The HobbyLobby Decision: Good News for John McCain Democrats?

Good for Harry, old Mormon though he be. Via Jim Newell, at Salon:

The irony of today’s ruling is that while it’s a terrible ruling, it doesn’t help the Republican Party as its candidates pivot from primaries to general elections. Ever since the GOP took over the House of Representatives and various statehouses in the 2010 elections, and proceeded to act on its “jobs agenda” by going all-out to limit access to women’s heathcare, the party has been pummeled in a key demographic: unmarried women. In 2012, Barack Obama won approximately two-thirds of votes by unmarried women, according to exit polls. In 2013′s Virginia gubernatorial election, Republicans nominated a staunch conservative culture warrior like Ken Cuccinelli, who did so poorly among unmarried women that he managed to lose to sleazeball fundraiser Terry McAuliffe.

YES, YES, unmarried women care about lots of things beyond birth control! But the battle over access to women’s healthcare, with Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a “slut” being its avatar, has proven to have remarkable political resonance in turning out the vote against “social conservatives.” That’s why Harry Reid is calling the ruling what it is — the Supreme Court placing a limit on “women’s access to health care” — while John Boehner pops off about “an administration that has repeatedly crossed constitutional lines in pursuit of its Big Government objectives.”…

Dave Weigel, at Slate, sees this happening already:

On the margins—as seen in the inboxes of anyone who gets end-of-quarter fundraising emails from candidates—Hobby Lobby elevates an issue that scares Democratic voters. The birth control coverage mandate was widely popular before today’s decision. Democrats in Colorado and Alaska had been battering their likely opponents by portraying them as enemies of birth control and choice. In Colorado—an example I like because both Sen. Mark Udall and challenger Rep. Cory Gardner are quite adroit—Udall hammered Gardner’s support for a fetal personhood amendment, and Gardner countered late by coming out for making birth control more available. He reacted to the Hobby Lobby decision with similar acrobatics:

The court made the right decision today to protect religious liberty and the First Amendment. The Food and Drug Administration now needs to move quickly to make oral contraceptives available to adults without a prescription.

Gardner quickly blurted “religious liberty!” and scrambled to portray himself as pro-contraception access. The lesson: Democrats have more to gain if voters (unmarried women especially) start to believe that the 2014 election will chip away at reproductive rights. It’s the sort of thing Democrats always say, about every election, but here’s a fresh issue, a fresh reminder that they might not be happy with the party but do they really want more Alitos on the bench?…

Amanda Marcotte, also at Slate:

[T]his decision limits the employer’s religious reach exclusively to judgments about the employee’s personal use of her own vagina, and no further. “This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs,” Alito writes.

This feels like an extremely reductive view of religion: As simply a way to codify reactionary beliefs about human sexuality. Or, as Atrios put it on Twitter, “religion is now only about unapproved fucking.” And it’s ultimately not good for the religious right to have one of its own—Alito—limit the scope of legitimate religious grousing to matters of sexuality, as if religion has nothing else going for it. Hobby Lobby may have won this battle. But it won at the price of portraying the Christian right as little more than a movement of sex-obsessed busybodies…

And this clip of the victorious Hobby Lobby owners congratulating themselves on their own godliness should inspire a thousand donations to Democratic (and secular humanist) fundraising emails:

150 replies
  1. 1
    srv says:

    John Cole once said Amanda was stupider than Doug Feith, so we’ve got that going for us.

  2. 2
    Linkmeister says:

    Once the “They hate your reproductive rights” message has been hammered home, a second one about “they don’t believe you should see doctors about your reproductive health without being shouted at” can be added, in light of the McCullen decision.

  3. 3
    The Republic of Stupdity says:

    I’m sure the women here can explain this far better than I can, but aren’t there some pretty serious medical conditions that women deal w/, apart from pregnancy, that birth control pills help control?

    All I ever hear is about pregnancy and birth control but what about these other conditions?

    Oh yeah… there are LOTS of other important uses

    How come this never comes up in these endless idiotic ‘debates’?

