The Supreme Court decision on Monday to allow Hobby Lobby a (as John Oliver put it, in his typically brilliant segment) line-item veto on corporate obligations is just all sorts of non-sensical. It's just the latest in a series of decisions that is destroying all respect any thinking person would have for the Court itself.
Let's just start counting a few of the ways this is a disaster in the making (and yes, some of these come straight out of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's blistering dissent):
1) This is straight-up discrimination against women. If a closely-held corporation wants to deny Viagra to its male employees, is that going to fly? I'm betting no.
2) This is attributing religion to a fictional entity. This literally makes no sense. This is not a thinking being that can possibly have an opinion on whether God exists, and what it means if He/She/It does. This is not something with a soul, that can be saved.
3) This allows a corporation to get between a woman and her doctor. There are a lot of medical reasons to take birth control pills that have nothing to do with avoiding pregnancy. In fact, there are even extreme cases (women with incredibly irregular periods) where a woman might take birth control pills to facilitate pregnancy. A friend of mine in college was born this way (thanks for telling me about it, Arthur).
4) This allows imposition of religion by business owners on their employees. Man, is this an impossibly slippery slope.
5) This was all based on a conception of conception that is not backed up by science. The majority said that "It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable". That's generally true (and we'll revisit this), but the specific beliefs in this case are contrary to science. Do we want to encourage people to believe that gravity is optional? That's the same idea. Giving equal weight to "sincere belief" and to observable fact is not a way to run a country. At least, not if you don't want to end up like Afghanistan when the Taliban took over.
6) How can the religious beliefs of a corporation be determined to be sincere? With this ruling, the courts must determine this. Are they sincere beliefs, or are they just trying to save money on their bottom line?
7) The majority held that the easiest way to provide remedy for the "burden" of having to provide contraception is for the government to provide it. Ginsburg's dissent listed several ways that this is a burden on the employees. What I remember: a) not everyone knows about it, b) it's more complicated on everyone, c) unless it's free, poor people will be unable to afford it. I think there were several others.
But even ignoring all that, that's an argument that allows any corporation to get out of any monetary obligation, because it's always possible for the government to pay it. It might bankrupt the government, but that doesn't seem to a concern.
8) A day after the ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed that the ruling applies to all contraceptives, not just those on which this case was based. So the Court doesn't think that the government has any business getting involved in someone's sex life, if they might be sodomizing a willing partner, but if a woman wants to keep from getting pregnant while having consensual sex, then that's not ok. Wow, is that a mysogynistic viewpoint.
Note, too, that this is all ignoring that, prior to passage of the ACA, Hobby Lobby provided the contraceptives over which they went to court.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
20140702
20140506
Supreme Court actions
I don't have a lot to say about it, but I'm rather horrified (yes, even being a Catholic) at yesterday's Supreme Court ruling that prayers to open government meetings are appropriate, even if they do favor one religion. It's allowing local government to implicitly (heck, maybe even explicitly) sanction one religion, and that's just bad news for everyone.
I haven't read any of the majority opinion (and it's a 5-4 split decision, going exactly along the lines you'd expect), but I have a hard time believing that this isn't a clear-cut case of judicial activism.
I wanted to talk a little bit more about inspections of cell phones, and the Fourth Amendment. That's one that the court is considering, but hasn't issued a ruling on, and they talked about it on NPR yesterday (I think it was the Kojo Nnamdi show, although he wasn't there, so I'm not sure).
The discussion was pretty interesting, although there were a couple points made (it should be pointed out, as devil's advocate) that just don't hold water. One was that police are in constant danger. Certainly, if you watch crime dramas, you'll think this is the case. If you watch them, you'll think that drawing a gun is close to a daily occurence for a police officer. But in real life, it's closer to a once-in-a-career event (something like once every twenty years).
They also brought up the remote wiping trope, and I was very happy that one of the guests brought up Faraday bags as a defense against that.
