Hobby Lobby: The Stupidest SCOTUS Case Until Their Next Stupid Case

Work with me on this one. Not so much the holding per se, but the idea that it was based on constitutional precepts and tenets: that is what we call in the legal biz bullshit. Give me a break, Sparky. If Hobby Lobby were a family owned, closely held corporation run by Muslims applying Sharia law in rejecting insurance plans that provided, say arguendo, medication containing gelatin capsules that were porcine based, you can bet your sweet bippy that the case would have never been heard because it never would have happened. It’s the fact that the participants are Christians. That’s the way it works. We see when Constitutional Neanderthals still suggest that prayer in school would be cool. Prayer? Any prayer? Wiccan? Zoroastrian? Pagan? Hare Krishna?

Don’t make me laugh. The same SCOTUS who punted in Newdowwith the Ninth Circuit crafting a brilliant decision only to have the Supremes grant cert and then bail on a standing issue?! Remember, they’re in for life. Period. Article III, baby. ‘Tis a bitch. Until, of course, it’s a decision you like and then all is forgiven.

Be not mistaken, my friends. This “religious freedom” question was based on the fact that the religion was accepted. Judeo-Christian, no sweat. Muslim, Hindu of atheist? Not a chance.

Focus, people. If this were a legislative matter, viz. if this decision were being considered a part of the Affordable Health Act or anything but a full-throated SCOTUS review, we’d probably have the same arguments. In fact, Ol’ Ruthie threw out some beauts. This infra says it all.

Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision.

And please refrain from the usual “You’re opening up a can of worms” argument or the equally valid slippery slope beaut. Only good cases open cans o’ worms and slippery slopes are reserved for cases you disagree with. Remember, you can also get a goo decision for specious reasonings. Look no further than Blackmun’s Roe v. Wade. I’m an ardent, full-tilt, drop dead pro-choicer, but that case was an abomination and an insult to logic and juridical precedent. Privacy?!

Oh, yes. Here’s some video to watch.

Trackbacks and Pingbacks:

%d bloggers like this: