© Wikipedia CommonsJustice Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg said the
ruling on the Hobby Lobby case was based on a misreading of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and would likely open the door to a host of unintended consequences.
"Little doubt that RFRA claims will proliferate, for the Court's expansive notion of corporate personhood - combined with its other errors in construing RFRA - invites for-profit entities to seek religion-based exemptions from regulations they deem offensive to their faith," she wrote.
The court ruled 5-4 Monday that the government cannot compel closely held corporations with religious owners to provide contraception coverage for its employees.
In a scathing,
35-page dissent, Ginsberg concluded that the contraception mandate did not impose a substantial burden on Hobby Lobby or Conestoga Wood Specialties - and therefore did not violate the RFRA.
She said the Affordable Care Act required employers to direct money into undifferentiated funds to pay for a wide variety of benefits under comprehensive health plans, and Ginsberg said employees were not obligated to use contraception coverage.
"Even if one were to conclude that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga meet the substantial burden requirement, the Government has shown that the contraceptive coverage for which the ACA provides furthers compelling interests in public health and women's well being," Ginsberg wrote. "Those interests are concrete, specific, and demonstrated by a wealth of empirical evidence."
While the court has recognized First Amendment protections for churches and other nonprofit religion-based organizations,
Ginsberg noted that no previous court decisions had ever recognized a for-profit corporation's qualification for religious exemption from any laws.
Comment: From the beating of Rodney King to the murder of Kelly Thomas, police tactics in the U.S. have become so heavy-handed that people are regularly being murdered by those ostensibly sworn 'to protect and to serve' them.
The militarization of police forces - particularly since 9/11, the steady erosion of civil rights via draconian laws, and an atmosphere of hysteria generated by the 'War on Terror' have all combined to place the police 'above the law'.
But tyrannical and dictatorial repression is what 'those other countries' do, right? Why is it, then, that we constantly see headlines of people in the U.S. being beaten, tasered, and even shot to death for such minor infringements as traffic violations? Are cops 'out of control'? Are they 'just obeying orders'?
Listen to the SOTT Talk Radio taking a look at police brutality in the 'land of the free'.