I Pit HOBBY LOBBY

The BBQ Pit
781

Waaaaahhhhh!!!

Notice the paucity of quotes from Justice Ginsburg from the TEXT of the RFRA? And notice the liberal (ha!) references to the intent of the RFRA?

That’s because the TEXT of the RFRA is unambiguous. The dissenting justices hang their hat on what they feel was Congress’ unwritten but clear intent.

Seriously. If all you had to go on was the words of the RFRA and the Dictionary Act, how is this a close call?

You’re upset because the justices actually followed the written law, instead of (a) following a higher spirit as a super-legislature, to fix what Congress didn’t get right, and (b) having the temerity to do so with a law whose text cut away from your preferred result. You are used to courts which help make socially-conscious law, help expand our evolving decency, help play a part in making better social policy.

Now that this doesn’t happen, you react with baffled fury. How can the Court not be our ally? We asked the judiciary to forbid abortion, and they read into the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment’s words an unwritten right to privacy, which they then further read as protecting absolutely the right of a woman to abort her baby during the first trimester. Yes, that protection is apparently “found” in the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Who knew?

I am pro-life, but I hope a future Court of strong conservatives never decides there’s a constitutional “right to life” that applies to the unborn. That would be a great victory for my pro-life views at the expense of yet another foray of the Court into nakedly creating law.

But if that ever happens, YOU will be the spiritual grandmother of that decision, because you were happy to have the Court exercise that kind of expansive power for your causes, and only butthurt when your attack dog suddenly bit you instead of your intended victim.

What happened here is what should happen: the Court read the law and applied it as written. If Congress actually intended some different result, they have only to amend the RFRA. The Court did not say Hobby Lobby has a First Amendment claim here. They just read the text Congress passed.

782

If only they could stay fertilized eggs for ever.

783

It is not correct to assert that the decision about whether to apply the Dictionary Act is free from extra-textual judgment. It isn’t. See here.

I know you did not to respond to this last time, but I choose to believe you simply overlooked it.

784

But this law is not substantively different from any number of other federal employer mandates.

785

At this point, this cannot simply be a mistake anymore, you have to be lying. Of course the text of RFRA is ambiguous, that’s why they have to go the Dictionary Act in the first place. RFRA doesn’t define “person”, hence the definition is ambiguous by it’s very definition. You can’t argue that we should use the Dictionary Act AND that it is unambiguous without contradicting yourself.

You can, of course, resort to “NYAAAAAH NYAAAAAAH the majority agreed with me!” But you don’t have to lie about it.

786

M y internet is out this week and I can only respond sporadically by phone. You vuys should go on without me this time.

I wouldn’t talk about process so much as theories of judicial review. One can focus on the text so closely that the greater context of precedent and traditional principles is omitted- and it seems like all conservative thought rests on omission.

Plus this decision displays the same (probably insincere) oblivious powers of prediction as Citizens United. Of course now that this precedent has been set every organization is going to adopt religious views in a bid to skirt what laws they can. Why does this Court want to return us to aristocracy?

787

No, there’s nothing ambiguous about the text of the RFRA. Of course the RFRA must be read in harmony with the rest of federal law, so if you don’t know what the word 'person," means in federal law, you can refer to the Dictionary Act. That’s not ambiguity. The RFRA was passed after the Dictionary Act. Congress was well aware of what the word 'person" in a statute means. That’s not in the least ambiguous.

788

What prior law burdened Hobby Lobby’s exercise of religion?

789

I think Rowland v. California Men’s Colony was poorly decided. It should have been resolved the same way this was: by pointing out that the text is clear and Congress can amend the relevant statute to encompass only natural persons.

I concede that courts have not always construed the Dictionary Act as unambiguous. But I also contend that it is, and the Rowland court succumbed to the desire to fix the problem itself.

790

You’d have to ask them, because I don’t know what their views are (other than their objection to certain forms of contraception.) The point is that there is an almost limitless number of things they can object to on religious grounds for which there is no compelling government interest. I asked you in another thread (or possibly earlier in this one) whether (in your view) an employer may not permissibly require all male employees to wear beards based on a sincerely held religious belief.

791

Stop being dumb. Your best, and only logical defense, is that RFRA in concert with the Dictionary Act, is unambiguous. To claim that RFRA is unambiguous in itself is not only disingenuous, but ignores the last 5 years and millions of dollars of litigation.

792

Why must my answer ignore the universal requirement that laws be read in pari materia, giving full effect to each?

If it will will make you happy: what I mean when I say that the RFRA is unambiguous is: the RFRA is read, as all laws must be, in concert with all other laws, including specifically the Dictionary Act. And that reading is unambiguous. (Except for the caselaw that has in the past undertaken to fix unintended results of a straightforward reading.)

793

My posts weren’t about my happiness, it was about you not being disingenuous.

794

You’re a very bad loser. Should have made it two bottles, so you felt some of the pain personally.

795

It is very nasty posts like this one that make many people think people are anti-abortion rather than pro-life.

796

Just a few years ago the affordable health care act removed all twenty forms of contraceptives from millions of households all around this country, since I wasn’t around here then, I wonder if you could show me your outrage at that time with some links and stuff? Oh and by new law, did you mean back when Roberts rewrote the code so as to be a tax as well?

797

Oh.

I notice, LavenderBlue, that you don’t supply the post to which I was replying.

Let’s take a look:

So now, let’s talk about nasty posts.

798

Eh.

But they are a bunch of religious fanatics at Hobby Lobby. They’re also a bunch of hypocrites. They make money by buying cheap crap from China, a place where, as I pointed out, abortion is legal, safe and state funded. There’s the real greed. When it comes to making a profit, the fuckers at Hobby Lobby have no problem whatsoever setting aside their alleged principles. They then turn around and have the nerve to lecture us on morality. It’s laughable. Doesn’t that strike you as just the slightest bit indefensible, Bricker?

They are, as you so quaintly phrased it, “greedy moochers,” perfectly willing to deal with a notoriously awful government that oppresses their own people and literally forces them into abortions. The people paying for the food, clothing and housing of those who run Hobby Lobby are probably sweatshop laborers working under terrible conditions.

799

Hillary should send each of the five male Justices a nice “thank you!” card and solicit their suggestions for redecorating the Oval Office.

800

http://news.yahoo.com/justices-act-other-health-law-mandate-cases-133633160--politics.html

Not quite sure what to make of this, so I toss it out for the legal-beagles to parse.

Pretty sure its not good, but how bad?