They also spent a lot of time talking about horrific crimes, as if that somehow justifies things. But it really doesn't. The whole point of the warrant is to show that a) you are pursuing a terrible crime (or would jaywalking justify rooting through someone's phone?) and b) that you have solid reasons to believe that the person whose phone is in question is, in fact, a relevant part of the investigation.
Because the simple fact of the matter is that if there's an easy avenue for abuse (and not having to show probable cause would definitely qualify as an easy avenue), it will be taken. Hopefully very rarely, but it will happen. If history teaches us nothing else, it certainly teaches us that. (And if there's a permissive atmosphere among the police, it will not be a rare occurrence.)
What it all comes down to is that there is a severe power imbalance in any interaction between an average citizen and a police officer. And if there are no checks on police power, that power will be abused.
Update: Forgot to look at my own links. It was the Kojo Show, and this is the episode.
I haven't read any of the majority opinion (and it's a 5-4 split decision, going exactly along the lines you'd expect), but I have a hard time believing that this isn't a clear-cut case of judicial activism.
I wanted to talk a little bit more about inspections of cell phones, and the Fourth Amendment. That's one that the court is considering, but hasn't issued a ruling on, and they talked about it on NPR yesterday (I think it was the Kojo Nnamdi show, although he wasn't there, so I'm not sure).
The discussion was pretty interesting, although there were a couple points made (it should be pointed out, as devil's advocate) that just don't hold water. One was that police are in constant danger. Certainly, if you watch crime dramas, you'll think this is the case. If you watch them, you'll think that drawing a gun is close to a daily occurence for a police officer. But in real life, it's closer to a once-in-a-career event (something like once every twenty years).
They also brought up the remote wiping trope, and I was very happy that one of the guests brought up Faraday bags as a defense against that.
They also spent a lot of time talking about horrific crimes, as if that somehow justifies things. But it really doesn't. The whole point of the warrant is to show that a) you are pursuing a terrible crime (or would jaywalking justify rooting through someone's phone?) and b) that you have solid reasons to believe that the person whose phone is in question is, in fact, a relevant part of the investigation.
Because the simple fact of the matter is that if there's an easy avenue for abuse (and not having to show probable cause would definitely qualify as an easy avenue), it will be taken. Hopefully very rarely, but it will happen. If history teaches us nothing else, it certainly teaches us that. (And if there's a permissive atmosphere among the police, it will not be a rare occurrence.)
What it all comes down to is that there is a severe power imbalance in any interaction between an average citizen and a police officer. And if there are no checks on police power, that power will be abused.
Update: Forgot to look at my own links. It was the Kojo Show, and this is the episode.
20140326
Modernizing discrimination?
The Supreme Court, yesterday, heard oral arguments in Hobby Lobby v Sebelius, where the evangelical founders of a for-profit corporation wanted the ability to discriminate against all their female employees, and refuse to cover contraception. That, of course, violates the Affordable Care Act (ACA); hence Kathleen (glad I looked that up; almost wrote Catherine) Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) being the defendant.
What I find interesting is listening to one of Hobby Lobby's lawyers defending this. First, let's be clear that this is not about Hobby Lobby being able to exercise its religion (ignoring, for a moment, the farce of an idea that a corporation has religious beliefs); it's about the founders of the company being able to impose their religious beliefs on their employees.
If this is allowed, then you'll definitely find things like companies owned by Scientologists denying mental health care for their employees.
Anyway, the whole reason I mentioned this is that Mr Rienzi kept talking about "least intrusive measures" to make the employees whole, and talking about the availability of the exchanges. So, it sounds like he's saying that Hobby Lobby shouldn't be required to pay for insurance for their non-evangelical employees (or those who just want contraceptives, I guess. The fact that a large percentage of Catholics use birth control says that there's more there than just religion).
Hey, that's a much bigger exemption than just birth control. Let's just require employees of all companies to get insurance on the exchanges. (Actually, let's just do it right, and go to a single-payer system, so employers have no say in their employees' health care options.)
It'll be interesting to see where this goes, but I predict a shit-storm of epic proportions if Hobby Lobby wins.
