On Tuesday March 25th, the Supreme Court heard arguments on Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, a highly anticipated case regarding the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate—which requires for-profit companies to offer insurance plans that pay for contraceptives.
Hobby Lobby is owned by the Green family, devoted Southern Baptists who don’t believe in contraception. In the case, Hobby Lobby is arguing that the contraception mandate violates their 1st amendment rights—because don’t forget corporations are people—by making them pay for their employee’s contraception; which goes against the Green family’s religious beliefs.
The arguments seemed to play out as predicted. The four liberal justices, Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Breyer, will likely side with Sebelius. The four conservative justices, Alito, Scalia, Roberts and Thomas, will likely side with Hobby Lobby. That leaves Kennedy, the swing justice who as predicted, could go either way. With the possibility of the court siding with Hobby Lobby, I would like to portrait an alternate vision.
Let’s suppose that instead of the challenger being Hobby Lobby, it was Furniture World. A furniture company that has 150 stores across the country. As well, let’s suppose that instead of the Green family, we had the Kazim family; who are descendants of Saudi Arabian immigrants. The third and final supposition we are going to make, is that instead of the contraception mandate, the Kazims are challenging the ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act). The Kazim family believes that the ENDA violates their religious beliefs because it mandates the treatment of Men and Women as equals, which isn’t in accordance with their faith. They are petitioning the court to declare the ENDA unconstitutional due to the previously stated percieved 1st amendment violations.
For the conservatives on the court, it would be one thing to rule on the side of Hobby Lobby because they truly believe that laws that infringe on all people’s religious rights should be done away with. However, I don’t believe that to be the case. Is there any doubt, that if the Greens were instead the Kazims, that the conservatives on the court would vehemently oppose the challenger’s argument? The case would have likely have been handled in the lower courts, and not even made it to the highest court in the land. I believe that the conservatives support Hobby Lobby’s case, because they can identify with the Greens’ beliefs—which run in line with hyper-conservative platform. This presents a judicial hypocrisy, and contributes to the right wing idea that America is a Christian nation; a notion that directly contradicts the establishment clause of the constitution. The court as a institution cannot favor a particular creed in such an obvious manner. If this bias persists, the Supreme Court will start to lose its credibility as the impartial court of last resort.
These two cases—one fictional, and one factual—can be interpreted to be of the same judicial vein. Which is to say, that if the Supreme Court allows Hobby Lobby an exemption from the contraception mandate, then they would also have to allow Furniture World to have a similar exemption.
If the court sides with Hobby Lobby, they could undermine the effectiveness of laws that infringe on a company’s owner’s religious beliefs. Religious beliefs that—under American law—are undefinable. We can’t say that someone’s beliefs aren’t religious as that would violate the 1st amendment. In essence, religious belief can be any belief, no matter how radical.
Typically I find the slippery slope argument to be logically lazy, but when it comes to judicial jurisprudence, precedent is what matters. And when blind adherence to precedent exists, the slopes can get icy.
Hobby Lobby is owned by the Green family, devoted Southern Baptists who don’t believe in contraception. In the case, Hobby Lobby is arguing that the contraception mandate violates their 1st amendment rights—because don’t forget corporations are people—by making them pay for their employee’s contraception; which goes against the Green family’s religious beliefs.
The arguments seemed to play out as predicted. The four liberal justices, Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Breyer, will likely side with Sebelius. The four conservative justices, Alito, Scalia, Roberts and Thomas, will likely side with Hobby Lobby. That leaves Kennedy, the swing justice who as predicted, could go either way. With the possibility of the court siding with Hobby Lobby, I would like to portrait an alternate vision.
Let’s suppose that instead of the challenger being Hobby Lobby, it was Furniture World. A furniture company that has 150 stores across the country. As well, let’s suppose that instead of the Green family, we had the Kazim family; who are descendants of Saudi Arabian immigrants. The third and final supposition we are going to make, is that instead of the contraception mandate, the Kazims are challenging the ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act). The Kazim family believes that the ENDA violates their religious beliefs because it mandates the treatment of Men and Women as equals, which isn’t in accordance with their faith. They are petitioning the court to declare the ENDA unconstitutional due to the previously stated percieved 1st amendment violations.
For the conservatives on the court, it would be one thing to rule on the side of Hobby Lobby because they truly believe that laws that infringe on all people’s religious rights should be done away with. However, I don’t believe that to be the case. Is there any doubt, that if the Greens were instead the Kazims, that the conservatives on the court would vehemently oppose the challenger’s argument? The case would have likely have been handled in the lower courts, and not even made it to the highest court in the land. I believe that the conservatives support Hobby Lobby’s case, because they can identify with the Greens’ beliefs—which run in line with hyper-conservative platform. This presents a judicial hypocrisy, and contributes to the right wing idea that America is a Christian nation; a notion that directly contradicts the establishment clause of the constitution. The court as a institution cannot favor a particular creed in such an obvious manner. If this bias persists, the Supreme Court will start to lose its credibility as the impartial court of last resort.
These two cases—one fictional, and one factual—can be interpreted to be of the same judicial vein. Which is to say, that if the Supreme Court allows Hobby Lobby an exemption from the contraception mandate, then they would also have to allow Furniture World to have a similar exemption.
If the court sides with Hobby Lobby, they could undermine the effectiveness of laws that infringe on a company’s owner’s religious beliefs. Religious beliefs that—under American law—are undefinable. We can’t say that someone’s beliefs aren’t religious as that would violate the 1st amendment. In essence, religious belief can be any belief, no matter how radical.
Typically I find the slippery slope argument to be logically lazy, but when it comes to judicial jurisprudence, precedent is what matters. And when blind adherence to precedent exists, the slopes can get icy.
No comments :
Post a Comment