Supreme Court's Lack Of Religious Diversity
The makeup of the current Supreme Court can be seen, in one way, as a big success story for certain minorities. It is a triumph, in fact, for two groups which have historically had to put up with a lot of discrimination and lack of political representation in America. These two groups are not defined by gender or race, but rather by religion. Broken down on religious lines, today's Supreme Court has members from just two religions, both of which had been historically underrepresented on the highest court: Roman Catholics and Jews. There are six Roman Catholics currently serving on the court (Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Sonia Sotomayor, and Clarence Thomas) and three Jews (Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagen). This is undoubtedly a story of rising up from underrepresentation. But, bearing in mind that America is a country with almost too many religions to count, have we actually moved into a problem of overrepresentation or lack of diversity? The question is on my mind today, obviously, as a result of the decision today in the Hobby Lobby contraception case. Three Jewish Justices and one Roman Catholic voted against five other Roman Catholics in a case defining the dividing line between religion and government -- a decision which affects us all.
Even bringing such questions up is a delicate matter. The United States Constitution states quite plainly that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Even if Article VI, paragraph 3 didn't exist, it brings into question the concept of "affirmative action" and the concept of "quotas." All of which have their own long history, pro and con, in America. So allow me to state from the beginning that I am not advocating religious quotas on the Supreme Court in any way. I don't think we should revert to the days when people openly spoke of there being a "Jewish seat" or a "Catholic seat" (note that both are singular) on the Supreme Court. But I still have to wonder, with all the top-notch lawyers in the country, why the current court has such a stunning lack of diversity in the religious realm. I propose no concrete solutions, though, I merely raise the question.
The change in the Supreme Court's makeup is undoubtedly a story of triumph over previous discrimination. Roman Catholics in particular have faced enormous discrimination in American history. There was even briefly a political party (the "Know Nothings" or the "American Party") whose entire agenda was based on being anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic. No other religion has that dubious historical distinction (with the possible exception of the Mormons, who faced equally virulent political discrimination in America's past).
The first Roman Catholic was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1836, but the second and third had to wait until 1894 and 1898. The first Jewish appointment was made in 1916. Since the Constitution was ratified, there have been a grand total of 112 Supreme Court Justices. A full 91 of these (81 percent) have been one flavor of Protestant Christian or another. Only 12 have been Roman Catholic (11 percent), and only 8 have been Jewish (7 percent). Seen in this light, it is pretty stunning that of only 20 Jewish and Roman Catholic Justices in all American history, almost half are now currently serving on the Supreme Court. This, as I mentioned, is a real triumph of minorities who faced a lot of previous discrimination. The equivalent today might be a future Supreme Court composed entirely of women and Latinos (in terms of the political hurdles they have overcome -- I'm not trying to equate religion and either gender or ethnicity, mind you, in any other way than on the scale of struggles faced).
As recently as the 1980s, there was a clear de facto religious quota on the Supreme Court, with one Jew and one Roman Catholic sitting in what was called the "Jewish seat" and the "Catholic seat." There was no law which compelled this, but it was a strong 20th-century political tradition -- one eventually expanded to also include an "African-American seat" and then a "woman's seat." But by the 1990s, even such unacknowledged quotas crumbled, as court members were nominated which fell outside the traditional concept of such minority seats (such as having a conservative African-American on the court, or having more than one woman). Soon the court's age-old Protestant majority shrank as well, until (in 1994) Stephen Breyer's nomination led to the first-ever Protestant minority on the court. By 2010, the last remaining Protestant retired, and the Supreme Court became exclusively Jewish and Roman Catholic.
This brings us up to date. One-third of the Supreme Court is now Jewish, and two-thirds are Roman Catholic. By population, about one-fourth of the American public is Catholic and less than two percent is Jewish. This means that, in terms of religious demographics, 27 percent of the country has 100 percent representation on the Supreme Court. The 50 percent of the country who identify as Protestant have precisely zero representation -- to say nothing of other various religious minorities.
The Supreme Court has had a large degree of success in moving towards greater diversity in the past half-century. Women, in particular, have made great strides. We now have a Latina on the high court as well. In not-so-obvious areas, however, the Supreme Court seems to be regressing noticeably. There is not a single Supreme Court member who didn't attend either Harvard or Yale, for instance. There is not a single member who has ever run for any public office -- which might go a long way to explain their obtuseness when it comes to rulings on campaign finance laws. Both these improvements and these regressions have to be laid at the feet of the presidents making the appointments. Supreme Court Justices are not elected, therefore the makeup of the court is entirely up to the president, who is free to chose any candidate for any reason they wish -- taking into account whether such a person improves diversity on the court in some ways, and removes diversity on the court in other ways.
This is also a result of the "no religious test" idea, enshrined in the Constitution. This concept cuts both ways. It means that even if 90 percent of the people are of one religion, a member of the 10 percent shouldn't be barred from office. But it also means that there is nothing to stop the 10 percent from holding all the available positions, either. If there is really no religious test (instead of de facto religiously-based individual "seats"), then sooner or later, randomly, we should face the situation we now face. If the best candidate for the job is weighed on legal knowledge and judicial temperament alone, and if religion isn't part of that equation whatsoever, then sooner or later we'll have an all-Protestant Supreme Court again (or a court made up of Mormons and Muslims, perhaps). By the laws of chance, the religious makeup of the Supreme Court should fluctuate over time.
But the makeup of the Supreme Court doesn't actually change all that often, so it might be a long time indeed before we see an all-Mormon/Muslim court. Consider that the following religions have never had a single member named to the highest court in the land: Orthodox Christians, Mormons, Pentecostals, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Sikhs (this should only be read as a partial list -- there are many other religions which have also never been represented). No Supreme Court Justice has ever publicly claimed to be an atheist, either.
