As I've delved deeper and deeper into my political understanding, I have found the Supreme Court the most intriguing branch of government. I hardly understand more than 5% of it's history and the Justices responsibilities -- but it still fascinates me. I find keeping up with their case load much more satisfying and slightly less frustrating than following Congress or the President.
With that intro, today's the big Hobby Lobby day, huh? Earlier this morning the Justices heard oral arguments about the importance of religious liberty and the complex decisions a for-profit corporation must make when striving to live one's faith.
I especially enjoyed the questions raised by Justice Sotomayor. How does a for-profit corporation exercise their religion and whose religion is it, the shareholders, the founder, the highest ranking corporate leaders? I also loved the point she made about the court's resistance to measure the depth of someone's religious beliefs. I can't help but think that if this case lands in Hobby Lobby's favor, the courts are now going to be responsible for judging the depth of individual citizens' faith.
I also loved (in a totally different way) the suggestion from the petitioner, that the government should just foot the bill for Hobby Lobby employees who want IUDs or certain contraceptive oral pills that the founder links to abortion. Don't get me wrong, my solution to this whole mess is to end employer based health insurance, so I'm obviously fine with the government playing a larger role in the price and payment of medical care ... but I find it absurd that anyone would argue -- with a straight face -- that the taxpayers should cover the cost of any for-profit corporation's business responsibility. Again, I don't think paying for insurance should be a business responsibility. But really Hobby Lobby, you're going to tell me that I should have to pay for your employees' IUD, simply because you don't accept the science behind the uterus's vital role in creating life? Please!
I'm excited to read (a summary of) the opinion.
With that intro, today's the big Hobby Lobby day, huh? Earlier this morning the Justices heard oral arguments about the importance of religious liberty and the complex decisions a for-profit corporation must make when striving to live one's faith.
I especially enjoyed the questions raised by Justice Sotomayor. How does a for-profit corporation exercise their religion and whose religion is it, the shareholders, the founder, the highest ranking corporate leaders? I also loved the point she made about the court's resistance to measure the depth of someone's religious beliefs. I can't help but think that if this case lands in Hobby Lobby's favor, the courts are now going to be responsible for judging the depth of individual citizens' faith.
I also loved (in a totally different way) the suggestion from the petitioner, that the government should just foot the bill for Hobby Lobby employees who want IUDs or certain contraceptive oral pills that the founder links to abortion. Don't get me wrong, my solution to this whole mess is to end employer based health insurance, so I'm obviously fine with the government playing a larger role in the price and payment of medical care ... but I find it absurd that anyone would argue -- with a straight face -- that the taxpayers should cover the cost of any for-profit corporation's business responsibility. Again, I don't think paying for insurance should be a business responsibility. But really Hobby Lobby, you're going to tell me that I should have to pay for your employees' IUD, simply because you don't accept the science behind the uterus's vital role in creating life? Please!
I'm excited to read (a summary of) the opinion.
1 comment:
And here I thought you were going to blog about Diana Ross and The "Supremes"!
Post a Comment