  4. 4
    NotMax says:

    OT, but Anne Laurie has said to treat all her threads as Open, so –

    Something which made this geezer feel less down.

    A treasure trove of previously unknown behind-the-scenes material documenting the making of Buster Keaton’s The General, long considered one of the greatest films ever made, has recently been discovered by a member of the International Buster Keaton Society Inc. Source

    And a follow-up.

  5. 5
    NotMax says:

    @The Republic of Stupdity

    How come this never comes up in these endless idiotic ‘debates’?

    It crops up repeatedly, yet fails to make much impact.

    See the whole Sandra Fluke brouhaha for a not very distant example.

  6. 6

    @The Republic of Stupdity: Indeed there are. And ‘contraception’ also covers things like tubal ligations which help reduce the chance of ovarian cancer.

    How come this never comes up in these endless idiotic ‘debates’?

    Because old men are idiots about matters such as female sexuality, rape, and such things. If only there were some enough women on the court.

  7. 7
    The Republic of Stupdity says:

    @NotMax: I really don’t get it…

    I used to read a fair amount of coverage of this particular ‘debate’ and it got so depressing I finally quit…

    I’ve rarely seen that aspect of the issue covered… mebbe I was reading the wrong people…

    Why any woman, or African American, or Hispanic… Asian… almost anyone but pudgy, balding, angry, oddly sexless white males, votes Republican is beyond me…

  8. 8
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    What this does is speed the day of a single payer system run by the government, and remove this sort of thing from the capriciousness of superstitious “corporations”.

  9. 9

    @The Republic of Stupdity: Well, the GOP determined after the 2012 election that they were effectively only attracting the pudgy, balding, angry, oddly sexless white males demographic and losing the rest. That’s why they decided that it was important to attract blacks, latinos, women, young people. That lasted until everyone started thinking about 2014 elections, then readily abandoned it all.

  10. 10
    Jordan Rules says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: Yup. They fail to see the long game in decisions like this partly because it seems like they’re not impressive jurists who can and do rise to the occassion as their office demands.

    There’s priviledge there and a bunch of other tells that validate how this decision sits in context with a multitude of issues that underscore our political maturity.

  11. 11

    Speaking of the GOP:

    A decomposed body found in Texas near the border with Mexico earlier this month has been identified as an 11-year-old undocumented immigrant from Guatemala, the Hidalgo County Sheriff’s Office said Monday.
    Gilberto Francisco Ramos Juarez was found dead in the brush near La Joya on June 15, authorities said. An autopsy showed no signs of trauma, said J.P. Rodriguez, a spokesman for the sheriff’s office. The boy was found wearing pants, a belt and boots.
    “The pathologist believes because of the way that we found the body, it had no shirt … that’s a sign of heatstroke,” Sheriff Eddie Guerra said, adding that a toxicology report is pending.

    A bigger fence would have kept him from dying in Texas. He would have died in Mexico instead.

  12. 12
    scav says:

    only at the beeb so far, but apparently Sarko’s been detained for questioning over influence something-or-other — hard to say as details just coming out livetext. Hou-La! And judges involved, this could get all rather interesting. Scusi, I had to suffer that man’s election in person, in situ, and not scream at the locals what the hell pensez-vous.

    eta guard

  13. 13
    Jewish Steel says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: I’ve never understood why corporations want to be in the business of providing healthcare in the first place. Talk about your pointless waste of resources. You’d think they’d be running us over to beg the government to take it off their hands.

  14. 14
    Jewish Steel says:

    @scav:

    allegations that late Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi funded his 2007 election campaign.

    Zut alors!

  15. 15
    Amir Khalid says:

    @Jewish Steel: He that giveth, hath the power to take away.

  16. 16
    MikeJ says:

    @Jewish Steel: I’m wondering if today’s decision means workers no longer have to declare insurance as income for tax purposes. I always thought it was my money going to the insurance company, and the IRS assured me that was the case. Now the supremes claim that it’s the employer’s money.

  17. 17
    Jewish Steel says:

    @Amir Khalid: @MikeJ:

    It’s a crazy morass. I’m glad my business is only big enough to employ a couple of part timers.