The claim cannot be made that co-religionists on the Supreme Court vote identically (political position is a much better indicator). The fear when John F. Kennedy ran for president that "he would take orders from the Pope" cannot now be proven by the voting patterns of the current court (while five Roman Catholics voted in Hobby Lobby's favor, one dissented, just to give the most obvious example). There is not a true "Catholic bloc" of votes on the Supreme Court, even when it comes to questions of religion and law -- not in the way that there are reliably conservative and liberal blocs of votes (both currently balanced at four each). So I am not suggesting that the five in the majority voted the way they did because their own religion has strict views on contraception.
Presidents select Supreme Court Justices in order to further their own legal, political, and constitutional philosophies. Ultimately, if the voters want a different makeup on the Court, they will indicate this by the presidents they elect (to put this another way). America has moved beyond forming political parties whose purpose is nothing short of religious bigotry, and we've also moved beyond the undeclared tradition that "this is your religion's single seat on the Supreme Court, so just be happy with one out of nine." This is all to the good. But diversity for diversity's sake is a valid goal as well, because it brings to the table different life experiences, different viewpoints, and different ways of viewing the real-world effects of judicial decisions. Two religions who have historically been in the minority on the Supreme Court (20 out of 112, remember) now not just dominate the court, they exclusively dominate the court. Since religion is a big part of the worldview of any adherent, it doesn't seem too much to ask that future presidents at least consider a wider range of religious diversity when considering equally-acceptable candidates to the highest court in the land.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
There are only seven Justices and they serve for life. Statistically, any real diversity on the court would be an anomaly. The current court, however, is no accident. No triumph of "diversity." Its a direct result of an intentional plot conceived by the Christian religious Right, and executed over the last half century, to pack the court for the specific purpose of imposing their religious beliefs on everyone else. Just as we see occurring today.
It began in the 60's with conservative Christians opposing decisions on abortion and segregation they viewed as impositions by activist judges on traditional Christian values. Impositions they fully intended to stop and reverse.
The result of which we're seeing today. Its no accident that abortion rights, minority voting rights, access to quality education, and the ability of women and ordinary workers to exert control over their own destinies are all being rolled back by the current Court.
This is the purpose these particular Justices were installed to achieve. A return to a semi-mythical time when business owners could control their workers, women and minorities knew their place, and the nation was unashamedly Christian.
America simply wages its religious and cultural wars more circumspectly, and far less openly, or honestly, than the Middle East does.
"A provision in the Affordable Care Act requires corporations to offer insurance plans that meet minimum coverage standards if those corporations take advantage of tax benefits for compensating employees in health insurance, rather than wages."
Hobby Lobby pretends the ACS violates their rights by forcing them to spend their money on procedures they claim to find religiously offensive. The money being spent is compensation in lieu of wages. Its their EMPLOYEES' money NOT Hobby Lobbies.
Hobby Lobby could simply provide the wages to their employees and let THEM decide how to spend it. But Hobby Lobby wants a tax benefit offered to those who comply with federal initiatives without having to comply with the federal initiative.
And, once again, the Court pretends that it makes sense for corporations to reap the benefits offered by government to businesses that comply with government without bring under any obligation to comply with government.--In other words, according to SCOTUS, corporations are entitled to get paid BY us without having to actually do any work FOR us.--And Michale thinks THAT'S the free market!
Even MORE blatantly SCOTUS insists that their ruling applies ONLY to abortion. As if there's s clause in the Constitution establishing that the federal government MUST impose a particular set of religious beliefs on those who do not themselves hold those beliefs!
NOTHING could be more obviously unjust, unreasonable, unconstitutional, or more steeped in religious persecution and right-wing ideology than this travesty of a Supreme Court decision masquerading as an honest interpretation of an objective reading of the Constitution.
There are only seven Justices and they serve for life.
Uhhh... There are nine justices...
Its a direct result of an intentional plot conceived by the Christian religious Right, and executed over the last half century, to pack the court for the specific purpose of imposing their religious beliefs on everyone else. Just as we see occurring today.
I think yer tin foil hat might be a tad too tight there, LD... :D
Hobby Lobby pretends the ACS violates their rights by forcing them to spend their money on procedures they claim to find religiously offensive.
No pretense about it. It's a fact, as the SCOTUS has ruled...
If sex without consequences is so important to people, they can find another company to work for...
Put another way.. If an employee comes to work wearing clothing that would violate the religious sensibilities of the owners of the company, the company could fire that employee.. Or could make their displeasure known by other punitive actions.
If said employee doesn't want to work in such a religious/restrictive environment, then that employee is free to look for other employment with a company more suited to their personality...
The owners have the freedom to run their company as they see fit and the employees have the freedom to leave that employer if the employer's beliefs in how they run the company are not to the employee's liking...
It's all about freedom of choice...
THAT is what the SCOTUS ruling upheld.. It's not about religion..
It's about freedom. And liberty...
Michale
"It's about freedom. And liberty..."
"If said employee doesn't want to work in such a religious/restrictive environment, then that employee is free to look for other employment with a company more suited to their personality..."
As long as they don't get federal tax breaks or any other federal benefits. But of course they want it both ways.
Just like they get to be "individuals" when they want to be able to interfere in people's personal lives but they want to be "corporations" when they got caught doing anything illegal. Because to be a right winger is to always be looking for the get-out-of-jail-free-card. They must be able to pontificate but never pay a price for anything they do. They are the opposite of "taking responsibility" people.
In the end I hope we remove medical benefits from employers altogether. We need single payer and this sort of ruling may help get us there. Right wingers favor anything that enables them to have power over others but they are the least responsible in the wielding of power.
Chris: the fact that there's a lack of diversity on the court IS an issue. I am particularly tired of everyone in power being Ivy League alumns. These people are simply too removed from the life experiences the rest of us have -- which has multiple negative consequences. There's more than one type of bubble and they live encased in several.
