The Hobby Lobby Mess

Is anyone allowed to say anything sane and calm about Hobby Lobby? If so, may I note: if we had just created universal insurance vouchers and divorced insurance completely from employment, we wouldn't have this mess at all. (Plus we'd have a lot more job mobility!) But our legislative process is so disfunctional that instead 10,000 lobbyists get together and create legislation that seems to have the goal of being as complex and hard to implement as possible. Ugh.

6 comments:

  1. Volokh summarizes sanely and calmly http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/30/the-hobby-lobby-majority-summarized-in-relatively-plain-english/

    There is no mess. A federal statutes applies. The court applied it. The only mess is the tsunami of demagoguery and ignorance coming from those who judge courts by how they like the results not the reasoning, the process, or the law.

    If one doesn't like the Hobby Lobby decision there is a remedy. Change the law Clinton signed or change the law Obama signed. Mostly I see idiotic howling about "theocracy", or a "war on women".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SCOTUS may have gotten the decision completely right; I don't know. The "mess" is having employment and insurance tied to each other.

      Delete
    2. Oh yes. And that was something they resolutely refused to address when they passed ACA.

      Delete
  2. The misuse of language is nearly amazing. Women are being "denied access" to birth control.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think if you look hard enough you can find that talk anywhere.

      Delete
  3. The Freedom From zreligion Foundation has put out a really vile ad.

    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/the-ffrfs-ad-against-the-hobby-lobby-decision/

    The ad at least shows they know this is about a statute. But then if they *agree* the FRFA is the source of what they object to, then they must logically agree the court was correct in applying it. So why drag in the sex and religion of just some of the court? Appeal to prejudice straight up.

    And to head off some foolish rebuttal I am an atheist too.

    ReplyDelete