+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: What Justice Scalia, and the Supreme Court, have said in the past about "religious liberty" (/showthread.php?tid=131844)
What Justice Scalia, and the Supreme Court, have said in the past about "religious liberty" - Grace62 - 02-11-2012
(conservative Catholic) Justice Scalia explained:
We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):
Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.
(Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said,
are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/10/1063513/-Justice-Scalia-solves-the-contraception-debate?showAll=yes&via=blog_1
Re: What Justice Scalia, and the Supreme Court, have said in the past about "religious liberty" - Ted King - 02-11-2012
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/how-scalia-helped-obama-defend-the-birth-control-rule.php?ref=fpblg
Sadly for liberals, though, the legal basis for a challenge doesn’t end there. Apart from the First Amendment option, there’s another, more substantial judicial route that opponents of the birth control rule can take. After Smith was handed down, Congress passed a law to push back on the ruling, which Winkler said “attempts to provide more protection for religion than the Supreme Court was willing to give.”
The 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act said any law that burdens religious freedom must satisfy strict scrutiny. The Supreme Court later said it cannot apply to states (which is why the 28 states that already have the birth control rule the White House wants to take nationwide are in the clear), but held that those requirements shall apply to federal laws. First, the law may not be a “substantial burden” and can only be an “incidental burden” on religious practices; second, it must be justified by “compelling government interest”; third, it must be narrowly tailored to pursue that interest.
Although it was an open question whether the original birth control requirement would pass this level of scrutiny, the White House’s announcement Friday allowing religious nonprofits to opt out (in which case the insurer would be forced to pay for birth control without a copay) appears to restrict the RFRA argument to overturn it.
“This neuters the RFRA arguments entirely, it seems to me,” Winkler told TPM after the announcement. “Now that religious institutions are no longer required to [pay for employees’ birth control coverage], it’s hard to make the argument that the contraception mandate substantially burden religious beliefs.”
Re: What Justice Scalia, and the Supreme Court, have said in the past about "religious liberty" - Grace62 - 02-11-2012
Right. So there is no argument about "religious liberty" left where the health care law is concerned.
That won't stop politicians from continuing to make it a big issue though.
Re: What Justice Scalia, and the Supreme Court, have said in the past about "religious liberty" - August West - 02-11-2012
The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.
I'm happy to find agreement with Scalia.
Re: What Justice Scalia, and the Supreme Court, have said in the past about "religious liberty" - Black - 02-11-2012
Although it was an open question whether the original birth control requirement would pass this level of scrutiny, the White House’s announcement Friday allowing religious nonprofits to opt out (in which case the insurer would be forced to pay for birth control without a copay) appears to restrict the RFRA argument to overturn it.
“This neuters the RFRA arguments entirely, it seems to me,” Winkler told TPM after the announcement. “Now that religious institutions are no longer required to [pay for employees’ birth control coverage], it’s hard to make the argument that the contraception mandate substantially burden religious beliefs.”
Interesting how this is presented as if it's an unintentional effect of the Obama administration's action . . . as if it was a random decision that accidentally produced the desired result, rather than a carefully calculated move chosen by legal experts.
Re: What Justice Scalia, and the Supreme Court, have said in the past about "religious liberty" - rjmacs - 02-11-2012
This echoes the same tenor that indicates that the current Court is unlikely to overturn the Affordable Care Act. The conservative justices tend to act contrary to the desires of Tea Party types by reinforcing the authority of the federal government.