Meanwhile, re: religious diversity, America is completely schizophrenic about religion. We have no leaders really making the case for Separation of Church and State anymore; simultaneously, we have extremist fundamentalists and extremist Atheists and everyone in between just puts their heads down and avoiding the discussion. We can't do that anymore. If you avoid the fight the people IN the fight set the terms. Presently the extremist right is setting the terms and pushback has to happen. But pushback has to come from other believers, not from Atheists who simply alienate everyone.
Pushback, a la Moral Mondays, for instance. That's a good movement.
Just like they get to be "individuals" when they want to be able to interfere in people's personal lives
Actually, the OPPOSITE is true.. Holly Lobby wants to be OUT of people's personal lives..
If they want to have consequence free sex, they are going to have to pay for it themselves...
If the employee wants an employer to pay for it, then they can go WORK for an employer that CHOOSES to pay for it...
It's all about freedom of choice...
Michale
Right wingers favor anything that enables them to have power over others but they are the least responsible in the wielding of power.
That is NOT just a purview of the Right Wing, as we have see with Obama and the Democrats...
Which is why the SCOTUS has slapped down Obama's quest for ultimate power over all...
Michale
Michale,
You keep repeating the same lies as Hobby Lobby. Health insurance plans are paid for with employees' WAGES. The employees ARE paying for it. Hobby Lobby wants to dictate how their EMPLOYEES spend their money. They want to dictate what services their EMPLOYEES may purchase and avail themselves of.
Like Hobby Lobby, you keep claiming its Hobby Lobby's money, in order to make the false argument that its about Hobby Lobby's "freedom." It is not. It's about their EMPLOYEES' money and their employees' freedom.
Hobby Lobby doesn't HAVE to to have a corporate charter. They don't HAVE to be exempt from tax penalties. They don't HAVE to do business in the United States. You claim Hobby Libby employees don't HAVE to work for Hobby Lobby, but you think Hobby Lobby "has rights." That's just blind prejudice and hypocrisy. The same blind prejudice displayed by the court.
Hobby Lobby has NO right to impose its beliefs on others. That's what the establishment clause is meant to PREVENT. But SCOTUS, yet again! has ignored and inverted the law to serve its own prejudices. Ruling that the establishment clause REQUIRES government to force others to adhere to Hobby Lobby's religious beliefs, instead of being free to choose and practice their own. SCOTUS simply orders the federal government to establish Christian religious beliefs regarding abortion. In direct contravention of the Constitution's establishment clause PROHIBITING the federal government from establishing ANY religion.
Giving Hobby Lobby power over others isn't preserving freedom its preventing it.
Happy Canada Day, everyone! ICYMI
By the way, if y'all are looking for a truly historic Supreme Court decision this week, then look no further than my fair country.
The Supreme Court of Canada has (FINALLY!) recognized Aboriginal title which will have very important implications for First Nations' land rights across Canada.
You claim Hobby Libby employees don't HAVE to work for Hobby Lobby,
They don't...
but you think Hobby Lobby "has rights."
No.. The OWNERS of Hobby Lobby have rights..
The right to run their business as they see fit...
This is about freedom of choice.. Pure and simple..
You want to give that freedom SOLELY to the employees and TAKE IT AWAY from the owners...
That's just wrong.
Period
Michale
Liz,
ICYMI??
Michale
In case you missed it, which everyone did. :(
AHhhhhh
Well (belated) Happy Canada Day!!
:D
Michale
There's a Hobby Lobby a few miles from my home.
I don't go there often, but when I do, the first thing I notice is that I'm almost always the only male in the place above the age of five. Staff and costumers are almost 100% women. I also notice the store is dingy, poorly lit, badly laid out and that the service is terrible. It's never crowded, even at Christmas,and merchandise isn't exactly flying out the door.
Is it really smart for for this company to pick a fight with a large chunk of its key demographic? I realize it's possible to make a closely held fortune as a retail bottom feeder, but maybe Mr. Green ought to watch a few episodes of Mr. Seldfridge for inspiration.
Is it really smart for for this company to pick a fight with a large chunk of its key demographic?
Most of the women who shop at Hobby Lobby are conservative religious women...
Probably the kinds who would cheer the owners of Hobby Lobby and scorn the women who are interested in consequence free sex...
The company knows it's clientele...
Much like Cracker Barrel knew it's clientele when it reversed itself over the Duck Dynasty broo haa haa...
Michale
Michale,
Employers have no right to decide how other peoples money is spent. You and SCOTUS want to give them that right. Its not about taking a right from them. They've never had any such right. That's why you all keep claiming its Hobby Lobby's money. Because if it were they would have the right to decide how its used.
But it isn't their money. And they have no right to decide. This isn't about protecting the owners freedom. Its about taking away the employees freedom to make their own decisions about their own money and their own healthcare.
LD,
We're not talking about salary..
That's where your argument falls apart..
Michale
Oh but it is salary Michale. It's compensation for labor performed. The Gov't has set certain minimum standards for such compensation.
It's obvious that you're ignorant of the history behind this kind of health-care, but I'll explain so at least you'll learn SOMETHING. Essentially, in ww2 the gov't put caps on the monetary portion of salary compensation. This was so the ball bearing factory couldn't steal workers from the rifle factory down the street by offering higher base pay.
But since companies are sneaky buggers, they decided to offer a slightly different from of compensation. Insurance plans that workers would have otherwise had to turn their money into, in order to participate in the health care marketplace. There really wasn't a difference between these plans and cold hard cash, these plans have monetary value after all and were and are an integral part of any compensation plan. But they allowed the ball bearing plant to poach workers from the rifle factory without breaking the law.
And so 70 odd years later were stuck with a system in which necessary healthcare is provided through your employer as part of your compensation and pay.
