Supreme Court Justices Looked to Personal Views Rather Than Legal Arguments for Hobby Lobby Decision

[DonViejo]

Eric Segall

The justices would have you believe their choices were limited by prior law, but that is simply false. On issues of race, religion, politics, and technology, the court made decisions that will seriously affect how Americans define themselves as a country and which reflect the justices’ overall value systems much more than their legal perspectives.

In every constitutional case the Supreme Court decided this term, the Justices had discretion to decide the case in favor of either party and pursuant to a broad or narrow legal rationale. The Justices would have you believe their choices were limited by prior law but that is simply false. On issues of race, religion, politics and technology, the Court made decisions that will seriously affect how Americans define themselves as a country, and which reflect the Justices’ overall value systems much more than their legal perspectives.

In May, the conservative and liberal Justices disagreed over the Christian prayers used by the Greece, New York Town Council to start their legislative sessions. The Justices could have outlawed those prayers pursuant to three prior cases that disallowed such prayers in public school classrooms, high school graduation ceremonies, and football games. Or they could have allowed the prayers under a case that permitted non-denominational prayers in state legislatures, which are different than town councils because local folks don’t go to state legislatures to seek zoning variances and conduct other personal business.

The conservatives chose an extremely narrow interpretation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and told the atheist and Jewish plaintiffs, who were asked by Greece’s official “Chaplin of the Month” to bow their heads to Jesus, to, well, just get over it. Justice Kagan strongly disagreed, arguing that Greece had in fact “established” Christianity as the official religion of its town council.

The Court’s decision not only allows prayers of one religion (almost always Christian), at local, state, and federal governmental meetings, but strongly suggests that the tolerance the Constitution requires be placed squarely on the shoulders of those offended by the prayers rather than on those seeking to pray at government meetings.

more
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/01/supreme-court-justices-looked-to-personal-views-rather-than-legal-arguments-for-hobby-lobby-decision.html

[66 dmhlt]

1. The Roberts Court has repeatedly ...

The Roberts Court has repeatedly insisted on framing laws to support their opinions, instead of framing opinions to support the law.

[MurrayDelph]

2. This is why Thomas never asks questions

He already knows the answer he wants to give, so the arguments are irrelevant to him.

[LoisB]

3. He knows the answer Scalia wants him to give.

[TexinD]

4. History

I believe History will remember that most of these conservative Justices never should have been on the bench.

Scalia seems to think HE is gets to sit next to Jesus at the dinner table.

[blkmusclmachine]

5. 5 wanna-be Theocrats in black robes!