It matters that we have progressive-thinking Judges sitting on the bench of the Supreme Court.
Here are few reasons why ... the notable dissenting points 5, 6, and 7 from Justice Ginsburg:
The 8 Best Lines From Ginsburg's Dissent on the Hobby Lobby Contraception Decision
by Dana Liebelson, motherjones.com -- June 30, 2014
[...]
* "It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage."
* "Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?](sic) …Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."
* "Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's](sic) Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
Since when does the SCOTUS get to
pick and choose "one religion over another"?
VERY good point.
And for the 8th notable Ginsburg point of dissension, let's go the source, shall we ...
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES, ET AL. v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC.,
ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
No. 13–354. Argued March 25, 2014—Decided June 30, 2014*
Cite as: 573 U. S. __ (2014)
GINSBURG, J., dissenting (pdf) -- SupremeCourt.gov
[pgs 34-35] {93-94 of pdf}
[...]
The Court, however, sees nothing to worry about. Today’s cases, the Court concludes, are “concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.” Ante, at 46. But the Court has assumed, for RFRA purposes, that the interest in women’s health and well being is compelling and has come up with no means adequate to serve that interest, the one motivating Congress to adopt the Women’s Health Amendment.
There is an overriding interest, I believe, in keeping the courts “out of the business of evaluating the relative merits of differing religious claims,” Lee, 455 U. S., at 263, n. 2 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment), or the sincerity with which an asserted religious belief is held. Indeed, approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be “perceived as favoring one religion over another,” the very “risk the Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.” Ibid. The Court, I fear has ventured into a minefield, cf. Spencer v. World Vision, Inc., 633 F. 3d 723, 730 (CA9 2010) (O’Scannlain, J., concurring), by its immoderate reading of RFRA. I would confine religious exemptions under that Act to organizations formed “for a religious purpose,” “engage[d] primarily in carrying out that religious purpose,” and not “engaged. . . substantially in the exchange of goods or services for money beyond nominal amounts.” See id., at 748 (Kleinfeld, J., concurring).
* * *
For the reasons stated, I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
It matters that we have progressive-thinking Judges sitting on the bench of the Supreme Court.
It sure would be nice if we had one or two more voices like Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's, eh?
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Regarding the unusual Title to today's post:
Apparently the Justice has been using that citation 'handle' for quite some time now ... (presumably there's a good legal reason for that short-hand, somewhere.)
Ginsburg, J., dissenting -- law.cornell.edu
GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., PETITIONERS v.
ALBERT GORE, Jr., et al.
[December 12, 2000]
Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Stevens joins, and with whom Justice Souter and Justice Breyer join as to Part I, dissenting.
[...]