The really screwed up part is that hobby lobby has been around since 1972 and provided coverage for these forms of birth control until Obamacare was passed and put into effect in 2009 or so. So not only are they johnny come latelys to their "sincere" religious beliefs. Those beliefs are based in utter and total ignorance. Alito even acknowledge it in his argument! He knows and says that these forms of birth control are not abortifacients. They don't meet the scientific and medical standards for such a definition. But if we just told them that, we would be considering their religious beliefs to not be "valid." Which yah, no shit, it's not valid, it's just fucking ignorant.
The legal implications for that single line of text are just incredibly vast. Any sort of foolish bullshit is now exempted from ANY sort of commonsense regulation. Have a "sincere" religious belief that ex-cops from Florida should be banned from participating in weigantia? ( :-P ) Well good news Lew-Dan, Alito just gave that the full protection of the constitution.
Now I pick an obviously stupid and insincere belief, because that's exactly what this hobby lobby case was really about. There is no test, procedure, or even a basic level of coherence required to gain special exemption from federal law now. You were a cop Michale, can you begin to think through the unintended consequences of this, especially in regard to how humans always take advantage of loopholes?
http://www.atlbanana.com/supreme-court-upholds-little-caesars-right-to-feed-christian-employees-to-lions/
Thanks, Michale!!
"Most of the women who shop at Hobby Lobby are conservative religious women..."
Hard to say, religious affiliation wasn't tattooed on the backs of their necks.
Heh.
YoYo,
Oh but it is salary Michale. It's compensation for labor performed.
If it were salary, it would be paid as such...
If it's compensation then the employer has the right to put stipulations on such compensation..
It's a moot point. The SCOTUS has ruled and, until the SCOTUS rules a different way, it's the law of the land..
TS,
Hard to say, religious affiliation wasn't tattooed on the backs of their necks.
But it's true, nonetheless...
Michale
YoYo,
The attempt to go reducto ad absurdum has been long expected.. I am actually surprised it took this long.. :D
But you obviously have not read the ruling of the SCOTUS.
I have so allow me to summarize..
Basically, the ruling states that the religious freedom of the owners of Hobby Lobby trumps the desire of the employees to have consequence free sex without having to pay for it...
In other words, it's a BIGGER violation to remove the choice of the Hobby Lobby owners than it would be to make someone else pay for the consequence free sex of the employees of Hobby Lobby..
Now, using your absurd example regarding ex-cops in FL and Weigantia (which I DID find hilarious, by the bi.. :D) would the owner's alleged religious beliefs against logic trump said ex-cops First Amendment rights???
Probably not...
Would the "freedom" of the owners of Little Caesers to feed Christian employees to the lions trump the "freedom" of the Christian employees to live??
More assuredly, probably not..
This SCOTUS ruling is not the all-encompassing sky-is-falling ruling ya'all are making it out to be..
It's narrowly tailored to a specific case. And in THIS specific case, the SCOTUS ruled that the rights of the owners to run their business in accordance with their religious beliefs trumps the "rights" of the employees to have consequence free sex without having to pay for it...
And if ya'all could take a step back from ya'alls hysterical partisan ideology, ya'all would see the logic of the ruling..
But nooooo..... Obama got his pee-pee whacked and ya'all just have to break out the torches, scythes and pitchforks and march on the SCOTUS building like an angry mob... :D
Ya'all go on and on about freedom, liberty and diversity..
But ya'all simply REFUSE to allow other's THEIR freedom and THEIR liberty..
Newsflash for ya, sunshine.. That AIN'T diversity... That's anti-diversity.. That's conformity..
And conformity is what ya'all are REALLY all about..
"Believe as we do or you will be attacked, vilified and demonized. Hail the Messiah!! Hail the One!! Hail Obama!!"
Sorry, YY...
That's a bike I simply will not ride... :D
Michale
It's a moot point. The SCOTUS has ruled and, until the SCOTUS rules a different way, it's the law of the land..
In other words, the debate is settled...
Move on....
Michale
In other words, the debate is settled...
Move on....
It's annoying when some ignorant arrogant prick arbitrarily proclaims that debate is finished and discussion is no longer permissible..
Annoying as hell, iddn't it?? :D
Michale
Right, Michale,
The debate over abortion is over because Roe v Wade has been "the law of the land" for forty years!--Oh, wait! Supreme Court decisions are only "the law of land," and "debates" are only "settled," if wingers get what they want. Right, Michale?
"the law of land," and "debates" are only "settled," if wingers get what they want. Right, Michale?
You tell me..
That's the argument you Left "wingers" use on so many issues...
Michale
Tedium ad nauseam ...
Hey you two ... why don't you make yourselves useful and tell me if you both see that the comments section for the new OBW column posted yesterday has been turned 'OFF'?
Or, is that just for my benefit. That was a little joke.
LizM -
Thanks for the heads-up. I goofed, when I posted it. Comments have now been turned on...
-CW
OK, sorry for the delays, folks, meant to answer these before now. So let's dig in.
LewDan [1] -
I think you meant "nine" not "seven"... at least, in this century...
:-)
I would put it slightly differently:
In the age of Reagan, the Christian Right focused on the federal judiciary with a passion, likely as a direct result of the futility of full-frontal assaults on Roe v. Wade. They convinced the Republican Party that the way to ultimately win the social wars was to pack the courts with as many ultra-conservative judges as they could -- and (this was the new, key thing) with the youngest conservative judges they could find -- to stretch out their influence.
They began to see success under Reagan and the first Bush. This plan was turbocharged under the second Bush. Democrats were caught off guard, and have only recently been copying the political tactic. The balance right now leans towards a conservative judiciary, but if Democrats keep winning the White House, this could swing back in the next 10 years or so.
In the same vein, but slightly different.
