birth control from CVS.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

      • I haven’t noticed that contraception decreases NAM birthrates in the long run. It just makes it more convenient for them to space out their bastards.

        Newdist

        July 2, 2014 at EDT pm

      • Black birthrates have fallen considerably since the 1960s. So wrong.

    • That wasn’t my experience with public health clinics in San Francisco. It was walk in, get seen, no paperwork. Special bonus, a gay physician told me that as long as I was only doing girls, I didn’t have to worry about HIV. In 1996 TPTB were still lying about that.

      forged

      July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

      • In 1996, our health care system was a lot more efficient and less bureaucratic than with what you find today. Further, in big liberal cities, expect to find blacks who will service you, where you get shoddy and rude service, because most blacks inherently dislike anybody who isn’t one of their own.

        JS

        July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

      • SF has the closest thing to socialized medicine in the USA, along with Hawaii. They don’t really want this publicized so hordes of sick people move in, and they keep the level of free public care fairly basic for the same reason.

        bob

        July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

    • “Hobby Lobby – A prole retail outlet, typically of most American businesses, that doesn’t provide health insurance that covers contraception.”

      100% incorrect. hobby lobby provides contraception. they’ve done so for years, but they didn’t want to provide abortifacients. 16 of the 20 bc methods in obamacare hobby lobby has said they will cover.

      the msm is rotting your brain…wait, the chicago sun-times knows what’s going on. so you can get the truth from the msm! http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/28399997-452/hobby-lobby-ruling-about-abortion-not-contraceptives.html

      The litigants — the Green and Hahn families, owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties respectively — did not have religious objections to contraception. They might have if they were Catholic, but they weren’t, and they didn’t.

      The Hahns are Mennonites and the Greens Christians of no particular denomination. Both families provided coverage for contraceptives in their health plans. Hobby Lobby provided coverage for 18 different methods of birth control. What both the Greens and the Hahns objected to were the regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services that would have required them, on pain of severe fines, to cover four more methods, including the morning after pill, that the litigants consider abortifacients.

      aki (@DSGNTD_PLYR)

      July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

      • They won’t cover a pill for after-sex contraception, and we call that an abortifiacient. Tell me what’s the difference? Both are about pregnancy termination.

        Again, much of the American population are idiots.

        JS

        July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

      • People who worry about the “death” of a microsopic egg with only a few cells, those people maybe are the idiots?

      • Tell me LotB, what can something with human dna become? A rat? A horse? A spatula? You really believe a human female can be pregnant with anything other than a human? Uuuhhhh…

        dsgntd_plyr

        July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

      • It is a way to perpetuate your own kind, as opposed to all the other peoples of the world. You ought to understand that.

        caroljm36

        July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

      • Liger,

        I’d be careful about calling these people idiots. They’re objectively more successful than you. Not only in business, but also in legal cases.

        Half Canadian

        July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

  13. Employees of Hobby Lobby woke up today and went to work, only having *sixteen* different kinds of birth control covered under their insurance plan. I expect the sky to fall at any moment.

    There is a mechanism under the law in place to make sure that those women who simply have to have one of the four methods in question can get it, so there is no restriction of access.

    The RFRA was signed into law by Clinton.

    There is already a precedent in place to grant certain groups exemptions for various whatnots. so no new law was being written here.

    Anyone unhappy with this ruling shouldn’t worry too much, Obama took advantage of the Two Minutes’ Hate to quietly signal he was prepared to rejigger the ACA (for the 35th time? Honestly, I’ve lost count) to handle this little mess.

    Inkraven

    July 1, 2014 at EDT am

    • “The RFRA was signed into law by Clinton.”

      lol! i’ve seen clips of hillary talking about how bad the hobby lobby decision is. does she even know alito sighted rfra 100+ times in his opinion? probably not.

      aki (@DSGNTD_PLYR)

      July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

  14. the morning-after pill IS an abortifacient, not a contraceptive.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24899748

    jz

    July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

    • Abortifacients should be available in the vending machines of every inner city high school and grade school.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

      • For free! Or at least heavily subsidized.

