Mar 252014
 

SCROTUS (Constitutional VD) is my term for the Fascist Five Supreme Court Injustices, who almost always favor their extreme Republican ideology over our Constitution.  Worst among them (along with Clarence “TEAbag” Thomas) is Antonin “SS” Scalia.  In two cases coming before the Court today, I expect Scalia to renege on an earlier opinion in a most hypocritical manner.  Ironically, even with opposite opinions, he will be as wrong now as he was then.

0325ScaliaWhen the Supreme Court hears two landmark cases about birth control on Tuesday, few observers doubt that Justice Antonin Scalia's sympathies will be the Catholic business owners who charge that the mandate violates their religious liberties.

The Reagan-appointed jurist is a devout Catholic who has extolled "traditional Christian virtues." He insists the devil is "a real person" and has a son who's a Catholic priest. He voted in 2012 to wipe out Obamacare in its entirety and has been President Barack Obama's most outspoken foe on the Supreme Court.

And yet, Scalia's past jurisprudence stands contradictory to the argument for striking down the Obamacare rule in question, which requires for-profit employers' insurance plans to cover contraceptives (like Plan B, Ella and intrauterine devices) for female employees without co-pays.

In 1990, Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, concluding that the First Amendment "does not require" the government to grant "religious exemptions" from generally applicable laws or civic obligations. The case was brought by two men in Oregon who sued the state for denying them unemployment benefits after they were fired from their jobs for ingesting peyote, which they said they did because of their Native American religious beliefs.

"[T]he right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability," Scalia wrote in the 6-3 majority decision, going on to aggressively argue that such exemptions could be a slippery slope to lawlessness.

"The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind," he wrote, "ranging from compulsory military service, to the payment of taxes, to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races."… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <TPM>

Scalia was wrong in opining not to give a religious exemption to followers of Native American beliefs, because he was denying their right to freely practice their religion. I expect him to opine that business should get a religious exemption to refuse to cover birth control under ObamaCare.  He will be wrong, because such an exemption allows businesses to force their religions practices on others.

Scalia and his Republican Party would ignore the First Amendment by establishing a pseudo-Christian state religion and denying the free exercise of other religions.

Late Update:

On tonight’s show, Chris Hayes covered the same issue.  Because this just aired, I cannot get it in an internationally viewable format, but his and his guest’s analysis echoed mine so closely, I had to include it.

It was always intended as a shield, and not a sword,  Well said.

Share

  7 Responses to “Scalia Hypocrisy Warning!”

  1. If they rule that businesses can force their opinions on others (denial of access to birth control etc) – doesn't this get them further down the road of regarding businesses as people?  Most worrying for everyone's freedoms!

  2. I heard someone state this AM on some news show that SCROTUS has to diecide whether corporations were allowed to deny birth control as a matter of their Freedom of Speech. When SCROTUS decided that "Corporations are people" I think they already made their minds up and this proceeding is a moot exercise. Scalia, Thomas and the rest of the Republican will most likely take another step to decimate our Constitution by ruling in Hobby Lobby's favor and thus establishing pseudo-christianity as the USA's State religion. I will be pleasantly surprised if they rule the other way.

  3. First, from a medical perspective I think it's important to remember that birth control pills (BCP) are prescribed for numerous conditions OTHER than birth control.

    Second, I'm not sure whether Scalia was right or wrong in his decision WRT Employment Division v. Smith – but I do hope he's shackled to his own reasoning on it when it comes to the Hobby Lobby case.  Because quoting from his opinion, he's boxed himself into ruling AGAINST Hobby Lobby:

    We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.

    Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.

    Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."

    If they grant Hobby Lobby's plea, what would prevent Jehovah's Witness' organizations from refusing to cover blood transfusions?

    Or some group refusing to cover vaccinations because they feel "substantially burdened"?

    Or Christian Science organizations from refusing ALL health insurance?

  4. I refuse to believe that a corporation is a person ….. until my state executes one!

    I think Roberts, as distasteful as he is, still has a grasp of the Constitution and precedented law. He may be swayed to uphold the separation of church and state. Then again….who the hell knows with the Fascist Five.

    I do know this, IF they determine that Hobby Lobby can use their 'religious grounds'….so too will a lot of companies. Slippery slope on steroids. And a whole lotta women (and the men who love them) boycotting their business and a whole lot of others. 

    If this truly happens, women will again be relegated to 2nd class citizenship, chattel and prisoners to their bodies….and their employers. I won't even start on what such a decision would do to other professions. Retail stores are one segment, think about it.  Do they really, reallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllly wanna go there with women? 

    Not even gonna start on Scalia and Long Dong……I need to keep my BP down.

  5. I will not be surprised if they side with Hobby Lobby, disappointed, but not surprised.  When they ruled that corporations are people too that was the down hill slide of most of our constitutional rights. 

  6. Thanks everyone.

    So far Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts appear to support the Republican Reich.  Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan appear to support the Constitution.  Kennedy is the question mark.