Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Kagan Throws Scalia's Own Religious Liberty Arguments Back In His Face - TPMDC [View all]
Kagan Throws Scalia's Own Religious Liberty Arguments Back In His FaceSahil Kapur TPMDC
March 25, 2014, 3:45 PM EDT
http://a4.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/c_fill,fl_keep_iptc,g_faces,h_365,w_652/wadrgqbbivbw88lxotat.jpg
<snip>
During oral arguments Tuesday about the validity of Obamacare's birth control mandate, Justice Elena Kagan cleverly invoked Justice Antonin Scalia's past warning that religious-based exceptions to neutral laws could lead to "anarchy."
"Your understanding of this law, your interpretation of it, would essentially subject the entire U.S. Code to the highest test in constitutional law, to a compelling interest standard," she told Paul Clement, the lawyer arguing against the mandate for Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood. "So another employer comes in and that employer says, I have a religious objection to sex discrimination laws; and then another employer comes in, I have a religious objection to minimum wage laws; and then another, family leave; and then another, child labor laws. And all of that is subject to the exact same test which you say is this unbelievably high test, the compelling interest standard with the least restrictive alternative."
Kagan's remarks might sound familiar to the legally-trained ear. In a 1990 majority opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, Scalia alluded to the same examples of what might happen if religious entities are permitted to claim exemptions from generally applicable laws. He warned that "[a]ny society adopting such a system would be courting anarchy."
"The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind," Scalia wrote in the 6-3 opinion, "ranging from compulsory military service, to the payment of taxes, to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races."
Indeed, Clement picked up on the reference...
<snip>
More: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/elena-kagan-antonin-scalia-birth-control-mandate
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
93 replies, 18159 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (253)
ReplyReply to this post
93 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Kagan Throws Scalia's Own Religious Liberty Arguments Back In His Face - TPMDC [View all]
WillyT
Mar 2014
OP
Hope she has better luck with scalia and his fellow vermin than she did with Citizens United.
calimary
Mar 2014
#3
The other ACA case worries me a lot more -- the one that would take away subsidies
pnwmom
Mar 2014
#5
After you made your comment I added comments regarding the other cases that are factors
happyslug
Mar 2014
#22
There are many differences between the pacifist denied unemployment benefits and Hobby Lobby.
SunSeeker
Mar 2014
#32
So, what religion is against paying taxes, 'cause I want to join that one
justiceischeap
Mar 2014
#11
I boldly predict that Scalia will ignore his own logic and vote to restrict women's healthcare.
Bucky
Mar 2014
#13
Yup. Does anyone believe anymore that these cases are decided by legal reasoning? nt
Jerry442
Mar 2014
#16
Legal theories are but a smorgasbord of fig leaves to cover the result the SCOTUS wants to reach.
SunSeeker
Mar 2014
#20
Scalito are hacks and worthless to our society as a whole. They are corporate shills
mdbl
Mar 2014
#26
Never mind, Tony will just invoke the "this time only, no precedents are to be set by this"
yellowcanine
Mar 2014
#24
Hear Hear, Sir: These People Want To Impose Their Religious Views On Their Employees
The Magistrate
Mar 2014
#53
The compelling interest test for a constitutional exemption being thrown out the window
Fred Sanders
Mar 2014
#35
P.S.: since any employer is free to not provide medical insurance at all, leaving employees
Fred Sanders
Mar 2014
#41
I wonder if that pompous, arrogant prick Fat Tony realizes he just got smashed and bested
Nanjing to Seoul
Mar 2014
#66
The CONservatives (not so) secretly want to replace Civil law with far rightwing "Biblical law."
blkmusclmachine
Mar 2014
#68
Don't count on a favorable ruiling. This is the court the endowed corps with personhood.
olegramps
Mar 2014
#74
Bush v Gore should have settled once and for all that right wingers on the bench
yurbud
Mar 2014
#92