  18. 18
    David Koch says:

    Markos Moulitsas @markos

    Anyone arguing that there’s no difference between the parties is a fucking moron who can simply go to hell.

  19. 19
    David Koch says:

    Dana Houle @DanaHoule · 6h

    Not that you needed more evidence that Scalia is a self-contradicting ideological hack..

    Adam Bonin @adambonin · 12h

    I think I need to go to a Hobby Lobby and start aggressively counseling people on their way in as to why they should rethink shopping there.

  20. 20

    @Jewish Steel: Employer provided health insurance was first introduced as a competitive advantage when the federal government froze wages in WWII. It surged again when Nixon froze wages.

    They don’t want to give it up because the know they’ll still have to pay for it, but won’t be able to control it any longer. That means they’ll have to shift to other benefits to compete. And those that don’t provide it don’t want to go to single payer because then they will need to pay for it.

    That said, I think employers that are providing it are increasingly interested in moving to single payer provided it can arrest costs, which we believe will happen but is far from proven. It’s happened in other countries, but they don’t usually have major political parties sabotaging government efforts on this scale.

  21. 21
    David Koch says:

    TBogg @tbogg · 16h

    Women in China waking up to accelerated forced abortion schedule so they can get back to making stuff for Hobby Lobby’s after its big win

    Andi Zeisler @andizeisler · 16h

    Hobby Lobby covers men’s V*ag*a, just on the slim chance you were wondering exactly how fucked up today is.

    The last tweet can’t be repeated enough for the morons saying women just want free stuff for sex

  22. 22
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @David Koch: Here’s the fun thing about V*agra: Unlike the Pill, which is totally unnecessary for hot girl on girl action, you still need a hard on for hot man on man action.

  23. 23
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @David Koch: Ralph FUCKING Nader, we’re talking about you, jackhole.

  24. 24
    JPL says:

    Hobby Lobby believes that the IUD and morning after pill is the same as abortion. It’s not. Has anyone heard the news media mention this fact? How long before Pew will release a poll saying a majority of people in the U.S. feel that the IUD causes abortions?
    That’s darn liberal media.

  25. 25
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @JPL: Yeah, like the five assholes who decided this know anything about the morning after pill and the IUD and how they work.

    Alito inadvertently spilled the beans on this…the belief of the Hobby Lobby people is not factually supportable, yet now it’s enshrined in law. Then there’s the tell that this decision only applies to contraception…other religious beliefs (like, for example, blood transfusions) don’t meet the Supremes’ smell test, apparently. Totally arbitrary and obvious…this is about unauthorized fucking.

  26. 26
    Belafon says:

    It’s the sort of thing Democrats always say, about every election

    Yeah, and until it affects enough people, Democrats are just being mean.

  27. 27
    James E. Powell says:

    @Belafon:

    It already affects almost everybody. But most people don’t make the connections. That takes a willful blindness, but Americans are known to be willful people.

  28. 28
    James E. Powell says:

    a fresh reminder that they might not be happy with the party but do they really want more Alitos on the bench?…

    I am trying to estimate the percentage of voters who are aware of the connection between their vote for president and what kind of people end up on the supreme court. I’m thinking of a number between zero and one.

  29. 29
    Anne Laurie says:

    @James E. Powell: Oh, the Twenty-Seven Percenters on the far right are well aware of the connection. They’ve been riding that hobbyhorse since Eisenhower — as in “Impeach Earl Warren“.

    It’s the relatively liberal youngsters who didn’t learn about Justice Warren who need to have the connection between their votes and those darned Activist Judges pointed out to them!

  30. 30
    Alex S. says:

    Time for a female president, there’s really no other way.

  31. 31
    mattH says:

    Good for Harry, old Mormon though he be.

    Mormons aren’t (yet) in lock-step with the Protestants; they don’t have issues with use of contraception or sex, as long as it’s in the confines of marriage.

  32. 32
    WereBear says:

    @mattH: I never would have thought the Protestants would have devolved into Opus Dei levels of Dark Ages thought but they have.

