HOBBY LOBBY SUPREME
COURT VICTORY:
CONTRARY TO
THE CONSTITUTION?
The Supreme
Court Justices and how they voted
In the Hobby
Lobby case yesterday.
TAGS:
SUPREME COURT HOBBY LOBBY DECISION,
MAJORITY
VOTES AGAINST WOMEN’S HEALTH,
LAW
V. DOCTRINE?, CONSERVATIVE VICTORY,
RULING
WILL NOT BE “NARROWLY APPLIED”,
EXPOSING
HOW MUCH OF THEIR OWN RELIGIOSITY
THEY
BRING TO THEIR JOB,REPUBLICAN HYPOCRISY,
(Tuesday July 1, 2014
Washington, DC) In the wake of yesterday’s highly
controversial decision in the case of
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby by the Supreme Court of the United States
(SCOTUS), there have been passionate reactions on both sides of the
argument. Obviously the “Religious Right”
faction of the Republican Party perceives the ruling as a clear victory while
the “Left”, primarily Democrats, envision a dimmer future for women’s health
issues. As is so often the case the Court’s 5 – 4 decision broke along Party
lines with the majority representing Justices appointed by Republican
presidents and the dissenting minority having made it to the Court during
Democratic administrations. Looking
beneath this equation one catches a glimpse of the religiosity (or lack
thereof) that influences the Justices that is by itself worthy of further
examination. When John F. Kennedy was
running for president in 1960 there were many who were suspicious of his
Catholicism fearing his allegiance to the Pope and Vatican would overly influence
his decision making process. That did
not happen at that time but religious influences have ever so slowly come to shroud
the political landscape like a creeping ground fog.
Despite our form of
jurisprudence as defined in the Constitution and its Amendments, politics is an
influential element in our courts on all levels and it is most prominent when
one looks at the Supreme Court. Supreme
Court Justices are appointed to a lifelong tenure on the bench; they retire
when they want to; there is no method by which to alter the make-up of the
Court besides having a president of one Party or other presented with the
opportunity to nominate a candidate of his or her own political persuasion if a
vacancy occurs during their tenure in the White House. So, by its very nature SCOTUS is a political
body in that each Justice brings a political ideology and philosophy with them
to our highest court. Anyone who doubts
this reality need look no further back in our recent history to the Bush v. Gore case. The Supreme Court literally interfered with
the recount of presidential recounts in certain counties in Florida and
abruptly shut that process down essentially handing the United States
presidency to George W. Bush. The
political aspect of that decision has resulted in the current composition of
the Supreme Court in that two of the sitting Justices’ were appointed by
President George W. Bush.
A LONG RUNNING CONFLICT
Beginning in the middle of the
last century the Supreme Court - and all lower courts in the land - found
themselves confronting issues that were not explicitly delineated in the
Constitution. As they faced issues
involving ethics and morals as much as the law itself, there developed two
brands of judicial identity. On one hand
were the “Strict Constructionists” claiming their position as the “one and only
true” application of the Constitution and the volumes of precedents predicated
upon Constitutional law. The other hand
held those justices who were inclined to claim the constitutionality of a
particular issue using their “interpretation” of the Constitution, known as
“loose Constructionism”, were paving roads far afield from the “original intent”
of the men who wrote our Constitution. There have been groundbreaking,
precedent setting decisions based on the “Framers Intent” which is often
derisively viewed as “extra-Constitutional” reasoning by its critics. After all, as the decades went by an
increasing number of SCOTUS cases involved matters the Founding Fathers could
never have envisioned and in some of these cases the overarching contention was
one of applying Framer’s Intent.
