Skip to main content

View Diary: Hobby Lobby: Does RFRA violate the Establishment Clause? (263 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Scalia the sophist can distinguish as he likes (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy, Ice Blue

    ...he will come up with some bullshit rationale why the situation of contraception coverage in Hobby Lobby is purportedly different from peyote prohibition...maybe because the government is making a non-religious based prohibition in one case, but actively forcing an organization to support an infringement of religion in the other.  OK, so that isn't really consistent with either Scalia's pronouncement in Employment Division or up-to-now unremarkably well-established constitutional law on the subject, but that won't inhibit Scalia from crafting a rational that brazenly uses insubstantial sophistry to reach his politically desired conclusion.

    •  Well, the easy way to distinguish it is that (0+ / 0-)

      in response to Smith, the US Congress passed the RFRA which changed the law.  As I remember it, the only congressman who voted against it was Jesse Helms.  Amusing to see how many people here now seem to agree with him.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site