Skip to main content

Sinclair Lewis has been said to write, "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

I've gotten into so many screaming matches online regarding the Hobby Lobby decision that I thought I'd list all my objections here; we could also use a handy reference for the next battle.  The more I read this decision, the most objections I have.  

Follow me over the orange battle standard, and please add any I haven't thought of in the comments.  Oh, and don't forget to take the poll at the end.

Let me start by stating that I am not a lawyer, but my partner is (retired), so I have someone to bounce my legally based arguments against.  I think this ruling will not stand (in no particular order):

* It breaks the church/state barrier, which protects ALL religions, and none at all.

* Not only does it break the church/state barrier, it privileges one religion over all others, AND it privileges one flavor of Christianity over all others.  And does anyone honestly think that this would have gone to the Supreme Court if HL had been owned by Muslims?

* An employee will now have to pay twice for her prescription - once through the insurance she earned as part of her wages (do you really think insurance companies will lower their premiums over this?), and again out of pocket.

* An employee's insurance policy is part of her total earned wages, not a giveaway by her benevolent employer.  It's equivalent to HL's trying to tell its employee that it will not allow her to use her wages to buy a beer after work.  Total invasion of privacy and overreach by the employer into an employee's private life.

* In the "clarification" offered by SCOTUS on Tuesday, it's clear that the ruling (Alito's disclaimers to the contrary) that this ruling applies to ALL forms of contraception, not just the four listed in the initial ruling.

* HL's owners religious beliefs are based on their disdain for contraception, not on science.  The drugs they objected to as abortifacients are no such thing, and they know it - the facts are readily available.  Therefore, SCOTUS has ruled that an employer's willful ignorance trumps his employee's rights.

* This ruling doesn't just affect female employees; it impacts their families as well,  More money spent on health care, less money to buy food.  Less contraception available, the more unwanted children to birth, feed, clothe, and educate.

* This was a deliberate attack on the ACA by Hobby Lobby, and really has nothing to do with religous beliefs.  If it did, HL would have divested its pension funds in pharma companies that produce not only contraceptions, but actual abortion-causing drugs, and would not buy millions of dollars of goods from China, which has draconian forced-abortion and family planning policies.

* Adding the Wheaton College injuction, now employers can not only prevent their employees from using her insurance to purchase a legal drug in consultation with her doctor, she might be prevented from purchasing it AT ALL.  So the "just buy it yourself" crowd should be paying attention; their argument, specious at best, is about to be shut down.

* A corporation is a "person" for contracts, and should not be afforded the same rights as citizens.  A corporation cannot be "Christian" (nor can a nation; only individuals have a personal relationship with Jesus/God that is the very definition of "Christian"), nor can it have "religous beliefs".  This must be clarified for once and for all by legislation to prevent future erosion of citizen rights in favor of corporate "rights".

This concerns ALL Americans who think their private medical decisions should not be audited by their employer.  I predict that this will cause a groundswell of support for a single-payer system (I prefer the Canada model) so we can uncouple insurance from employment.  The ACA was a good start, but it is being chipped at repeatedly (there is already an exception for religous organizations), and this won't be the last attack on our rights to health care.

I'm hearing new calls for term limits for SCOTUS and other now lifetime-appointed judicial positions.  When a Supreme Court justice can show such bias and be so divorced from the reality of everyone else's lives, it imperils the very freedoms that we treasure.  I personally would advocate for 25-year terms - long enough to be insulated from changing political whims, but short enough for the justice to be aware that he/she can be held accountable, and short enough that there's a chance a new court might see an issue differently.

I also believe this will start a larger movement to change "corporations are people, my friend" into what it was mean to be - a way for a corporation to enter into contracts and limit liability.  If I remember my history correctly, acts like the Boston Tea Party were against the monopoly of the East India Company.  The much-referenced Founding Fathers would have been appalled by the Hobby Lobby decision, and so should we all.

[EDIT: as he was proofreading this, my partner suggested I break it down into a couple of diaries, each arguing a different group of points.  I welcome comments, and may incorporate them and flesh out my arguments in another diary or two.  Wouldn't it be nice if Congress acted swiftly (laugh) to correct this injustice and more diaries weren't necessary?]

Poll

My opinion of the Hobby Lobby and related SCOTUS decisions?

51%52 votes
11%12 votes
1%2 votes
0%1 votes
31%32 votes
1%2 votes

| 101 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (24+ / 0-)

    (aka NobleExperiments). ‎"Those who make a peaceful revolution impossible make a violent revolution inevitable" ~ John F. Kennedy

    by smrichmond on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:04:31 AM PDT

  •  I'd Address Argument #0, What Do You Mean By (7+ / 0-)

    "not stand?"

    They're the Supreme Court, they're the ones who decide what stands.

    Now since the HL decision is based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, there is the technical opening for Congress to revise that act and weaken or moot the ruling that way.

    But Congress doesn't have the practical power to weaken conservative legislation, being Republican led, so for the next several years there's no way for the ruling to "not stand" by that mechanism either.

    Tea Party, basically right, that global corporation was awarded a tax break because many of its investors were in the British government, and that gave it a competitive advantage against the domestically owned tea companies.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:24:22 AM PDT

    •  Good point about "not stand" (5+ / 0-)

      Sloppy writing on my part.  I think that Congress would have to change corporate personhood back to its origins, but that's not gonna happen.

      Either changing the RFRA or (perhaps) editing the ACA to strengthen contraception protections would be a solution, but I truly see no chance of that happening either.

