From Alito’s opinion in the Hobby Lobby case:
The Hahns and Greens believe that providing the coverage demanded by the HHS regulations is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage. This belief implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is wrong for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another. Arrogating the authority to provide a binding national answer to this religious and philosophical question, HHS and the principal dissent in effect tell the plaintiffs that their beliefs are flawed. For good reason, we have repeatedly refused to take such a step. See, e.g., Smith, 494 U. S., at 887 (“Repeatedly and in many different contexts, we have warned that courts must not presume to determine . . . the plausibility of a religious claim”)
Justice Samuel Alito just wrote that taking birth control is an immoral act. Then he said that the Court should take no position on whether or not taking birth control is an immoral act.
Maybe that’s just sloppy writing, but he wrote what he wrote. It’s certainly a core feature of religious freedom that the government does not make decisions about whether or not Joseph Smith was a con-artist or Jesus really walked on water or the moon is made of cheese that is occasionally grated onto the plates of devout Pastafarians. But, in this opinion, Alito is conceding the point that taking birth control is immoral and then saying that the Court shouldn’t make a determination like that.
I’m pretty sure NASA has an opinion on the structure of the moon, but I guess that wouldn’t hold up in Court if it conflicted with the beliefs of devotees of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
There are obviously limits on how crazy someone’s religious beliefs can be and still pass this kind of test, but the limit is certainly unclear in this case. It looks more like five Catholic Justices just made the Catholic Church’s position on birth control the law of the land and told us that it was all in the interest of our religious liberty.
That’s outrageous and insulting.
Marvelous analysis. FSM has replaced Wiccans as the test example in religious freedom cases.
Even Algeria’s religious authorities are more reasonable than the 5 conservatives on our Supreme Court:
Of course, Alito is focused on the wrong belief. He is looking at the belief that it is immoral to “enabl(e) or facilitat(e) the commission of an immoral act by another.”
The real belif that needed to be addressed was whether or not the belief that the BC at question is connected to the destruction of an embryo. If this belief was true, there might be some legitimacy to the second (although questionable that a corporation could have a belief). However, since the original basis for Hobby Lobby’s argument is a false belief, that could be addressed by the court, because, in actuality, that is not a question of belief but, rather, empirical fact.
Or SCOTUS could have looked at how sincere plaintiffs beliefs on this matter actually were (which is supposed to be the test), considering that they were complaining about being forced to provide Plan B to employees but were perfectly fine investing 401K matching funds in companies that manufactured Plan B.
The decision is a pathetic, depressing joke from a legal perspective.
Fascists and authoritarians are professionals when it comes to “Do as I say and not as I do”.
Presumably Alito would counter that he means “immoral” in the eyes of the [plaintiff] Catholic owners, not himself–although he is himself also a committed Catholic, as are each of his concerned brethren.
In any event, obviously this sort of shit theo-sophizing about “an act innocent in itself but facilitating an immoral act by another” has no real content or endpoint. Paying the worker fucking wages would necessarily fall under it.
If you work for an American Taliban jackass, that jackass can now gin up some control over your life based on whatever loony religious shitola said owner may believe. While this garbage ruling is supposedly limited to “close corporations”, there is absolutely no legitimate reason it should not apply to partnerships, sole ownership companies and very large companies controlled by 5 or so owners but with thousands of other shareholders. And it makes no sense whatever to limit this new bizness “right” to ownership/control numbers of 5 or less—what’s the practical difference between 5 and, say, 8 owners? Or 12? Absolutely nothing.
Total useless shit reasoning with no guiding principles behind it and no clues as to how to apply it in future cases, an absolute disgrace that a nation’s highest would issue such drivel. A green light for officious American Taliban bosses to interfere in their employees’ private lives.
That’s “conservatism”!
Might have been on firmer conceptual ground if the ruling was limited to sole proprietorships or partnerships that didn’t require state approval to operate as such because there is no legal differentiation between the owner and the business for purposes of taxation and liability. However, that too would have begged the question of religious objection to certain taxes.
But how many sole proprietorships are subject to ACA with fewer than 50 employees in any case? It wouldn’t even come up. The ruling is for the grande bourgeoisie.
