The Hobby Lobby Mess

By -
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.

Comments

  1. Ken B4:02 PM

    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. gcallah4:20 PM

      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. Ken B11:08 PM

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

      Delete
  2. Andy8:32 PM

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Samson Corwell8:51 PM

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

      Delete
  3. Ken B11:43 PM

    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

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more