Hobby Lobby or How I Chose God Over Country

[guido911]

Your opinion is not widely shared.

Oh really. I am sure those people that liked Plessy v. Ferguson or Dred Scott are among those.

[heironymouspasparagus]

The judicial restraint argument both diminishes the role of one-third of our federal government, and further ignores the accomplishments the S.C. made in the face of the failure in the other two.

Especially the accomplishment of defining a paper entity as a human being.  VERY accomplished!!!

In the face of the other two NOT defining paper entities as humans....


Dred Scott and Plessey just prove how horribly wrong the SC can be....just like they are this time.

[AquaMan]

Oh really. I am sure those people that liked Plessy v. Ferguson or Dred Scott are among those.

Another opinion not widely shared. And for those who didn't view the link, a salient paragraph...

"To most people, the decision looks stupid 'cause corporations are not persons, all the legal mumbo jumbo notwithstanding. The decision looks misogynistic because the majority were all men. It looks partisan because all were appointed by a Republican. The decision looks religiously motivated because each member of the majority belongs to the Catholic church, and that religious organization is opposed to contraception. While "looks" don't matter to the logic of the law (and I am not saying the Justices are actually motivated by such things), all of us know from experience that appearances matter to the public's acceptance of the law.*"

I am aware of how you ignore points that others make and prefer to travel down different paths to avoid recognizing them. Truth is that the decision is not a strong one and could have easily not been considered by the court till there was a stronger consensus. Truth is that 5 male, Catholic, republican appointed justices, that may be considered activist, made this 5/4 political decision. Now it will be revisited.

[guido911]

I am aware of how you ignore points that others make and prefer to travel down different paths to avoid recognizing them. Truth is that the decision is not a strong one and could have easily not been considered by the court till there was a stronger consensus. Truth is that 5 male, Catholic, republican appointed justices, that may be considered activist, made this 5/4 political decision. Now it will be revisited.

Are you freakin kidding me? You just ignored the FACTS about judicial restraint, offered no opinion other than those of others, and you call me out? Do you even know what judicial restraint is? That said, the S.C. not meddling with nearly 200 years of precedent that "corporations are people" is not activism at all. That a person's religious freedoms are not lost merely because they incorporate should not be all that foreign/activist either. Before you comment again, read the Hobby Lobby case. You know, the one written by those five males, and objected to by all three females on the court. Because those three, appointed by dems, were not slightly politically motivated. 

All you are doing is complaining about a case, and grabbing on to some philosophy that advances your complaint. And while you at it, "google" judicial activism cases, and then let everyone in hear the most popular examples of that practice you abhor. Here's starter, Brown v. Board of Education.

[AquaMan]

No, I'm not freakin' kidding you. No, I'm not calling you out. Yes, I feel certain that judicial restraint is as it implies. No, except in the SC and the weird minds of atty's is a corporation a person. Yes, it is activism when law is interpreted to justify your beliefs as well as when mine are interpreted to support my beliefs irregardless of the intent of lawmakers or the constitution. Whose religious freedoms? Mine, as a Christian, certainly didn't feel lost by the ACA.

Before you post again, use some common sense and stop thinking like a lawyer. Comprehension is the key word here. Gas knows, appearance is reality for most folks. That's what the article spoke to.  Irony is another good word for you. You don't think the 5 Catholic men who voted for this decision were influenced by politics and religion? But you think the three Democratic appointees were? So, justice is dependent on which party can appoint the most judges?

All you are doing is grabbing on to a philosophy that advances your agenda. BTW genius, I never said I was against all judicial activism or any for that matter. Merely made the point that it may be the very thing conservatives have railed about for decades. You made an assumption not in evidence.

Yeah, Brown was such a tragedy.

[heironymouspasparagus]

All you are doing is complaining about a case, and grabbing on to some philosophy that advances your complaint. And while you at it, "google" judicial activism cases, and then let everyone in hear the most popular examples of that practice you abhor. Here's starter, Brown v. Board of Education.

So you think separate education as practiced in this country at the time was 'equal'.  As in section 1 of the 14th...
And the SC "calling out" the previous court on Plessy was wrong?



Let's see if I can get a straight answer here, this time...

