Trying to be objective as I can, I am attempting to wrap my mind around the Supreme Court rulings today regarding Hobby Lobby and public unions. I’m not addressing the actual substance of the rulings with which, you will not be surprised to hear, I agree. The difficulty I’m having is in how four United States Supreme Court justices could rule in a way, that, had they gotten their ways, would have clearly abridged the freedom of religion.
A person, on the political far left, may not care that it is a violation, but that doesn’t negate the fact an opposite ruling would have infringed on a fundamental right. I understand that some issues may be intensely political, and each side having its sincerely held beliefs. Still, how can learned SCOTUS justices argue that the owner(s) of closely held companies freedom of religion does not extend to a business they own? This is not a matter of having chosen a place to work as an employee; this is someone who created a private business entity. What other convictions and virtues should be left outside as a business owner walks into the company he or she has built?
The fundamental rights issue extends to the other decision today, which essentially ruled that a public union cannot exact involuntary union dues from family caretakers of their own physically/mentally challenged relatives. The fact that four Supreme Court justices thought it was perfectly fine for a public union to steal money from a mom taking care of her own child boggles the mind.
The fact that these four justices apparently also believe that public unions may collect union dues from any non-union member is abhorrent in a free country. Many believe that the very existence of public unions, in and of themselves, is corrupt. Even FDR, a saint in the pantheon of progressivism, felt public unions were anathema to the U.S. economic system.
Another fundamental and no less mind-boggling element of this discussion is how Supreme Court justices can swear oaths to uphold the U.S. Constitution when they clearly and repeatedly demonstrate that they do not respect the Constitution as it exists and have no intention of upholding it. Rather than upholding, or even simply interpreting the U.S. Constitution, they act to alter it toward their personal political beliefs.
Perhaps they cross their fingers behind their backs while swearing their oaths, all the while thinking, … uphold the Constitution (as I believe it should exist) against all enemies…
0 Comments