As this divide became a deeper
schism, the strict constitutionalists labelled their opponents as “activist
judges” meaning, under a guise of smoke and mirrors, semantics and some degree
of theoretical extrapolation, these judges were actually “legislating from the
bench” usurping those powers granted only to Congress. Perhaps each side of this gulf had some merit
to their assertions. After all, the
American Constitution was meant to be, as some assert, to be a “living
document” allowing for the continued relevance in our ever evolving society. But was it truly meant to be living? Those who oppose this interpretation find
little, if any, leeway, malleability or room to maneuver when it comes to the
Constitution. They hold the Constitution in great esteem and view it to be
aging gracefully and adroitly, still vigorously adept enough to handle the
complex issues of today. The other side
sees it more of a growing organism that needs to periodically be pulled or
pushed in a direction that it might otherwise not find on its own accord as a
means of keeping the Constitution relevant as we continue to grow as a Country,
develop an increasingly diverse and disparate populace and exist in a
cultural/social milieu the Founders could not foresee. Both
viewpoints are each part of the same double-edged sword; their arguments are
off-setting in that they cancel each other out.
SHAKING A FOUNDING PRINCIPLE?
We are a country founded on
the notion of freedom of religion. Some
of our earliest settlers were fleeing religious oppression in European
countries many of which enforced a “State Religion”. In those countries there was no choice as to
whom or what to believe in, pray to, or what catechism to hold allegiance
with. Some of the darkest periods in the
history of mankind saw gross atrocities committed in the name of one god or
another, one religious view or another, or the usually ill-fated attempts to
convert others by force and violence. It
has been written that if God was to appear before us today and hold us account
for all of our transgressions committed in His name, He would be appalled. But human nature seems to predispose us
towards beliefs of a higher being, a divine entity, a life force, maker, grand
designer or some other superior elder ever watchful over his people. But, as our Founding Fathers saw with such
brilliant crystal clarity, there must be a complete separation between Church
and State. Freedom demands it.
For most of our history the
separation of Church and State was accepted unambiguously. While the exact
words “separation of Church and State” are not in the Constitution, the First
Amendment does say that government shall make no law “respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It has only been in the last 50 years or so
that there have been legal issues with either overt religious questions at
their core or some with inclinations encroaching on that hallowed barrier
between Church and State that have led to some dubiously ambiguous judgments obscuring
that heretofore hallowed barrier.
Since the post-Civil War era
of Reconstruction the SCOTUS has had to rule on some very thorny issues with
each side of the argument finding some biblical footing. In some landmark cases such as the Dred Scott Decision where
the Court ruled that a slave, even a “freed” slave was not a citizen of the
United States their judgment would not stand the test of time. Years later a different Court in a different
time reversed that ruling providing a clear starting point to what would develop
into many decades of a Civil Rights movement seeking equality for “all men” no
matter the color of their skin. After
all the bruising years of that often bloody movement the first issue with
unbridled religious overtones, an issue that plagues us to this very day
despite being legalized by the Supreme Court in the seminal Roe v. Wade decision of
1973, is the right for a woman to have an abortion. Before that case abortions were often
performed in unsanitary conditions by untrained practitioners and an untold
number of pregnant women died in obscurity sometimes alienated from their
families. Many of those survived the “back alley” procedures scarred and unable
to conceive due to damage inflicted during the “illegal” aborting a pregnancy
by choice. If there is any point of
reference and prominence in the last 40 years of SCOTUS rulings that has
ignited a debate between Right and Left, Republican and Democrat it is
abortion. Republicans lean to the “Right
to Life” of the unborn child while the Democrats staunchly defend their hard
fought “Pro Choice” position which has been the law of the land since 1973. Despite the legal status of abortion for the
last 41 years, it remains one of the most hotly contested issues and, as we saw
yesterday, it and other womens health matters such as birth control, remains
under attack from a vicious far rightwing faction of the Religious Right as
well as “mainstream” Republicans. It is
what both sides consider as a “red meat” issue used to inflame the passions of
their respective “base” constituents.
MORALS AND ETHICS
What good are all of our
Constitutional rights and the huge body of laws built atop them if, for all intents
and purposes, they appear devoid of any sense of morals or ethics. We live with some laws that outright trump
the lowest of the low clearances of morality and ethics with casual ease while
wantonly cloaking other more trenchant matters in quasi-sacrosanct absolutes
with questionable moral and ethical underpinnings. We use our Faith as a weapon to bludgeon
those of other Faiths, or no apparent faith, or self-proclaimed agnostics and
atheists. Yes, we are a church-going,
God-fearing nation of stalwart true believers as long as it all comports well
with our affiliations, politics and personal liberties. If my god is the one “true” god, by virtue of
that lone belief, I possess the high moral ground. Where is the moral “high
ground”; is it codified in law or doctrine, statutes or dogma?