[AquaMan]

H, since we're talking about infallible decisions by infallible, incorruptible supreme courts who Guido seems to think operate with divine guidance, how about the 1922 Major League Baseball exemption from the Sherman Anti-trust act making it the only sport to be considered a game and therefore not a monopoly. From no less than Oliver Wendell Holmes. Of course we all know MLB is not a monopoly.  Later courts thought that Congress should address the issue in legislation rather than being decided by the supremes. Imagine that. They deferred to Congress and diminished one third of the federal government.

Holmes' ruling was in keeping with other lower-court rulings from the era that stressed baseball's status as a game. (One judge who'd taken this position, Kenesaw Mountain Landis, was tapped as the sport's commissioner.) Over time, however, the ruling came to be widely regarded as flawed, as the Constitution's "commerce clause" was increasingly used as grounds for the government to regulate a range of dealings that had once been deemed off-limits to the feds. The court itself decreed, in other contexts, that exhibitions that crossed state lines were subject to federal control. Yet it had in effect rendered Major League Baseball exempt from antitrust law.

The Supreme Court had a chance to revisit its decision in 1953, when it heard arguments in Toolson v. New York Yankees. The case concerned George Toolson, whom the Yankees had reassigned from their minor-league Newark franchise to another team. Toolson sued, claiming that the reserve clause in his contract violated antitrust laws. But the high court stood by its 1922 decision. It stated that if Congress had disagreed with the earlier ruling, it would (or should) have introduced new laws in the interim. "We think," the court wrote in an unsigned 7-2 opinion, "that if there are evils in this field which now warrant application of it to the antitrust laws, it should be by legislation."  
David Greenburg, Slate 2002

[guido911]

So you think separate education as practiced in this country at the time was 'equal'.  As in section 1 of the 14th...
And the SC "calling out" the previous court on Plessy was wrong?



Let's see if I can get a straight answer here, this time...

[heironymouspasparagus]

So what you are saying is that, as usual, you have no direct answer of your own....merely deflection and dissemination....  I gotta go to law school so I can get some formal training on that!!

[Gaspar]

The Hobby Lobby case may end up being meaningless.  Things are not going so well for the government in Halbig v Sebelius.  If Halbig wins, there will be no federal subsidies for any state using the federal exchange (most of them).  The existing language of the ACA states that the subsidies are only available to states who set up their own exchanges.  No such provisions exist for states on the federal exchange. Probably should have read the bill.

[guido911]

So what you are saying is that, as usual, you have no direct answer of your own....merely deflection and dissemination....  I gotta go to law school so I can get some formal training on that!!

You just do not get the point of this silly judicial restraint/activism issue. If you like judicial restraint, which was the point of that article linked to above, you must accept that such conduct led to Scott and Plessy. If you detest activism, you must accept that Brown, Gideon, and maybe Roe was wrongheaded.

[AquaMan]

That explanation is why there are so many political arguments around here. Either/or. Black/white.

Its possible that some judicial restraint is preferable and natural. It follows then that sometimes it will be negative, sometimes positive. Used judiciously, of course.

[RecycleMichael]

Power is nothing until you use it.

[heironymouspasparagus]

You just do not get the point of this silly judicial restraint/activism issue. If you like judicial restraint, which was the point of that article linked to above, you must accept that such conduct led to Scott and Plessy. If you detest activism, you must accept that Brown, Gideon, and maybe Roe was wrongheaded.

No, actually, I do get it.  Perhaps Plessey is too much restraint, but Brown is not activism - not even close.  The words are intuitively obvious to the most casual observer - "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


Well, unless one doesn't understand English.  Then it might not make sense.  Just because it took 86 years for the SC to become literate enough to understand the words does NOT mean it is activism.

[guido911]

No, actually, I do get it.  Perhaps Plessey is too much restraint, but Brown is not activism - not even close.  The words are intuitively obvious to the most casual observer - "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


Well, unless one doesn't understand English.  Then it might not make sense.  Just because it took 86 years for the SC to become literate enough to understand the words does NOT mean it is activism.

I still think you need to get up to speed on what is "restraint" and "activism". Once you understand those terms, I think you should see why Plessy is the former and Brown is the latter. BTW, you do realize the two cases are connected, with Brown being a repudiation of what was at one point "settled" precedent (Plessy)?


And on the subject of restraint, here is an example of someone completely losing their religion on the abortion issue.  Language warning.

She is the face of the tolerant left?