[2] -
What gets me is how the decision reads a lot like Bush v. Gore in a way -- they're attempting to say "this ruling shouldn't be cited as a precedent for ANYthing else," which shows how weak their own legal reasoning must surely be.
Michale [3] -
You're making the same mistake a lot of liberal commenters are making: it's not about "sex without consequences" since Hobby Lobby is OK with paying for birth control in their insurance. They just objected to a few forms of it -- it wasn't as wide-sweeping an objection as you may think. Like I said, you're not alone, many liberals read the same thing into the case. Further cases will likely further define things, but still...
Paula [4] -
I almost wrote a whole article about the double-standard of the "corporate veil" but thought it might be too esoteric. Corporate officers and owners are allowed to create the legal fiction of a corporation, so they can't be individually sued for the corporation's actions... but then they can impose their own religious beliefs on the corporation. Clear double standard.
It will be ironic indeed if Democrats ever manage to create "single payer contrception coverage," won't it? Hey, gotta remain optimistic! There could eventually be a silver lining...
:-)
Yeah, I threw that thing in there about Yale and Harvard just to see if it annoyed anyone else. Glad it did. Historically, we've had lots of "regular people" on the court, include (gasp!) many non-lawyers. Maybe that's the kind of diversity we need now.
[5] -
I get your point about Moral Mondays, but I also note that atheists seem to be growing in numbers, and "spoof religions" are making interesting inroads (such as Pastafarians and the guy with the Festivus Pole down in Florida). So maybe things will get more interesting in the courts, who knows? The original Religious Freedom Act (the one cited in the Hobby Lobby decision) concerned Native Americans taking peyote, so it's more complicated than it seems on the surface.
LewDan [8] -
The hypocrisy that gets me is Hobby Lobby doing so much business with China, where abortion and "one child" policies seem to conflict with their religious beliefs. Also, the fact that HL was heavily invested in the companies which provide the very things they went to court to prevent their employees from receiving. If it was so all-fired powerful a religious issue, wouldn't they have refused to do business with China, or divested themselves from making money off of evil drug companies? "Abortifactients are OK for us to make money off of, as long as we don't allow our employees to buy any" isn't exactly a moral mountain to preach from, is it?
LizM -
And a happy (belated) Canada Day to you! Please post a link to that Aboriginal story, it sounds interesting.
Oh, and a totally unrelated personal question: have you ever read the kids' book "Paddle To The Sea"?
Anyone? I'm interested....
Michale [10] -
Except when their religious beliefs about the way they run their business conflict with society. Should a business owner be allowed to refuse to pay for blood transfusions in their employees' insurance plans, because of their religious beliefs? Just curious.
YoYoTheAssyrian [18] -
That is the best explanation of how health insurance came to be tied to salary in America that I have EVER read. Great example, great imagery, just fantastic all around.
Just had to say that...
:-)
Michale [23] -
It's a moot point. The SCOTUS has ruled and, until the SCOTUS rules a different way, it's the law of the land.
Just had to congratulate you on the precision of your language. That is indeed right. The Hobby Lobby decision is now constitutional, because SCOTUS says it is. In the future, they may say differently (or we could even pass a constitutional amendment changing it). But until that happens, it is indeed the law of the land.
We can disagree on whether any court decision is a good or bad thing, but again, I salute the precision of your statement.
[24] -
Spoke too soon, it seems. Get off your obsession with "consequence free sex" (and in any case, the Grammar Policeman in me would demand "consequence-free sex"... hmmph). HL is still paying for contraception -- lots and lots of contraception -- for its workers. It just won't be paying for Plan B, ella, and IUDs. That's quite a different thing than your sweeping "consequence free sex" claim. Let's tighten up that language a bit, shall we?
:-)
You even later make the "narrow decision" argument in your comment, and this is just detracting from that argument...
[25] -
In other words, the debate is settled...
You forgot the coda to that statement: "...for the time being."
:-)
LewDan [27] -
Oh, SNAP! Good one, on Roe v. Wade being "over"...
:-)
Holy moley, I made it to the end! Woo hoo!
Awaiting everyone's responses, and again apologies for the delay.
-CW
General comment -
I have to say, while writing this, I felt I was walking a real tightrope -- pointing out "the majority has lost all representation" is a touchy point, for many (for many reasons). Did anyone have any basic objections to the subject matter? I have to wonder...
-CW
Chris,
Thanks! And, a very happy Fourth of July to you and all Weigantians!!
As for the recognition of Aboriginal title by the Supreme Court of Canada, here is the link to the decision.
I'm not all the way through it yet but, it has been some very interesting reading!
http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/14246/1/document.do
You're making the same mistake a lot of liberal commenters are making: it's not about "sex without consequences" since Hobby Lobby is OK with paying for birth control in their insurance.
True, I just discovered that myself.. I'll have to retool my argument..
Except when their religious beliefs about the way they run their business conflict with society. Should a business owner be allowed to refuse to pay for blood transfusions in their employees' insurance plans, because of their religious beliefs? Just curious.
Comment #24 outlines that.. Not that your response is reducto ad absurdum, but the gist still applies.
One must balance the each parties involvement and the consequences to each party...
That was my point about this not be a far-reaching precedent. The SCOTUS narrowly tailored their ruling to this particular case...
This ruling isn't the end-of-the-world ruling that Lefties are trying to make it out to be...
We can disagree on whether any court decision is a good or bad thing, but again, I salute the precision of your statement.
Danke.... :D
Michale
You're making the same mistake a lot of liberal commenters are making: it's not about "sex without consequences" since Hobby Lobby is OK with paying for birth control in their insurance.
It's also interesting to note that Hobby Lobby's starting pay for new troops is TWICE the minimum wage...
So, for the Lefties who claim that Hobby Lobby is evil incarnate because of their religious beliefs??
ppppffffffffttttttttttttt :D
I have also retooled my argument.
