I'm reading the opinions and dissents in the infamous Hobby Lobby case. Justice Ruth Gingsburg's dissent eviscerates the series of poses and lame excuses the five far-right members of the court cite in Alito's ruling and Kennedy's concurring opinion.
She points out that the law they base their ruling on, the Religious Freedoms Restoration Act, through it legislative history and the clearly stated intentions of the congress, was never intended to be used the way the ruling does. I don't see how they could get past her reasoning on that or the long, long history and record she cites. This ruling is an extreme and radical act of Supreme Court legislating what the five Republicans on it would have liked the law to say instead of what the legislative record indicates it was.
The easiest to understand part of her dissent is her pointing out that since the beginnings of the Supreme Court corporations were not considered to be people, having the natural rights of human beings but as legal entities. It is clearly the intent of the five corporate servants on the court to turn them into, not only entities enjoying any rights that they still allow to mere humans, but more rights than any human being has. Her extensive argument as to why profit-making corporations are an entirely different kind of entity from non-profit, religious ones is decisive. Her arguments pointing out the inability of those who brought the case to prove a substantial harm show that their intent is to establish the superiority of corporations to people. I'm sure she wouldn't say it this way but that is an actual legal permission for the establishment of corporate fascism.
I don't shop there but if I thought it would do the least bit of good, I'd work for a punitive boycott of Hobby Lobby and any other corporation that brought this case. Only, I'm sure that despite their use of free-speech to attack everything up to and including an attack on self-government by an informed electorate, they'd find I'd violated Hobby Lobby's rights as a Super-person.
The Roberts Court is driving this country to corporate fascism and it's driving it there fast.
I think the crux of the dissent is that Hobby Lobby should not be able to impose it's religious views on its employees, even if it is a "closely held corporation." The majority seems to think the distinction between that kind of legal entity and a public traded corporation like Microsoft or IBM makes all the difference; but like Ginsberg, I don't see what difference it makes to the employees.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, a church can require its members to be of like mind and expel those members who it deems insufficiently adherent to its doctrines. But expulsion from a church is not the same as being fired from a job.
Adding: I have to admit, the dissenting opinion of Breyer and Kagan perplexes me.
ReplyDeleteI hadn't gotten to Breyer and Kagan yet but Ginsburg's dissent was rather comprehensive.
ReplyDeleteI'm no lawyer but this looks like one of the worst decisions since Bush v. Gore. It makes me dread the one about unions which will be at least as bad.
It's a crap ruling, but a statutory interpretation, not a Constitutional interpretation.
ReplyDeleteWhich means Congress can easily amend the statute to correct the holding. Whether they will, or not, is another matter.