Hobby Lobby -- Part 2

INTRODUCTION

In the interest of providing as comprehensive and objective of an analysis of Supreme Court decisions as possible, I've decided to cover Justice Ginsburg's dissent in Burwell, et al. v. Hobby Lobby, Inc., et al. (Click on the link, search "Ginsburg," and press enter a few times. You'll get to her dissent soon enough. It's about halfway down the page.) I think that it can be difficult for me when to keep things organized when writing about dissents because they tend to just poke a lot of holes in the majority and break every piece down into little parts, so I apologize if this is confusing. Let's begin.

(Note: I highly encourage reading Part 1, which covers Justice Alito's majority opinion, for context before reading Part 2. I gloss over some relevant laws and legal principles here because they are explained in Part 1.)

Upcoming Discussions

I haven't quite decided what Supreme Court decision I want to talk about next, but I'm thinking McCullen v. Coakley, Riley v. California, Town of Greece v. Galloway, Shelby County v. Holder, NLRB v. Canning, Citizens United v. FEC, or McCutcheon v. FEC.

I might also go into dissenting opinions, obviously beginning with Hobby Lobby, but they usually aren't really precedent-setting so they might not be as valuable in that sense.

If you have any suggestions or comments, please comment or email me at beyondsoundbites@gmail.com and let me know!

I'm Open to All Comments, Suggestions, and Criticisms!

I want this website to be as informative as possible for everyone involved, so if you'd like to have a discussion about a particular Supreme Court case, whether past or future, feel free to comment or email me at beyondsoundbites@gmail.com and let me know! If you'd like shorter, more concise explanations of Supreme Court decisions, I would be more than happy to do my best to keep that in mind when writing my posts (but I may have to sacrifice some degree of depth in my analysis). And, of course, if you have any thoughts or criticisms or believe that I missed a vital point, let me know as well!

Hobby Lobby -- Part 1

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court issued its decision in Burwell, et al. v. Hobby Lobby, Inc., et al. on June 30, 2014. As it seems to be a win for conservatives, most of the backlash has come from liberal media. (I'm not trying to single out liberals; it's just that the dissent is usually the most vocal. If the decision had gone the other way, I'm sure I would be quoting conservative sources here.) Some sources condemn the decision as one that grants corporations more rights than individuals and pushes the struggle for women's reproductive rights back over 60 years. Perhaps most egregiously, other sources, including The Huffington Post, claim that the decision will allow for religion-based exemptions on a whole array of laws, including nudity laws, tax laws, drug laws, and laws against violent acts like stoning.

All of those statements are misleading, if not outright wrong.

Let's get down to what the majority opinion really says. First, we need a little bit of background.