Again, this analysis by the majority empowers people to claim anything violates their religious beliefs, and the Court will not even put them to the proof. At this point, it seems that the “substantial burden” analysis is an empty shell. You can simply assert that anything is a burden on your religious belief, and the Court is just going to let you jump immediately to the next step, the strict scrutiny analysis.
The Hobby Lobby Decision: A Summary & Explanation
8 comments:
The author seems like she already decided what she wanted the decision to be and they crafted a tortured argument to come to that conclusion. Some of her complaints dealt with issues that weren't proper for the court to rule on.
I know you discounted Eugene Volokh's analysis, but he is a law professor and a nationally recognized expert on 1st Amendment law...not just a recent law school grad.
Why does your expert get to be THE expert? 4 Supreme Court justices disagree with you and Volokh. He has a right to his argument. But your assumption that his (and your) take are the only legitimate ones is what annoys me. Any of the rest of us who have a problem with the ruling are uneducated rubes, I guess? Us and 4 Supreme Court justices? And who knows how many friend of the court briefs? Your dismissive attitude is annoying.
To make the point more clear, I can see why people believe this to be an appropriate ruling given the law. but what I can't get is why you and some others can't seem to understand why intelligent and informed (and yes, even people with more legal experience than you) disagree with this ruling.
While there aren't that many people that are smarter than me, there are plenty with more legal experience. I think that leaves plenty of room between a law school professor and a recent law school grad. If you were seeking a medical opinion on some type of complex diagnosis, would you feel comfortable getting it from a person that just started their residency?
Regardless, the author made a lot of non-legal arguments, which I found to be more annoying than her lack of experience.
Right. The only people who agree with this decision are dumber than you. Got it. 4 Supremes disagree, but they aren't as smart as you and Volokh.
Perhaps when you make a stupid analogy about going to a doctor you might want to actually think it through. To turn it back on your, if you are looking for legal expertise, and you have a choice between a lowly college professor or a Supreme Court justice. Oh who the hell am I talking to? Of course, Steve turns to someone with whom he agrees. Now, if I said, you could talk to Scalia, then you might be on board. But a bunch of female justices..... They might as well be just out of law school.
I thought we were discussing the article that you posted, not the dissent? I thought the dissent made good points, but given that most Supreme Court decisions have a dissent, I would argue that they aren't always right. Since you seem to have trouble comprehending what I am saying, I will say it again:
My biggest problem with the author's arguments was that many of them were non-legal and stupid.
I know you like to think you are smarter than everyone. Keep thinking that.
Post a Comment