Yeah, much as I hate to defend Alito, when he gets virtually everything wrong in this tendentious, misogynistic piece of logical and empirical Swiss cheese, what he’s clearly saying is that the point at issue is whether someone can require a business to allow a behavior on the part of its employees which the business itself considers immoral – whether that is just too indirect a violation of conscience to count as a burden, or not. And the conscience of the employee, incidentally, be damned.
Since he decided how he wanted the case to come out before arguments began, as he always seems to do, Alito decided it does count as a burden on the “conscience” of an entity which, as common sense could easily have informed him, doesn’t have a conscience.
Now, he made that a priori decision on the basis of what he thought to be correct religious doctrine. But that unconstitutional motivation doesn’t enter into his reasoning (or what he wants to pass for reasoning) in this passage.
I think you’re reading his grammar correctly. But I think he must also believe it himself along with Thomas and Scalia and Kennedy or he wouldn’t be able to deliver the opinion with a straight face.
Question: When did moral/immoral become equivalent to religious/non/religious?
Probably with the invention of religion.
It’s almost like elections have consequences.
And yet we are still surrounded by ‘both sides are to blame/the same’ ponyism.
I know! Let’s start a third party with real progressives, and that will, through magic, solve this.
Because that has worked out so well in the past.
.
There are 3080 counties in the US and a six-figure number of precincts. The reason that third parties haven’t yet been successful–leave aside the legal and institutional restrictions that differ in each state– is that they haven’t dealt with that scale problem. And they haven’t dealt with the geographic diversity in this country. But mostly because instead of thinking about launching a third party 8 years out from a target election, the thinking is about an election 8 months or 8 weeks away–after filing deadlines have passed and other campaigns are rolling under full steam.
What the Democratic establishment has been doing is concentrating on fewer and fewer races, leading to the gradual erosion of geographic power. Republicans on the other hand have launched effective, well-funded surprise attacks on Democratic and labor strongholds like Wisconsin and Michigan and gain compromised power from conservative Democrats in New York and Virginia.
Yes, “send them a message” third party-ism is a loser. The Greens and Libertarians are perpetually there.
The best progressive move to win elections was Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy. And it was strangled in the womb. It sought to rebuild the infrastructure of state parties that had died on the vine through 30 years of neglect. It put organizers into the field to broaden the base of the party and counter some of the ingrown corruption. Which is why it had to go. There is some more cleaning house on the Democratic side that has to happen before progressives are allowed back through the door.
For now, the best strategy for progressives is Moral Monday. And it’s in some tough fights.
And you know who strangled it?
Obama.
Only after it got him to the WH with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate (and briefly with a 60 seat majority).
And you know why. Progressives were too geographically concentrated to have clout and Blue Dogs were geographically dispersed and on shaky ground. That was the effect of the establishment writing off hunks of turf for support so they could distribute the campaign funds “more effectively”. And recruiting wishy-washy candidates who would not explain real policy to their constituents with any degree of strength.
It seems as if the Republican party is focusing on state elections, and then the House and Senate, whereas a lot of Democratic party strategy is now focused on the White House.
What progressives should be doing is putting as many progressive candidates into local/city/state office as possible, whenever possible. Not only does it build incumbency and name recognition, but it gets progressive messages out there.
Assuming everyone plays by the law (laughable) the House and Senate are more valuable then the White House, in terms of being able to change things. And they have the power, if they so choose, to remove a President who breaks the law or violates the Constitution.
I think one of the biggest problems with poltitics today is that issues don’t matter as much as the personality. Democrats will (likely) continue to win the White House as long as there aren’t major scandals or massive economic collapse while a Democrat is in the White House, but this kind of “we’re going to own the White House for a generation!!!” kind of schadenfreude is often counterproductive in the long term.
It’s just like talking to three year olds. They want their pony, and if they don’t get it, they wail.
.
If I work forty hours and expect a paycheck, is that asking for a pony? If I marry a man or woman who promises to “love and cherish” me, but he/she steals my money and runs off with someone else, am I asking for a pony?
But apparently, if I vote for a politician because of his promises, and he lies, I’m asking for a pony and acting like a three year old by not voting for him again.
“If I work forty hours and expect a paycheck, is that asking for a pony? “
That’s coming.
Only instead of a pony, it will be company scrip and lodging based on productivity.
Not really. Bush was President but a Democratic Senate confirmed these assholes. We have two partys, the Republican and the “I’m not Republican but I can’t stop them because I have no cajones” Party.
Alito has just conferred special rights to a specific christian sect. That is not American justice and it has nothing to do with freedom or liberty.
Alito counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
So in a one-two punch, the SCOTUS says, “You bitches can’t abort unless you run a gauntlet of screaming, possibly armed, religious fanatics. Oh, and by the way, today we are going to make it harder to not get pregnant, because your employer’s opinions are more important than yours, you slut.”
More like “You bitches can’t access medical services at Planned Parenthood unless ….”
Those street “counselors” have no idea what medical care PP customers are seeking. Makes it convenient for them to hide behind their anti-abortion signs/rhetoric as they harass all PP women customers who they believe are sluts.
You should write the synopsis for all Court cases. Maybe then Americans could understand them.
Hah! Thanks!
Isn’t Jesuitical casuistry directly descended from Talmudic hairsplitting?
It looks more like five Catholic Justices just made the Catholic Church’s position on birth control the law of the land…
Not quite. the justices just made your boss’s position on birth control the law of the land.
In other news, it seems that Ron Wyden is the designated front man for sneaking the Trans-Pacific Partnership fast-track, now called “SmartTrack” through while no one is looking. Some Oregonians should let him know that that won’t fly.
I’ve told people at work about this treaty but they don’t believe it. They think it’s unconstitutional on it’s face, but one can see that any unconstitutional trash can be blessed by SCOTUS.
Other than Warren, Brown, and Boxer could the DEM elites have selected a DEM Senator better than Wyden to sneak this POS through without liberals noticing? It’s as if Democrats haven’t learned anything from the 1990s when Clinton and his congressional allies got all the GOP wishlist crap through.
With Arne Duncan on his crusade to kill public education, the mealy-mouthed cowardly words on action on union rights from this administration, and keeping the US economy safe for the banksters, it’s not how soon we get to ALEC/Koch/etc nirvana but how fast.
What Alito is going to see more of.
Louisburg NC, headline “Newborn baby found buried in backyard near Louisburg “
Now tell me some more about ponies.
People abiding by religious beliefs didn’t win today any more than individuals. Both lost.
Even as the media is training the cameras on the religious conservatives declaring a win, the snickering coming from the shadows is corporate America as the CEO’s high five it for the big leg up Alito gave them today.
Nina Totenberg
Koch 70,000 wrkers. (Although they might be persuaded not to go there if there is any free market operating in US health care at all as it’s cheaper to provide all forms of birth control than to pay from pregnancies and childbirths.)
One man’s immoral act is another man’s (or woman’s) responsible life decision.
I’m confident that Sammy believes the “immoral act” with every fiber of his being. However, if it were put in dollars and cents terms, the voters that put him there and are cheering today, would prefer helping a woman to a responsible life decision.
When you get down to it, he only people that put him there were Ralph Nader and Sandra Day O’Connor…
How did Nader put Alito on the Supreme Court? Far more Democrats in FL voted for GWB than those in any political party voted for Nader. Had the FL votes, after all the voter suppression and ballot box stuffing by team GWB, been counted, Gore won. And maybe, just maybe, it was Lieberman that lost WV for Gore and that was also the election. Or NH.
A retiring justice is not responsible for his/her replacement. It is, however, well-known that O’Connor had planned to retire after the 2000 election. The shame of being the deciding justice in Bush v. Gore led to her decision to postpone her retirement until after the 2004 election. Not entirely implausible that Gore could have been a one-term President and O’Connor retired after the 2004 election of a Republican.
Sorry if you don’t like facts, but I have no more tolerance for Democrats/liberals that repeat fictions as facts than I do for Republicans/cons.
Isn’t Samuel Alito the guy who said it was perfectly moral for police to shoot and kill and unarmed fleeing robbery suspects? And to strip search 10-year-olds in drug raids?
Whatever else we can say about this new round of decisions, I don’t see any particular inconsistency.
“Clinton said she made women and girls a priority during her tenure as secretary of state
because she saw the rights of women around the world routinely violated.”
Same reasoning for her travels on human rights abuses … she could have stayed at home.