Michale
Except when their religious beliefs about the way they run their business conflict with society. Should a business owner be allowed to refuse to pay for blood transfusions in their employees' insurance plans, because of their religious beliefs? Just curious.
I am also constrained to point out that there HAVE been court rulings (although perhaps not SCOTUS rulings) where blood transfusions and other medical care vs religious convictions has been an issue..
And in MANY of those rulings, the courts sided with the "religious convictions" argument..
Further, I have to wonder what the reactions from the Left would be if Hobby Lobby was run by Muslims...
Lefties fall all over themselves to make sure Muslims have complete freedom to practice their religion in any and every way possible...
Apparently, such considerations do not apply to their fellow Americans who are christians..
Funny how that is, eh?? :^/
Michale
The funniest response to the Left's inane and totally baseless claim that the Hobby Lobby ruling means that politics are in people's bedrooms..
"Get your politics out of my bedroom!"
"Not a problem. I'm just going to grab my wallet before I leave."
"The wallet stays, bigot."
No one has a problem with women have access to contraception..
We're just saying they are going to have to pay for it themselves...
"I don't blame people for their mistakes, Dennis. But I do insist that they pay for them."
-John Hammond, JURASSIC PARK
Michale
Oddly enough, a great way to prevent employers from making health care decisions for their employees is to not pass laws requiring employers to make health care decisions for their employees. Crazy, right?
You simply CAN'T make this stuff up.. :D
Michale
Something Paula said above has really been percolating with me and I think the boil has finally coalesced...
To whit, that the Hobby Lobby ruling of the SCOTUS might be a GOOD thing because it could lead to getting Health Insurance out from the Employee/Employer market which could, in turn, lead to Single Payer..
So, if this is true (and I see no fault with her logic) then it seems to me that the Left should EMBRACE the SCOTUS ruling....
This, then, lead me to analyze exactly WHY is the Left castigating the ruling since it actually has the very real potential of leading to one of the Left's holy grail...
And the answer is clear...
PARTY LOYALTY.....
Even if an action has the possible effect of actually furthering the Party Agenda, the Party requires that it's minions oppose the action...
In other words, NO compromise is possible because the Party on the Left is Black on the Right Side and White on the Left Side and the Party on the Right is Black on the Right Side and White on the Left Side....
Michale
36: No one has a problem with women have access to contraception..
We're just saying they are going to have to pay for it themselves...
As LewDan keeps reiterating, people ARE paying for it themselves. They pay for it as part of their salary/benefits IF the insurance comes through their employer, or they pay for it out of pocket, like I do with my new health insurance purchased through via the Exchange.
When the Employer decides he can step in and tell people what coverage they may or may not have because of his personal views he is overstepping. He is now interfering is someone else's personal decision-making; he is now imposing his sanctimonious-fake-morality (which, as Chris mentioned above, causes them to refuse American women contraception while greedily doing business in China - the land of Abortion) -- and he is using his position of power to do it. Furthermore, he is assuming all use of contraception is about sex, as opposed to other medical needs, not that it's his fucking business whether it's about sex or not. They need to get their nosy prurient heads out of other people's sex-lives. And every time you, Michale, ponce about what women "should" or "shouldn't" have via health insurance you show yourself to be just another rightwing dick who thinks he should be able to tell women at large how they need to live their sexual and medical lives and IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
I don't care one bit what you or Hobby Lobby or Scalito or anyone else thinks about contraception. It is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. And to assert it should be exempted or removed from medical insurance -- you who it affects only indirectly -- indicates that you think you have the right to tell me what to do in my private life and you do not.
It's clear we have to have a major debate about separation of church and state because these people and their tools in the courts have forgotten what the principle is and why it is of fundamental importance.
The fact that this may help lead to single-payer does not change the fact that the point of view represented by Hobby Lobby and Scalito is full of crap and needs to be decried from the rooftops.
As LewDan keeps reiterating, people ARE paying for it themselves. They pay for it as part of their salary/benefits IF the insurance comes through their employer, or they pay for it out of pocket, like I do with my new health insurance purchased through via the Exchange.
And because it IS as compensation and not straight salary and the business has to put THEIR money into it, the business gets a say on how the employee is going to spend the businesses money..
You want the business out of the picture??
Then quit making the business IN the picture..
large how they need to live their sexual and medical lives and IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
Your guy Obama MADE it my business when he expected me, as a taxpayer, to pay for it..
I don't care one bit what you or Hobby Lobby or Scalito or anyone else thinks about contraception. It is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
Obama MADE it my business, Hobby Lobby's business and everyone else's business...
If the employees want those kinds of contraceptives, THEY should pay for them..
That is as simple as it gets....
Michale
"Get your politics out of my bedroom!"
"Not a problem. I'm just going to grab my wallet before I leave."
"The wallet stays, bigot."
Guess what??
AIN'T gonna happen..
Michale
Regardless of how you feel about it, Paula, the SCOTUS has ruled..
It's the law of the land..
Ya know?? Like they ruled to make TrainWreckCare the law of the land??
Are you claiming they got it right then, but got it wrong now??
How convenient, eh?? :D
Michale
Paula,
Per YOUR story, here is what is happening..
The Hobby Lobby employee is actually making money, not insurance...
The employee is taking that "money" and giving it BACK to Hobby Lobby and saying, "I want you to pay for abortion causing drugs with this money I am giving you."
Hobby Lobby is saying, "Sorry, that is against our religion.. You will have to use YOUR money that you DON'T give back to us to pay for this drugs.."
Put it even a better way.. My oldest son and youngest daughter gives me their money and asks me to go buy cigarettes for them..
Me, being the anti-smoking nazi I am, refuse. I say, "I know it's your money, but I refuse to help you use it to kill yourselves"...
They roll their eyes and go buy their own cigarettes....
