Cur Non Avatar

Posts tagged law

597 Notes

SCOTUS admits it doesn’t even believe its own argument in the Hobby Lobby case, and says so in the ruling.


If you read the ruling, SCOTUS even admits that the ruling makes so little sense, that it HAS to be applied solely to the single area of contraceptives, or it becomes even more fucked up:

In any event, our decision in these cases is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat thespread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.

Meaning, the court understands that logically their argument makes no sense in the broad scheme of things, and if you follow the logic it basically puts the US into a feudal system, but if they can carve out this one exception to logic, reason, and the rule of law, they’re okay with doing so.

There’s no reason that a “closely-held” corporation (like 90% of US corps) can’t have a moral religious exception to blood transfusions or organ donations (see: Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example) but those corporations can’t deny coverage of such for “religious exception” under this ruling - it’s just this one category of contraception women’s contraception that can be exempted, because…well, they never really explain why. They’re willing to admit that overall the whole proposition is fucking nutter, but never get around to saying why this one category is so special that it requires the existence of religious exception, aside from it being an area that people have been trying to limit for decades.

Long story short: SCOTUS recognizes the hypocrisy in their decision, and actively carve out denials against the logical extension of their own ruling. THAT’S the most fucked-up part of this whole thing: the five men in favor of this decision have to admit that their logic isn’t sound, and that if taken to it’s logical conclusion would be catastrophic - so instead of asking why their logic isn’t sound, they say “So it only applies to this one area. No others. And only if you really believe. Like…like a lot.”

Ugh Jesus CHRIST.



12 Notes

The reason why a ‘bare dick’ is covered under free speech is because, hypothetically, I’m an artist. I mean, on a technical level, I’m Andy Warhol.