SCOTUS violated itself?

[packman]

The SCOTUS is a branch of the government. The Hobby Lobby case involved religious beliefs as its base. The US must have the wall of separation between church and state, as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist. Didn't the SCOTUS just violate itself -so to speak- by even hearing this case?

Seems to me, but I am rather naive on these things, that the entire court should have reclused themselves from the case and ruled that past cases have shown clear precedent that courts have no standing in cases involving religious issues, particularly ones in which a group based on their religious beliefs choose to not obey a law. They have , in fact, elevated and endorsed Christian beliefs, favoring that one religion.

Perhaps it's time for an Uber SCOTUS. Maybe FDR had it right when he tried to increase its membership to 15? But FDR finally got his way with the Court only because he outlived his opponents on the court and appointed 8 of the 9 justices who he found espoused his plans for the future of the nation.

[Half-Century Man]

1. Good point

Share it with TYT

[warrior1]

2. can they refile because this fact the 5 men on the SC "overlooked"

[Samantha]

3. I immediately thought when I heard about this decision the SC had violated the Constitution

Not that seems to matter to many in the political arena any more.

Sam

[unblock]

4. are you saying the women justices should recuse themselves when women's issues come up?

it's problematic that there are a quite disproportionate number of catholics on the court, especially problematic when an issue involving catholic beliefs come up.

but i don't think the solution is to have them recuse themselves when hearing such cases.

[packman]

5. Wrong interpretation

of my post. It had NOTHING to do with sex , gender or race or whether the justices liked vanilla ice cream vs. strawberry. It had to do with the separation issue of church and state. You believe it has to do with women issues, I am stating it was a religious issue of separation and they had no business getting involved in it. They need to recuse themselves by saying that they MUST uphold the Constitution and not judicate any issue that has it basis in religious beliefs especially when an outcome will speak directly to a controversial issue of that religion.

[unblock]

6. i see that i could have made my point more clear by using race instead of gender

i understand you are saying the the catholics should recuse themselves in a religious case.

i am suggesting that this logic would carry over to other cases, implying that black justices should recuse themselves from cases with racial implications, etc.

i don't think this works.

[packman]

7. NOoooo

I NEVER said Catholics. I said ALL the justices should recuse themselves because its an issue of church vs. government and they are ALL violating the Constitution by adjudicating on this case. Black, Jewish, Hindu, Oriental, man or women have NOTHING to do with this case IMHO for the case is simply - DOES the SCOTUS have the right to violate the constitution by hearing a religious based case - any religious based case and rule in that case.

[former9thward]

9. So who is going to hear religious based cases?

If no one then churches are free to do what they want because no one can hear the cases. There never has been a wall of separation between religion and the government as you have imagined.

[unblock]

10. that makes no sense. it is the court that interprets the constitution, including

what constitutes establishment of a religion, what constitutes free exercise thereof, etc.

part of the court's job is to determine exactly when the government is stepping into religion, e.g., can a public school require students to take a religious oath. that is exactly part of the court's job.

[Goblinmonger]

8. So the SCOTUS should never rule when people's 1st Amendment

rights are violated if it is religious rights? Seems weird.

And FDR did ever really want 15 on the SCOTUS, he wanted them to cave to his view of Commerce Clause in order to slow the recession. And it worked.

[Motown_Johnny]

11. The SCOTUS weighs in when laws seem to be in conflict with each other.

The argument here being that a woman's right to choose what birth control she uses was somehow in conflict with the religious freedom of the people who employ them.

The way we decide these things is to have the Judicial branch interpret the laws.

There is nothing wrong with them hearing the case. The problem is that they have enshrined in law a basic inequality for one gender. This is also supposed to be unconstitutional.


P.S. Thomas Jefferson's letter has no legal standing. It is simply his view of what was contained in the Constitution. If a clear separation of church and state was wanted then that is what should have been written. It really is a shame that they didn't go ahead and add that wording. It really would have saved a lot of trouble.