      • In a post scarcity world, almost everything is a free or easily available. Positional goods such as luxury items and fining dining are not. But poorer people can consume them as well, just not at the frequency of wealthier folks.

        I don’t know how bookstores will survive in the next 10 years. We have machines that can take a pdf file and bind it into a book.

        JS

        July 2, 2014 at EDT am

  15. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand it’s obviously a good idea to give people free birth control, it fulfills an important eugenic good. But look at why the left pushed this, it is mostly symbolic, to get the small number of religious employers to subsidize the lifestyle choices of the “modern woman.” It’s about the idea of female power and the goodness of what is arguably at the heart of feminism to redistribute wealth and power from some men to some women. Ideas matter, and this is a(temporary) defeat for liberal ideology.

    Clover

    July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

    • But look at why the left pushed this, it is mostly symbolic, to get the small number of religious employers to subsidize the lifestyle choices of the “modern woman.”

      I’m glad you see this, even if you don’t otherwise support the Catholic position. I was thrilled with the decision; to be honest, I couldn’t believe religious liberty actually won on something in 2014.

      Samson J.

      July 3, 2014 at EDT pm

  16. OT: One57 in the papers. Money laundering: it’s not just for Miami anymore.

    http://nymag.com/news/features/foreigners-hiding-money-new-york-real-estate-2014-6/

    Glengarry

    July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

    • Wait, I thought the Red Chinese buying up real property in America are nice guys with clean hands. Nooooh?

      JS

      July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

  17. In the 1960s the Catholic church created a commission to study the question of birth control. The majority report of that commission recommend that the church change its position on birth control. Pope Paul VI then issued the Humanae Vitae in 1968 reaffirming the traditional Catholic position on birth control and rejecting the majority report. It is believed that the Pope was convinced that changing the Catholic position on birth control would call into question the doctrine of papal infallibility.

    None the less, the vast majority of Catholic women in western countries use oral birth control and ignore the church’s teachings.

    I believe the Hobby Lobby owners are evangelicals. The evangelicals were late to the abortion/birth control debate. In the 1960s evangelical leaders did not oppose abortion or birth control and when asked about it they seem to imply those were Catholic issues. In the 1970s the IRS started revoking the tax exempt status of religious schools that refused to integrate. This angered evangelical leaders who decided to become more active in conservative politics. Paul Weyrich and others convinced evangelical leaders that opposition to integration was a losing political issue. They needed an issue that could be framed as a moral crusade to create a strong conservative political movement. Weyrich convinced evangelical leaders to change their position on abortion in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

    Evangelical leaders adopted the Catholic life begins at conception position in the late 1970s. That implied that oral birth control is the same as abortion, but evangelical leaders only talked about abortion. They did not press the issue of birth control and most practicing evangelical women continued to use birth control without realizing their leaders opposed it. It was not until ~2000 or so that some evangelical leaders started to try to convince women members to give up birth control.

    So here we are today. The Catholic church is afraid to change its position on birth control because it might imply that the pope is not infallible and evangelicals changed to the Catholic position as a political strategy designed to create a strong conservative political movement.

    mikeca

    July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

    • Nice fable. Where did you copy this from, Slate, TNR?

      Daniel

      July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

      • This is not a fable.

        Most of the information on evangelical history comes from Randall Balmer, who is a Professor at Dartmouth College and a historian of religion in America. And yes, Randall Balmer is a critic of the religious right.

        The Catholic history comes from vague memories refreshed by checking Wikipedia.

        mikeca

        July 2, 2014 at EDT am

      • mikeca —

        You are correct about some things but you pick your facts. When you talk about evangelicals and segregation, it is true in relation to outliers such as Bob Jones University. The face of evangelical Christianity in America was not Bob Jones University. The face of evangelical Christianity in America was Billy Graham for a massive 50 year stretch from about 1950 until the turn of the century. Wiki Billy Graham. A big part of his history (and he was the closest thing evangelicals have ever had to a head guy) is opposite to what you are saying.

