Enshrined Ignorance

There are a lot of my friends who will disagree with me on this but the Supreme Court ruling in the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga cases is not about forcing a company to accept values that are contrary to the religious beliefs of the owners.  It is about whether or not such companies will have to comply with regulations that assure non-discriminatory actions toward its employees.  Can such a corporation deny employment to African-Americans because their religious beliefs consider them inferior?  Can such a corporation refuse to employ women because of a sincerly held belief that the correct place for women is at home?  Can such a corporation deny coverage for blood transfusions since it is contrary to the religious beliefs of that denomination.

This court has shown an alarming propensity for making rulings on what it claims are narrow grounds but, in practice, have far reaching implications.  For instance, in the Citizens United case (a misnomer if ever there were one) it was held that corporations possess the same free speech rights as individuals regardless of the imbalance of resources.  Justice Kennedy (who is the vote swinging the court these days) said that he did not believe that the ruling would tilt the scales.  Well, the past couple of years have proven him wrong which is obvious from the huge amounts of money being directed into PACs which have no reporting requirements that would allow citizens to see who is funding the messages.

In the same way Justice Kennedy allowed the originalists on the Court to achieve a majority with a ruling they say is on narrow grounds but will follow the same path as the Citizens United case.

Our inability as voters to see beneath the surface and reason toward the substance of a matter is allowing the screaming reactionaries to make enough noise to sway the choice of Justices.  It is in the Supreme Court that the longest acting results of governance take place.  The swing of the pendulum of justice can be up to fifty years before it arcs back in a corrective balance.

In the same way, the decisions reached by a 5-4 ruling do nothing to establish a firm precedent for Congressional and Executive action.  It simply presents a target to be aimed at in order to overturn.  The narrow view of the originalists is a danger to our republic and only gives those who yearn for the life of the century before last a false hope that they can prevail.  Fortunately, the tide always turns toward progression.  Unfortunately, I may not be alive to see it.