A lot has been said about the SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision. And I will add my own 2 cents here as well. But I really see this as part of a larger trend, so let me make that point first.
Whether you are liberal or conservative, politically active or indifferent, is not the point. I think we would all agree that many of the court's decisions are very frustrating. Whether I personally like the outcome or not, I find myself scratching my head going: "that makes absolutely no sense". As much as I prefer Obamacare to the alternative, the individual mandate is a penalty, not a tax. Halting the 2000 Florida recount due to violation of the Equal Protection clause, when the original counting of the ballots was just as unequal (if not more so) borders on the ridiculous.
Whenever a downright silly decision comes down, we are always told how there are complicated issues at play (precedent, competing issues, etc.). That's often true and I don't intend to make light of that. But if you need a contorted series of complex acrobatics to justify your point, then that is usually a sign that you don't have an argument. You have an opinion and are desperately trying to find any means to justify it. In fact, the decisions are called just that, legal opinions. There seems to be no real right or wrong, up or down, when it comes to them. We glorify the constitution when it suits us and ignore it when it does not (in some cases at the same time). People laugh when Bill Clinton said "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" but that's the kind of splitting hairs that SCOTUS seems to use all the time. Not to interpret the law, but bend it to their pre-conceived political views (both conservative and liberal). And that is sad.
So now to Hobby Lobby and why this decision is just plain wrong. And if you initially disagree before your knee-jerk reaction, it has nothing to do with what I believe about contraception or religion. Don't make the mistake of deciding what you feel about those and then finding a legal justification to support it.
I could make a list of several flaws in the decision, but let me just focus on the main one. The idea that Hobby Lobby is having its religious freedom violated. To understand why this is so misguided, we need to understand what Hobby Lobby is. Hobby Lobby is a corporation. Corporations are a legal construct created for one purpose. Limited Liability. Say I decide to make some money by selling hamburgers, but I realize that if I do a bad job I could loose a lot of money (perhaps everything I own). So instead, I create an artificial entity called DaleDonald's and invest *some* of my money in it. Now if the business goes down in flames, only the money I invested is at risk (or liable). The rest of my money is safe. This has been a very useful tool for society because it allows corporations to take financial risks that they otherwise would not. The whole point of incorporation is to create a separate legal entity that is independent from the owners. This is all Business 101 that you learn in high school, and yet the supreme court seems blissfully unaware of it. Making Hobby Lobby do something is not, by definition, making the owners do something. I can guarantee you that if Hobby Lobby goes belly up and owes money, the owners will be all "Who? Hobby Lobby? That's not me. I just work there." Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Unless you believe that the Hobby Lobby corporation has religious beliefs independent of the owners, there is essentially no case. And don't even get me started on the whole corporations are people bullshit. The idea that an artificial, legal construct has greater rights than real, breathing human employees ... Ugh, don't get me started.
Whether you are liberal or conservative, politically active or indifferent, is not the point. I think we would all agree that many of the court's decisions are very frustrating. Whether I personally like the outcome or not, I find myself scratching my head going: "that makes absolutely no sense". As much as I prefer Obamacare to the alternative, the individual mandate is a penalty, not a tax. Halting the 2000 Florida recount due to violation of the Equal Protection clause, when the original counting of the ballots was just as unequal (if not more so) borders on the ridiculous.
Whenever a downright silly decision comes down, we are always told how there are complicated issues at play (precedent, competing issues, etc.). That's often true and I don't intend to make light of that. But if you need a contorted series of complex acrobatics to justify your point, then that is usually a sign that you don't have an argument. You have an opinion and are desperately trying to find any means to justify it. In fact, the decisions are called just that, legal opinions. There seems to be no real right or wrong, up or down, when it comes to them. We glorify the constitution when it suits us and ignore it when it does not (in some cases at the same time). People laugh when Bill Clinton said "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" but that's the kind of splitting hairs that SCOTUS seems to use all the time. Not to interpret the law, but bend it to their pre-conceived political views (both conservative and liberal). And that is sad.
So now to Hobby Lobby and why this decision is just plain wrong. And if you initially disagree before your knee-jerk reaction, it has nothing to do with what I believe about contraception or religion. Don't make the mistake of deciding what you feel about those and then finding a legal justification to support it.
I could make a list of several flaws in the decision, but let me just focus on the main one. The idea that Hobby Lobby is having its religious freedom violated. To understand why this is so misguided, we need to understand what Hobby Lobby is. Hobby Lobby is a corporation. Corporations are a legal construct created for one purpose. Limited Liability. Say I decide to make some money by selling hamburgers, but I realize that if I do a bad job I could loose a lot of money (perhaps everything I own). So instead, I create an artificial entity called DaleDonald's and invest *some* of my money in it. Now if the business goes down in flames, only the money I invested is at risk (or liable). The rest of my money is safe. This has been a very useful tool for society because it allows corporations to take financial risks that they otherwise would not. The whole point of incorporation is to create a separate legal entity that is independent from the owners. This is all Business 101 that you learn in high school, and yet the supreme court seems blissfully unaware of it. Making Hobby Lobby do something is not, by definition, making the owners do something. I can guarantee you that if Hobby Lobby goes belly up and owes money, the owners will be all "Who? Hobby Lobby? That's not me. I just work there." Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Unless you believe that the Hobby Lobby corporation has religious beliefs independent of the owners, there is essentially no case. And don't even get me started on the whole corporations are people bullshit. The idea that an artificial, legal construct has greater rights than real, breathing human employees ... Ugh, don't get me started.
