Supreme Court taking us for a ride back in time.
Is this the real life?
Is this just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide
No escape from reality...
(Bohemian Rhapsody)
Written by Freddie Mercury.
Sung by Freddie Mercury.
OH, it's real life ALL RIGHT but it's based on a fantasy. Hold on to your hats folks… we’re in for the holy roller ride of our lives!
AND IN THIS DAY AND AGE OF SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY?
thinkingblue
PS: Please wake me when it's over!
MORE HERE:
http://www.businessweek.com/...
RUTH BADER GINSBURG'S HOBBY LOBBY DISSENT IS THE BEST TAKEDOWN EVER
The Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby case basically turned into a heated he-said, she-said between Justices Samuel Alito and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Alito, writing the majority opinion for the court, alleged that the ruling was very specific and wouldn’t open the floodgates for further religious objections from for-profit corporations. And in a brutally awesome takedown, Ginsburg slammed the Hobby Lobby ruling in her dissent, calling it a “decision of startling breadth.”
Her dissent, which was joined by Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer on all but one section, is a passionate manifesto that defends American women’s right to reproductive healthcare and, well, calls BS on much of Alito’s reasoning.
In the 5-4 decision, the high court ruled that closely-held for-profit companies are protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and so they have a right to deny contraception coverage to their employees. The ruling effectively overrides the Health and Human Services mandate, which required all companies of a certain size to provide health insurance for contraception, including the IUD and morning-after pill.
Alito and the concurring justices were careful to tailor the decision to just contraception. The Supreme Court insisted other procedures or medications, such as vaccines, wouldn’t be subject to the same reasoning. But Ginsburg didn’t buy that, writing, “the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
And that’s just her first sentence.
MORE HERE: http://www.bustle.com/...
HEALTH CARE
Ginsburg: 'Radical' Hobby Lobby Ruling May Create 'Havoc'
The Supreme Court justice took on the majority opinion in a biting dissent.
The Supreme Court on Monday weakened Obamacare's controversial contraception mandate, ruling 5-4 that some employers cannot be forced to cover birth control as part of their health insurance plans. The majority opinion, written by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, said such a mandate infringes on religious freedom, and therefore can be waived by certain business owners.
But in a blistering, 35-page dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, lambasted the majority opinion—delivered by five male justices—as "a decision of startling breadth" that would allow corporations to "opt out of any law … they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs."
The majority view "demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation's religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners' religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ," wrote Ginsburg, a stalwart member of the Court's liberal wing.
She continued: "Persuaded that Congress enacted the (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) to serve a far less radical purpose, and mindful of the havoc the Court's judgment can introduce, I dissent."
Ginsburg's opinion reasons that religious groups exist to serve the explicit interests of their adherents, while for-profit companies serve a fundamentally different purpose. Bucking the majority, Ginsburg sides with the Obama administration's claim that for-profit companies do not possess religious rights under the RFRA.
Granting them such rights, Ginsburg contends, could allow employers to trample over any number of health care needs in the name of religious objection.
MORE HERE: http://www.nationaljournal.com/...