        But you are right about birth control. That was predominantly a Catholic position.

        Dan

        July 2, 2014 at EDT am

      • Billy Graham was the public face of the evangelical movement, but other leaders like Jerry Falwell, were the founders of the religious right. It was when the IRS revoked the tax exempt status of Bob Jones university in 1976 for refusing to integrate, that leaders like Jerry Falwell decided to become more active in conservative politics. Falwell blamed Jimmy Carter for Bob Jones losing its tax exempt status, even though Richard Nixon had established the policy and IRS had revoked Bob Jones tax exempt status more than a year before Carter took office.

        While there were a few evangelical leaders that opposed abortion before the Roe v Wade decision in 1973, most did not. In 1971 the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution encouraging “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” This resolution was re-approved in 1974 and 1976.

        It was the IRS action on tax exempt status of segregated schools that energized the leaders of religious right, but in 1978-9 those evangelical leaders decided to use the issue of abortion to energize the grassroots evangelicals into a conservative political movement.

        mikeca

        July 2, 2014 at EDT pm

    • humanae vitae was not declared ex cathedra. was it?

      at most one might expect that birth control would be changed from a mortal to a venial sin.

      jorge videla

      July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

    • “Vast majority” of Catholic women using oral birth control? I highly doubt this.

      Hell, not even a majority of New York sluts I know are on birth control.

      Renault

      July 2, 2014 at EDT am

  18. This is why the only doctrinal issue i see as 100% binding for christians is the ressurection. everything else is just guesswork

    chainsmoker

    July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

  19. Lion, any comments about soccer?

    The Undiscovered Jew

    July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

    • World Cup = Prole Cup

      JS

      July 2, 2014 at EDT am

      • Soccer is prole over in Europe. Here it’s a SWPL sport. I’m glad America was eliminated so I don’t have to hear more about this stupid sport for another four years.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        July 2, 2014 at EDT pm

  20. I applaud the 5 Catholic justices for purportedly contradicting their established judicial philosophy to arrive at this decision. This is how you fight the left: with any means necessary. Furthermore, I am happy that this case was so explicitly Christian. Christianity is the backbone of our civilization. The left can deny it, but own impulses are Christian in essence, from a warped Christianity but Christian nonetheless. The left will rue the day Christianity withers.

    Daniel

    July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

    • Christianity is a stupid desert cult.

      Foxy

      July 2, 2014 at EDT am

      • At least it builds civilizations. Liberalism is a cult that seeks to pull up civilization at the root.

        Dan

        July 2, 2014 at EDT am

  21. It’s wrong to kill microscopic people. The invisible god says so.

    jef

    July 1, 2014 at EDT pm

    • Cheap shot as it implies the only reasons for opposing abortion is religious.

      CamelCaseRob

      July 2, 2014 at EDT pm

  22. If only birth control had stopped Nicole Hill from coming into the world.

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-detroit-water-20140629-story.html#page=1

    Fo' Shizzle

    July 2, 2014 at EDT am

  23. At the time of Roe v Wade, abortion was legal in most of the South and illegal in most of the Northeast.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Pre-1960s

    Dan

    July 2, 2014 at EDT pm

    • What BS. According to the source you cite, it was “legal on request” in New York, Washington, Alaska and Hawaii. None of those are “the South”. Also, the restrictions back then were real restrictions. Health of the mother did not include financial health and other BS. So, no, it was pretty damned illegal. Regular doctors pretty much did not do it. There were exceptions, but the prevailing attitude was very much against it.

      not too late

      July 3, 2014 at EDT am

      • The northeast was historically more straight-laced and also more Catholic. Progressivism in the early 20th century was even then a northeastern phenomenon, but progressivism was driven by churches then and featured things like prohibition and other morality-based laws. It was these also northern religious progressives that drove the abolition of slavery.

        Its just history, don’t get mad bro.

        Dan

        July 3, 2014 at EDT am


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: