Supreme Court taking us for a ride back in time.
Is this the real life?
Is this just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide
No escape from reality…
Written by Freddie Mercury.
Sung by Freddie Mercury.
OH, it’s real life ALL RIGHT but it’s based on a fantasy. Hold on to your hats folks… we’re in for the holy roller ride of our lives!
AND IN THIS DAY AND AGE OF SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY?
PS: Please wake me when it’s over!
Ginsburg: ‘Radical’ Hobby Lobby Ruling May Create ‘Havoc’
The Supreme Court justice took on the majority opinion in a biting dissent.
The Supreme Court on Monday weakened Obamacare’s controversial contraception mandate, ruling 5-4 that some employers cannot be forced to cover birth control as part of their health insurance plans. The majority opinion, written by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, said such a mandate infringes on religious freedom, and therefore can be waived by certain business owners.
But in a blistering, 35-page dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, lambasted the majority opinion—delivered by five male justices—as “a decision of startling breadth” that would allow corporations to “opt out of any law … they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
The majority view “demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’ religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ,” wrote Ginsburg, a stalwart member of the Court’s liberal wing.
She continued: “Persuaded that Congress enacted the (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) to serve a far less radical purpose, and mindful of the havoc the Court’s judgment can introduce, I dissent.”
Ginsburg’s opinion reasons that religious groups exist to serve the explicit interests of their adherents, while for-profit companies serve a fundamentally different purpose. Bucking the majority, Ginsburg sides with the Obama administration’s claim that for-profit companies do not possess religious rights under the RFRA.
Granting them such rights, Ginsburg contends, could allow employers to trample over any number of health care needs in the name of religious objection.