Skip to main content

I believe the Hobby Lobby Ruling was wrong.  I can only hope that a SCOTUS staffer may visit here and comment.  Thank you for your time and please take the poll.  Below the orange thing where I have found an eternity of enlightenment and entertainment previously when visiting dailykos is my letter to SCOTUS.

Hobby Lobby

Open letter to the Supreme Court of the United States.

I shall open with “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.”  Just exactly about separation of church and state do you not understand about the Constitution?  We are a nation comprised of laws, most are faithbased, but our founders understood that in order for a people to be free, the government must not be controlled by a religion.  Hence, separation of church and state.  What you have done is open up an untold avalanche of special interest corporations to claim faithbased objections to anything.  All because you five view corporations as persons.  That is beyond the realm of commonsense.  Corporations are a business, not a person.  Personhood for corporations is strongly in the need of reexamination.  Commonsense should be applied on personhood.  Now that you have effectively given control over a woman’s health issues to a corporation whose sole function is increase the bottom line, just exactly do you think will lose in that equation?  I am absolutely convinced that this ruling is an endrun around the abortion issue.  Take away a woman’s control of birth control and then allowing multiple areas of the country to restrict access to health care, including abortions, will result in the continuation of abuse towards women.  If you wish to adorn personhood, then you must grant women the sole control of their bodies.  Women are a person, not a business.  It is amazing that as a nation we have evolved as far as we have.  We will continue to grow, but this nation somehow is stuck with laws telling women what, how, when, why, they have rights to their own bodies.  My goodness gracious, what you have done with the Hobby Lobby ruling is wrong.  I believe this is a very serious step towards a Theocracy, with a government controlled by religion.  It is bad enough that every candidate must declare a Christian based faith.  The simple fact being that any candidate that declared, “I shall not discuss my religion as I believe in Separation of Church and State,” would surely not get elected.  You have opened up the door, invited religion in, by a corporation, (which will only strengthened their abuse of personhood.)  Oligarchy by Theocracy.   I say again, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.”  If you must adhere to faithbased laws, then perhaps you must rethink your last ruling.  I have faith.  But, no longer in you.  My Supreme Court of the United States, you have shamed yourselves.  May God be with you.  


Do you think the Hobby Lobby ruling was right or wrong?

9%4 votes
90%37 votes

| 41 votes | Vote | Results

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

  •  The Supreme Court is wrong on just about (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:


    The Supreme Court is my number one reason for voting Democrat.  

  •  "We are a nation comprised of laws, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shippo1776, OleHippieChick, amyzex

    most are faithbased"

    I wouldn't be so sure about that.  At least not faith-based in the absence of public policy goals.  That's what bugs me about this ruling.  If a law or a court ruling dovetails with something faith-based, but it is based upon sound, rational public policy, I don't have a problem with it.  This decision is the opposite of that philosophy -- assume the "sincerely held belief" is valid -- when, in fact, it is disproved by science and the actions of the entity claiming the belief is deeply held clearly contradict everything that the entity claims it believes.  I don't think I've ever seen a SCOTUS decision that so blatantly ignores the actual facts of the case.  And then throw in the fact that they stretched beyond all recognition a statute about individual exercise of religion to cover a corporation, and this decision is starting to make Dred Scott and Plessey v Ferguson seem well-reasoned in comparison.

    A pre-law student could write a better opinion than this piece of crap.  I'm sure there are some high school students who could do better than this.  Heck, I think these members of SCOTUS would lose on "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?"

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site