      This was an enlargement of a comment I wrote earlier in my local paper.... perhaps I should have labeled it a rant?  :-)  Thanks for your clarifications.

      (aka NobleExperiments). ‎"Those who make a peaceful revolution impossible make a violent revolution inevitable" ~ John F. Kennedy

      by smrichmond on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:31:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You are right to list the vile nature of this (13+ / 0-)

    decision with its consequences.  

    How can it ever be justified to enshrine a tiny minority's religious values of subordination of female workers in a company owned by evangelical christians in the persons of the owners: the Green family of Hobby Lobby, who are shills for the GOP, Tea-Kochers. This breach of the wall between church and state is nothing short of a horrific act of assault on the Constitution and denigrates the rights of millions in favor of the narrow religious views which dictate that decent health care can be withheld from any one based on an employer's definition of their religion and their decision to withhold medical care from working women.

    Our founding fathers would be appalled by this Supeme Court ruling by 5 men who elected to subvert the Constitution for their own reactionary motives.  The 3 women and one man who wrote the desent were as strong in their warning as they could be as they predicted that this foul decision will have enormous consequences for millions more Americans, mainly women, but who knows,  as it spills it's swill out over  our body politic

     

  •  Hobby Lobby like Citizens United have become... (9+ / 0-)

    ...the straws that break the camel's back.

    It has become clear to a now energized and growing part of the electorate that America is becoming a theocratic plutocracy.  Heck, the 5 Justices that passed these two decisions are all rich conservative Catholics (Heck, Opus Dei at least two of them)

    So we are in a historical pivotal point.  What is coming now, short of actual military battles, will be a civil war between those on the racist, misogynist, theocratic and plutocratic right and the disorganized but very motivated and progressive left.

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:52:44 AM PDT

  •  It still remains to be seen (4+ / 0-)

    if this punch through the corporate veil is limited to this circumstance or is more general in nature.
    If (as it seems) is a clear hole in the veil, then it will be interesting to see the SCOTUS reaction when individuals are held responsible for the damages their corporations do to people. What happens to GM's management and owners over their failure to act that killed at least 13 people? What about the management and owners of BP? Can they now face jail or worse?
    I believe that if they are in for a penny, they are in for a pound.
    If the corporation IS the people that make it up, then those people are responsible, absolutely, for it's behavior.
    In other words, Hobby Lobby may be the death knell of corporatocracy.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 12:09:29 PM PDT

    •  Except this seems more like reinforcing the (6+ / 0-)

      corporate "veil", as in nothing can overrule a corporation's interests.  They are almighty and all powerful, omnipresent and omnipotent.  Corporations come first - before their employees, before their communities, before their country, and before the environment.

      The normal legal logic is meaningless - this court picks the answer, then make up nonsense to "support" it.

      “The future depends entirely on what each of us does every day.” Gloria Steinem

      by ahumbleopinion on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 12:17:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's been argued . . . (0+ / 0-)

        . . . in a number of business magazines that this actually could wind up piercing the corporate veil in both directions.

        The idea of a corporate entity is to shield a private individual from the failure of a company, such that its failure doesn't result in the seizure of stockholders' or owners' private assets.

        But if the owners of a company can reach out and impose their views on their employees (or presumably stockholders), then they can argue equal protection under the law in the opposite direction (exposing owners to such things as the seizure of their homes or savings for failure of their businesses).

        Moreover, in addition to Hobby Lobby buying from China (and that nation's forced abortions), though HL is closed on Sundays (ostensibly to allow customers to worship on Sundays) ofttimes requires its employees to come in and restock shelves.

        So the Greens get their religious views, and they putatively protect their customers' religious views (though presumably their customers could choose not to shop on Sundays) but forget it if you are ordered to come in and restock.

        The hypocrisy gets stronger.

        "A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling 'Stop!'"—William F. Buckley, Jr.—Founder of the conservative policy magazine "National Review"

        by Village Vet on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 03:41:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I can't even reply to this. Abomination doesn't (4+ / 0-)

    begin to describe this latest giant step toward... whatever we will call this era of dumb after the fact (I like neo-feudalism). Every honest reply I think of would get hidden by The Faithful.

    "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

    by Greyhound on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 01:19:08 PM PDT

  •  This ruling (3+ / 0-)

    is further proof that we no longer live in a representative democratic republic as outlined by the founding documents of this country.  We now live in an oligarchical fascist state where the tyranny of the minority impinge upon the rights of the majority.

    •  WRONG. The majority won here. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rogneid

      The only majority that matters the majority who votes. Republicans don't outnumber Democrats in the streets, but they do outnumber Democrats at the polls. That's SQUARELY Democrats' own fault.

      And in the aggregate, young people are the worst. Shitpiles of shame on all those who don't vote, who would drive 10 miles for a cappuccino frappuccino crappuccino, but can't be bothered to drop a ballot in the mail on the way.

      Shame on the non-voters. No excuse. None.

  •  The Ruling Directly Affects Men Too. (0+ / 0-)

    Many people have held forth on how this will affect women who work for Hobby Lobby. They miss a larger issue with this.

    Men work for Hobby Lobby too, and HL offers family healthcare insurance. The decision thus affects their wives, and the daughters of both men and women.

    In other words, Hobby Lobby not only gets to impose its "deeply held corporate religious views" on its employees, it gets to impose them on people who do not even work for them.

    "A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling 'Stop!'"—William F. Buckley, Jr.—Founder of the conservative policy magazine "National Review"

    by Village Vet on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 03:24:11 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site