This thinking begs the
question that just because something is or is not legal does that make it – or
not – moral and ethical? This is no
rhetorical exercise or verbal sleight of hand; it speaks directly to matters
that can deeply impact us as individuals, as American citizens while also impacting
all of us as a society. Most of us will
likely never be in a position where our own morals and ethics will have a
direct impact on those of another however; there are times when the wider world
intersects with our own beliefs. At such
times many would run for the protection of the “law” and hide behind it rather
than navigate that intersection alone.
REPUBLICAN HYPOCRISY
If one is to adhere to the
“Right to Life” there can be no escaping the fact that that very same live, as
yet unborn, once birthed, is automatically imbued with the same rights as any
of us are. The Rightwing zealots battle
over an unborn fetus yet deny health care and coverage to the infant. Holding to the Right to Life one must accept
in a moral and ethical sense that there exists as urgent an imperative to see
that that newborn is able to be tended to in a proper, humane manner; a manner
as detailed in several passages of the Bible.
Protecting a zygote from the nanosecond of conception until birth is one
matter; there comes with that “legal protection” a far greater, long termed
plethora of responsibilities. It is
obvious that the most rabid of the Right to Lifers are among the most recalcitrant
when it comes to the realities and needs that young girls and women face trying
to properly provide for and raise that child.
Abortions are often the last recourse for young women many of whom
simply have no access to proper health care, housing, nutrition or even the
most remedial parenting skills. So, one
cannot truly, morally and ethically be a Pro-Lifer if in fact, you shirk the
responsibilities. Having a Congress
populated by older, self-righteous white men crafting laws and bills that neglect,
actually blatantly ignore, the very real, basic needs of a young mother and her
infant is the apex of hypocrisy.
This latest assault on women’s
health care issues focus on having their expenses covered under the insurance
coverage provided by the Affordable Care Act derisively called “Obamacare” by
its Republican and Conservative opponents.
Since the Supreme Court has yet to have the balance of power to reverse
the Roe decision of 1973. But, if none
of the sitting Justices retire providing President Obama with the golden
opportunity to put hi mark on the highest court, the day may come when Roe v.
Wade is revisited. In the meantime the
Republican Party has vehemently chipped around the edges making it increasingly
difficult for women to have access to proper health care including
contraception and abortions.
Particularly hard hit are young women eking out a living below the
poverty line be they White, African American or Latino. How so called “Christian Conservatives” can
reconcile their proud religiosity with their immoral politics defies all
logic. How these proponents of “small
government” time and again insinuate themselves into the reproductive rights of
women is another mind twisting logical summersault.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote in
the majority
opinion that this ruling was “narrow” in regards to its practical
application. Alito is either unaware of
the wider world or he is simply ambivalent, callously indifferent, and disingenuous.
In this day and age it is quite
unbelievable that any Supreme Court Justice could actually believe that their
decisions can be “narrowly applied”. The
SCOTUS rulings set legal precedent that will no doubt open the floodgates for broader
applications concerning what constitutes a “private, sole ownership corporation”,
one in which the employers personal beliefs can trump the health care needs of
its employees. Already there are those
on the Right gearing up to widen the scope of this ruling. To think that this decision hasn’t opened a
Pandora’s Box and will only bolster and empower those on the Right to pursue
further litigation is just dead wrong.
In many states it is already nearly impossible for a woman to get a
medical abortion and this Hobby Lobby case will leave even more needy women out
in the cold driving some of them to the horrid practices once so common prior
to the Roe v. Wade case.
For all the self-professed
Christianity of the Right it is stunning that they can be so devoid of conscience.
Copyright
The Brooding Cynyx 2014 © All Rights Reserved
