Breathtaking

Do you remember the Bush Administration? I sure do. It seemed, every week brought with it another breathtaking development in neo-conservitive overreach, from GW Bush's signing statements, refusing to execute laws passed by Congress to the disastrous war in Iraq that, today, has a country we don't like ascendant in that region (Iran) and a country he said would be a "cradle of Democracy in the region" involved in a civil war.

And the explanations given for overreach were breathtaking, too. Iraq had Weapons of Mass-Destruction; they had purchased yellowcake uranium for enrichment, they were making an atomic bomb (no, that was Iran, who Bush put in the catbird seat in the region). They were funding terrorism (again, Iran). They were a safe-haven for terrorists (not until after we invaded and then didn't govern them—and that was Afghanistan, where Bush let the terrorists get away in the mountains of Tora Bora along the border with Afghanistan and the ungoverned region in Pakistan).

Worst. President. Ever.

But now, we have the same thing happening. Not in the Executive, but in the Judiciary in the Supreme Court. It used to be that only one Justice on the Supreme Court was violating the rulings that he, himself had previously made. That was Clarence "The Clown" Thomas, whose rulings vie with each other as the most contradictory and the most politically-motivated. I brace myself as we approach July now as we begin to hear the rulings of the Roberts Court with their five-to-four rulings that, once again, take my breath away as uniquely bad. Three women sit on this Court and each of these three women were opposed by almost every Republican in the US Senate for confirmation.

The US Supreme Court with all smiling, save Clarence, the Sad Clown.

This latest decision in the Hobby Lobby case is breathtaking because the majority (a bare five) decided to take an obscure law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, and twist it, applying it as a specific test that allows corporations to discriminate against women in the workplace. Oh, they state that only "closely-held corporations" may apply their religious objections and discriminate against a class of US Citizen, but they utterly fail to define what a "closely-held corporation" is and leave it to lower courts to hash it out.

I read through their tortured logic and it is very clear to me that they believe Corporations are people. This is a belief that completely defies logic. As Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her marvelous dissent stated:

"In a sole proprietorship, the business and its owner are one and the same. By incorporating a business, however, an individual separates herself from the entity and escapes personal responsibility for the entity’s obligations. One might ask why the separation should hold only when it serves the interest of those who control the corporation."

Let me explain this a little better: You own a company. When you own a company, you assume risk. The work that you do may generate lawsuits if it is shoddy. Someone trips on your office step and you may be sued for negligence (you did not clear the snow, your step is loose, etc.). All of these can be offloaded to "not-you" if you incorporate. Now, in many ways, a corporation can wind up with a lot more risk than an individual. And, with respect to lawsuits, corporations sometimes face awards in the millions that an individual might never have to pay. But your personal bank account and your personal accountability are completely separate from those of the corporation.

But we're talking rights here. And I have to ask, why is it that these five Justices think that a corporation gets "special rights?" I seem to recall that every time "The Gay" came up in terms of rights, Republicans would term any laws that afforded "The Gay" equal rights to heterosexual citizens, they were "special rights." While everyone with any sense understands that equal rights are not special rights, these five justices have just created a special rights case for something that they call "A closely-held corporation." I'll bet "closely-held corporations" will want to discriminate against "The Gay" next, because it is against their religion to tolerate "The Gay."

Here's the deal: They can now pay less for employer-provided benefits so that they can discriminate—based on some religious beliefs that they decide is pertinent. This means, they have an advantage over non-closely-held corporations, like GE. If I was Pfizer, I would be going crazy at this ruling. Conestoga and Hobby Lobby now can get lower-cost health insurance coverage because of the board of Directors' religion and I cannot.

Now I am omitting, here, the whole "special rights" they get that regular citizens can't get. Regular citizens cannot go out and buy a health insurance plan through the Affordable Care Act's website without needing to pay for all manner of contraceptives. This means that a minister who believes that there should be no contraception cannot sign up for health insurance on the healthcare.gov website and avoid paying for women getting contraceptives, but "closely-held corporations" can create a special instance where they can negotiate lower rates, based on some made-up religious intolerance to women.

Now of course the headlines on Facebook are funny today:

Supreme Court Rules JCPenney Allowed to Sacrifice Employees to Appease Cthulhu
SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS LITTLE CAESAR’S RIGHT TO FEED CHRISTIAN EMPLOYEES TO LIONS
Hobby Lobby Stones Gay Employee to Death
Closely-Held Corporation Imposes Sharia Law
Welcome to the USA Where Corporations are People but Women Aren't

What is not funny is how a special class of corporation has just been created that can, essentially, get around all US law on the basis of religious objection. All so that the five men on the Roberts Court who agreed with this tortured decision can single women out for special discrimination.

I note that Hobby Lobby's retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions when they filed their suit to discriminate against female employees.

I guess, where money is to be made, nothing violates one's religious principles, but where money is to be spent, those principles are paramount.