With Hobby Lobby, it's the SAME EXACT thing...
"I realize that this is your 'money' (compensation) but we will not help you go to hell by spending it for you on what you want."
-Hobby Lobby owners
Now, I don't agree with Hobby Lobby's position just as you might not agree with my position vis a vis my kids and their smoking..
But it is MY RIGHT to HAVE that position and NO ONE has the right to tell me different..
So it is with Hobby Lobby...
Hobby Lobby is no more "interfering" with their employee's rights to have those drugs any more than I am "interfering" with my kids' right to smoke...
Hobby Lobby, like me, is simply saying, "We will not be a party to it in any way, shape or form"...
Michale
Michale:
If we have insurance then we have insurance. At that point, it isn't your business or your right to decide what does or doesn't get covered. You don't like it, opt out altogether and take your chances. You opt in, you get insurance from anywhere, then you accept what people who actually know something about it decide is is important for people's health.
You don't get to pick and choose in order to satisfy your side's sexual obsessions. In addition, it's none of your business. It's not about the money. You know it's not about the money. It's about power over women and a bunch of right wing panty sniffers getting off on hurting women. You use the "wallet" as the excuse -- makes you feel all virtuous, but it's bullshit and you know it.
Obama didn't make it his business. As usual you personalize it and act like Obama sat there and drafted the law all by himself. The ACA is a sprawling collection of things of which this is a small part. His mistake was letting the religious right have any say whatsoever. He should never have gone the route of making exceptions for any religious groups with respect to contraception as they have no standing in people's personal lives or decision-making.
Oh yeah, it's the twisted law of the land for the moment as the result of the legal contortions by Scalito and his dudes but it is bullshit nonetheless. Naturally as a repub you are happy with "nah, nah, nah, we got to force it on you coz we couldn't convince any other way and force is our favorite approach anyway" but it is still bullshit.
You and your wallet - please.
So it is with Hobby Lobby...
Hobby Lobby is no more "interfering" with their employee's rights to have those drugs any more than I am "interfering" with my kids' right to smoke...
Hobby Lobby, like me, is simply saying, "We will not be a party to it in any way, shape or form"...
And, as I have pointed out ad nasuem, the SCOTUS has AFFIRMED Hobby Lobby's right to say EXACTLY that....
I am still waiting for the SCOTUS to rule on me and my kids... :D
Michale
If we have insurance then we have insurance. At that point, it isn't your business or your right to decide what does or doesn't get covered.
Ahhh, but it IS the entity's right who is PAYING for it to decide...
THAT is what your TrainWreckCare has allowed...
Obama didn't make it his business. As usual you personalize it and act like Obama sat there and drafted the law all by himself. The ACA is a sprawling collection of things of which this is a small part.
And YET....
It's NOT called A-Sprawling-Collection-Of-Things- Of-Which-This-Is-A-Small-Part-Care....
It's called OBAMA-Care...
THAT makes it Obama's fault..
Just like ya'all call the First Iraq War, "Bush's War" even though Democrats had more to do with it than Bush...
You want politics out of your bedroom??
Go buy your own cigarettes... :D
Michale
For 32
CW- I thought that it was great subject matter...
I was a little disappointed at the minor mention of the Harvard and Yale thing, I think that the educational system is also key to forming certain biases as well....and it is just plain irritating.
The other interesting thing I notice is a lack of diversity in forms of practice. The current court is comprised of individuals that are "institutional" attorneys who have been practicing the art of bureaucracy vs. other prior justices that have had time in small firms or served as prosecutors on the local level.
I think that this bias manifests itself in the trend the court has to rule in favor of large institutional bureaucratic concepts vs ruling in favor of the individual.
Just my 2 cents...
(47) It's NOT called A-Sprawling-Collection-Of-Things- Of-Which-This-Is-A-Small-Part-Care....
It's called OBAMA-Care...
That's your argument? Even for you, that's weak.
Kinda like how rightwingers don't actually know how various birth control methods work -- yet feel they should not only opine about them but decide who gets to use them.
Politics are in our bedroom because righties spend all their mental time there, vicariously living through the imagined sex they think other people are having. ( When they aren't busily having affairs while decrying the affairs of others.)
I think you will find Michale, that this rightwing "victory" will be short-lived and pyrrhic. One of the biggest outcomes is the massive exposure, yet again, of the underlying misogyny that motivates the right, as well as the sexual obsessiveness and latent sadism at work. You guys come off looking really, really unattractive on every level. (But then we all know lefties make better lovers, which is one of the reasons righties are always so pissed :-)
I think you will find Michale, that this rightwing "victory" will be short-lived and pyrrhic.
Shall we revisit the question on 5 or 6 November and see who was right and who was not??? :D
Michale
It's a simple point.
If you don't want the courts deciding what happens in your bedroom, then quit asking everyone and their uncle to PAY for what happens in your bedroom..
You want to use your choice of contraception??
Fine..
PAY FOR IT YOURSELF....
Quit trying to drag *MY* wallet into YOUR bedroom...
It's a simple enough concept... It surely is not rocket science...
Michale
"I want my employer to pay for my lunch. It pays me money and I can buy lunch with that, but I want my employer to pay for my lunch. My employer won't pay for my lunch. I guess I am going to starve. Woe is me. So hungry but my employer won't buy me lunch."
-Typical Leftist/Liberal/Progressive
:D
Michale
So....
You want to use your choice of contraception??
Fine..
PAY FOR IT YOURSELF....
Quit trying to drag *MY* wallet into YOUR bedroom...
Boner pills and vasectomies are not dragging "MY" wallet into "YOUR" bedroom how?
Boner pills and vasectomies are not dragging "MY" wallet into "YOUR" bedroom how?
Those are not provided completely free of charge.. Men have a co-pay...
It's only WOMEN's contraception that is completely free of charge..
Fair, right??