What I find interesting is listening to one of Hobby Lobby's lawyers defending this. First, let's be clear that this is not about Hobby Lobby being able to exercise its religion (ignoring, for a moment, the farce of an idea that a corporation has religious beliefs); it's about the founders of the company being able to impose their religious beliefs on their employees.
If this is allowed, then you'll definitely find things like companies owned by Scientologists denying mental health care for their employees.
Anyway, the whole reason I mentioned this is that Mr Rienzi kept talking about "least intrusive measures" to make the employees whole, and talking about the availability of the exchanges. So, it sounds like he's saying that Hobby Lobby shouldn't be required to pay for insurance for their non-evangelical employees (or those who just want contraceptives, I guess. The fact that a large percentage of Catholics use birth control says that there's more there than just religion).
Hey, that's a much bigger exemption than just birth control. Let's just require employees of all companies to get insurance on the exchanges. (Actually, let's just do it right, and go to a single-payer system, so employers have no say in their employees' health care options.)
It'll be interesting to see where this goes, but I predict a shit-storm of epic proportions if Hobby Lobby wins.
20140311
State with no rainbows?
I earlier wondered why it took so long for Arizona governor Jan Brewer to veto the pro-discrimination bill that the legislature passed. I think I found out, today.
So she wanted to approve the bill, but was "persuaded" not to by allies. And it took a while for those allies to make themselves heard.
Arizonans should definitely be embarassed, although I wonder how many of them really are.
Top aides to Gov. Jan Brewer sought and got proponents of a “religious liberty” bill to make changes to SB1062 more than a month before she vetoed the measure
So she wanted to approve the bill, but was "persuaded" not to by allies. And it took a while for those allies to make themselves heard.
Arizonans should definitely be embarassed, although I wonder how many of them really are.
20100824
When will they think?
All this stuerm und drang about this (proposed) muslim community center near ground zero is really irritating to me, on several levels. First of all, given how severe their shortage of funds is, it'll probably never happen.
Second, why is it such a big deal to have a mosque two blocks from ground zero, whereas the one that's been four blocks away for the last forty or so years (yes, it predates the twin towers) is ok.
Third, and most importantly, why are people so anxious to start up a holy war? Did we really learn nothing from the Crusades and the Inquisition?
If you really want to ensure an endless supply of terrorists, demonstrations saying that putting up a mosque in the US is unacceptable is probably the single best way to do it. (It's a tough call between that and invading islamic countries, but given that we've already made that mistake (twice!), I think I'd have to call this the most efficient.) Making a holy war out of it will radicalize significant elements of the muslim population, so that it isn't just a few extremists.
This sort of incredibly short-sighted thinking just really gets my goat, even ignoring how hateful the entire operation is.
The one thing I will say is that I was pleasantly surprised that the various Fox News hosts were not in lock-step in pushing this hatred. At least a few of them stepped back, and said, "This is ridiculous. We can't change the very basis on which this country was founded." I wish all of them had said something along those lines, but it was at least encouraging to see a few of them do so.
Update: Some support for what I said.
Second, why is it such a big deal to have a mosque two blocks from ground zero, whereas the one that's been four blocks away for the last forty or so years (yes, it predates the twin towers) is ok.
Third, and most importantly, why are people so anxious to start up a holy war? Did we really learn nothing from the Crusades and the Inquisition?
If you really want to ensure an endless supply of terrorists, demonstrations saying that putting up a mosque in the US is unacceptable is probably the single best way to do it. (It's a tough call between that and invading islamic countries, but given that we've already made that mistake (twice!), I think I'd have to call this the most efficient.) Making a holy war out of it will radicalize significant elements of the muslim population, so that it isn't just a few extremists.
This sort of incredibly short-sighted thinking just really gets my goat, even ignoring how hateful the entire operation is.
The one thing I will say is that I was pleasantly surprised that the various Fox News hosts were not in lock-step in pushing this hatred. At least a few of them stepped back, and said, "This is ridiculous. We can't change the very basis on which this country was founded." I wish all of them had said something along those lines, but it was at least encouraging to see a few of them do so.
Update: Some support for what I said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)