General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsElizabeth Warren on Hobby Lobby ruling: 'Supreme Court has headed in a very scary direction'
Last edited Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:28 PM - Edit history (1)
https://twitter.com/elizabethforma
Sen. Warren spoke to the issue before the vote:
We don't run this country for corporations
Hobby Lobby doesn't want to cover its employees' birth control on company insurance plans. In fact, they're so outraged about women having access to birth control that they've taken the issue all the way to the Supreme Court.
I cannot believe that we live in a world where we would even consider letting some big corporation deny the women who work for it access to the basic medical tests, treatments or prescriptions that they need based on vague moral objections.
But here's the scary thing: With the judges we've got on the Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby might actually win.
The current Supreme Court has headed in a very scary direction.
Recently, three well-respected legal scholars examined almost 20,000 Supreme Court cases from the last 65 years. They found that the five conservative justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court are in the top 10 most pro-corporate justices in more than half a century.
And Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts? They were number one and number two.
Take a look at the win rate of the national Chamber of Commerce cases before the Supreme Court. According to the Constitutional Accountability Center, the Chamber was winning 43% of the cases in participated in during the later years of the Burger Court, but that shifted to a 56% win-rate under the Rehnquist Court, and then a 70% win-rate with the Roberts Court.
Follow these pro-corporate trends to their logical conclusion, and pretty soon you'll have a Supreme Court that is a wholly owned subsidiary of big business.
Birth control is at risk in today's case, but we also need to worry about a lot more.
In Citizens United, the Supreme Court unleashed a wave of corporate spending to game the political system and drown the voices of middle class families.
And right now, the Supreme Court is considering McCutcheon v. FEC, a case that could mean the end of campaign contribution limits allowing the big guys to buy even more influence in Washington.
Republicans may prefer a rigged court that gives their corporate friends and their armies of lawyers and lobbyists every advantage. But that's not the job of judges. Judges don't sit on the bench to hand out favors to their political friends.
On days like today, it matters who is sitting on the Supreme Court. It matters that we have a President who appoints fair and impartial judges to our courts, and it matters that we have a Senate who approves them.
We're in this fight because we believe that we don't run this country for corporations we run it for people.
read: http://elizabethwarren.com/blog/we-dont-run-this-country-for-corporations
Elizabeth Warren just headlined a rally over the weekend with Alison Grimes, the Democrat running to defeat Mitch McConnell
MADem
(135,425 posts)I think "bullshit-oppressive-sexist" works, though.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Sure hope she does.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)She has become the high water mark for Democrats. This is how I want all Democrats to clearly explain the issues. I don't want anymore mealy-mouthed third way bullshit. You can win on this platform!
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)montanacowboy
(6,109 posts)when it fucking picked the president of the United States
when will they be accountable? never! and they will continue on their path to talibanize this country
who will stop them?
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)In Monday's Krugman, he talks about supply-side economics - trickle down - and how that theory has been disproven time and again, but keeps surfacing. It does so because it fills a need - the need to put forth some sort of reasoning, however bad or wrong, to support the conclusions that Republicans want to come to. The supreme court is now making up reasons to support the directions they want to go: Citz-un was an exercise in finding a way to warp reality and allow corporations to buy elections.
The Wielding Truth
(11,415 posts)conservaphobe
(1,284 posts)The nation would be better for it.
toby jo
(1,269 posts)This affects men, too. They have to spend more of their dollar, now. Their family planning efforts will be costing them twice as much if their wife works for a Christian company.
The other twist would be men hearing a lot more of 'not tonight, dear' because it's the only choice left .
And welcome to DU conservaphobe - alotta good ideas here, hope you like it.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)At stores like HchristofascistobbyLobbyists, are women...and a high percentage, maybe even majority, are single heads of families. Poorly paid women already treading water in stormy seas.
supercats
(429 posts)RUN FOR PRESIDENT
ananda
(28,890 posts)...
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)From the Bush v. Gore dissent by Justice John Paul Stevens:
Uncle Joe
(58,482 posts)Baitball Blogger
(46,775 posts)Just trying it out for size.
Cha
(297,890 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,482 posts)Thanks for the thread, bigtree.
Skittles
(153,254 posts)assholes
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)It wasn't that long ago that many were complaining that Ginsberg should retire soon so as not to allow a Republican to replace her. I'm GLAD she was on the court this week to give this opinion. I think she KNOWS that without her, there will be a missing needed voice for dissent to the corporatist agenda that's rooted itself heavily in this court.
Recent thread on how she should be retiring soon...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023531149
My thoughts earlier Ginsberg might be holding out to at least negotiate towards Warren having a say in her replacement by Obama if in fact it looks like Warren might win the nomination.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1265745