NOT!!
Michale
Boner pills and vasectomies are not dragging "MY" wallet into "YOUR" bedroom how?
Regardless, the point of the ruling is NOT whether what insurance should cover what...
The point of this ruling is should an American be compelled to do something that violates their beliefs??
My kids/smoking analogy is a perfect example..
It would be LUDICROUS for a court to rule that, because it's the kids own money, the father MUST take action that said father is philosophically or religiously opposed to..
So it is with Hobby Lobby.. It's ridiculous to force an American to be party to an action that they are philosophically or religiously opposed to, simply because it's (allegedly) the employee's own "money"....
Let the employee buy their own cigarettes.. Or buy their own lunch.. Or buy their own birth control...
Michale
Michale [55],
That is an insane argument. This country compelled people to serve in the military whether they had religious objections or not for decades.
If you're not willing to act as someone's agent and spend their money on what they want your other choice is to return the money and not be their agent. It is not to spend their money on only what you want instead, and expect to be paid for acting as their agent.
Michale,
You insist on making dishonest arguments because you have no legitimate arguments. No one is asking you to pay for anything. No one is asking Hobby Lobby to pay for anything. Workers work to earn the wages to pay for their healthcare. It their money. Not yours. Not Hobby Lobby's. It should be spent on what they want and need. Not what Hobby Lobby wants.
And why shouldn't people have consequence free sex? That's the whole problem with Conservatives. You want to impose consequences for behaviors of others that are none of your damn business.
Michale [44],
Do you still expect to get paid by your kids for buying cigarettes when you refuse do do so, or to give them back their money? Because that's Hobby Lobby's position.
They want the tax break for providing healthcare without having to provide the minimum care required, demanding the right to spend their employees money on what Hobby Lobby wants.
Employers are not their employees parents. They are not their guardians. They have entered into a contract in which people have agreed to provide personal services for valuable compensation. No one has contracted to have Hobby Lobby run their lives.
And if Hobby Lobby has moral objections to acting as their employees agent then they've no right to have employees. The government represents the people. The people have established minimum wage requirements. Employers do not have a right to dictate the terms of compensation. Its a negotiation. A negotiation in which the starting position for employees is the minimum wage.
You seem to think "freedom" is employers doing whatever the hell they choose, and employees having no rights at all. Employment, like any other business agreement, is a contract. There is no right to an agreement. If employers find the terms unacceptable, they can do without employees. That is their right. Not demanding that employees capitulate to what employers want.
This country compelled people to serve in the military whether they had religious objections or not for decades.
Two words..
Conscientious Objector... :D
You insist on making dishonest arguments because you have no legitimate arguments. No one is asking you to pay for anything. No one is asking Hobby Lobby to pay for anything. Workers work to earn the wages to pay for their healthcare. It their money.
If it's THEIR money, then how is Hobby Lobby involved???
Because TrainWreckCare says they must be involved..
And, since Hobby Lobby is (BY CRAPPY LAW) involved, they have a say in the matter..
So says the SCOTUS...
And so says logic and common sense.
The fact that it is their money is irrelevant, just as the fact that it's my kids' money is irrelevant...
*I* will not be a party to my kids buying cigarettes..
*HOBBY LOBBY* will not be a party to paying for their employees abortion causing drugs..
It's THAT simple...
And if Hobby Lobby has moral objections to acting as their employees agent then they've no right to have employees.
Oh bullshit...
If employees have a problem with the religious objections of Hobby Lobby, they can go get another job..
Has ANY employee of Hobby Lobby complained??
None... Zero... Zilch... Nada.....
Once again, Liberals are sticking their nose where it is not wanted nor needed..
Michale
And if Hobby Lobby has moral objections to acting as their employees agent then they've no right to have employees.
So, what you are saying is that people with religious convictions can't own businesses and can't run businesses according to those convictions??
The Supreme Court Of The United States said:
BULLSHIT.....
That's the law.. Deal with it..
Michale
That's the law.. Deal with it..
ya know??
The "LAW"..
That thing ya claim to cherish when it supports yer political ideology and agenda.. :D
"Mister 'I AM DA LAW'..."
-Rob Schneider, JUDGE DREDD
:D
Michale
Michale
Yes, Michale, I'm saying people with religious objections to operating businesses in accordance with US law have no right own businesses. You wingers think you've a right to compel others to do what you want. Your right to practice your religion means you have a right to decide your own actions and beliefs. Not those of others.
If the people of this country set minimum standards for businesses, whether its, for wages, location, construction, safety, or anything else, your right to operate a business is only within those parameters. Because business, by definition, involves people other than yourself. Your individual rights are not rights to engage in business with others in any way you choose.
You're quick to claim business owners have a right to associate and cooperate. But you're always trying to deny workers the same right. You claim businesses have a right to dictate terms and if workers don't like them they can go elsewhere. But when workers dictate terms, suddenly businesses have "rights" to reject them and still do business.
Fascism is not capitalism. Exploitation is not a right.--So, yes, if you won't abide by the rules you've no right to do business. If you won't pay the minimum wage workers demand you've no right to workers.
And, as I've said many times, SCOTUS is NOT the law. These blatantly unconstitutional opinions only underscore that. Forty years after Roe v Wade Conservatives are still going to court to try to stop women from having access to anything they consider abortion. You, of course, insist that anyone who disagrees with you should just shut up because you, like all conservatives, are all about forcing others to do what you want.
When you break the law the law is just supposed to be ignored. SCOTUS is breaking the law. The Constitution is the law, not SCOTUS. There is nothing in the constitution about closely held corporations. Corporations are not people. They have no constitutional rights. SCOTUS inventing constitutional rights is illegal
and unconstitutional. Its against the law, not the law of the land. And I have no intention of accepting it just because you'd find it convenient since you have no rational argument on the merits the case.