  33. 33
    MattF says:

    An additional word about Cooch. It was clear that Cooch had, um, issues with s-e-x, and it’s not unreasonable or sexist to guess that unmarried women are particularly sensitive to that sort of thing. As long as R candidates have visible problems in that area, they’re also going to have visible problems in the electoral arena.

  34. 34
    max says:

    @David Koch:

    Adam Bonin @adambonin · 12h
    I think I need to go to a Hobby Lobby and start aggressively counseling people on their way in as to why they should rethink shopping there.

    Hobby Lobby is about the only place around here to get art supplies. Haven’t been back since they started this little idiot crusade. (Also, Papa John’s is the (sadly) only fast food place around here halfway edible, haven’t been back since either. The only places left are the Greek place and the little taqueria owned by the folks from Puebla. Which mostly works out I guess.)

    I don’t think the people going into Hobby Lobby are going to be aggressively counseled, since most of them are women, and acting like Republicans probably won’t help us there.

    max
    [‘Flyers wouldn’t hurt though. The younger ones might care.’]

  35. 35
    SFAW says:

    I think I need to go to a Hobby Lobby and start aggressively counseling people on their way in as to why they should rethink shopping there.

    WRONG! It’s only if Hobby Lobby is doing something that the anti-unapproved-fucking police don’t like, that the “no 35-foot buffer zone for you!” rule applies. But since they’re sincerely religious, and down with repressing wimmins, it’s all good.

  36. 36
    SFAW says:

    The HobbyLobby Decision: Good News for John McCain Democrats?

    Only if they can use it effectively.

    I know! Let’s get the Occupy leaders to mount a political operation to turn it into a solid campaign!

  37. 37
    Cervantes says:

    @SFAW: Or you could volunteer!

  38. 38
    David Koch says:

    @max:

    Hobby Lobby is about the only place around here to get art supplies

    surely, you can order supplies online, in this day and age. And don’t call me shirley

  39. 39
    SFAW says:

    @Cervantes:
    I expect better from you.

    But, you’re right! I’ll drop everything and fly to Texas, to help Wendy “Snowball in Hell” Davis beat “Rick Perry” (as some random diarist on dKos said). Because, living in the Bluest of Blue states (or Commonwealths, I guess), there are so many opportunities to effect red-to-blue change.

    Or maybe I should donate 10X what I already give now (“Sorry, little SFAW-ette, but daddy doesn’t have enough money this year for your tuition. Maybe next year?”)

    Or maybe I could ignore you, just this once. Probably a more rational course of action.

  40. 40
    Baud says:

    This will even more interesting when the DC Circuit decides that Obamacare can’t offer subsidies on the federal exchange. That case is still out there.

  41. 41
    SFAW says:

    @David Koch:

    And don’t call me shirley

    What time is Cole showing the gladiator movies?

  42. 42
    raven says:

    Shit is testy for this early.

  43. 43
    scav says:

    The more I see the types of folk that publicly cuddle up to Jesus, the less I respect the man, especially as they all claim to emulate him. I should remember not to judge a show entirely by the quality of its noisiest cosplaying groupies. Thing is, the road crew on this act aren’t helping much.

  44. 44
    raven says:

    Nicole Wallace is a sniveling little bitch.

  45. 45
    SFAW says:

    @raven:

    Yeah, sorry. Not sure why I got all bent about it.

    Sorry, Cervantes.

  46. 46
    Baud says:

    @raven:

    Shit is testy for this early.

  47. 47
    SFAW says:

    @raven:

    Wow, from milk-and-cookies to flame-o in the space of two comments. Don Garlits has nothing on you!

  48. 48
    OzarkHillbilly says:

    @max: I myself suddenly feel the need to go shopping at a Hobby Lobby, filling a couple of carts with various little doodads that cost a nickel a piece and then when I get all checked out to the tune of 5 or 6 hundred $ worth of nickel and dime items from all over the store have a sudden attack of religious fervor and change my mind about buying all that junk…

    Fortunately, we don’t have any Hobby Lobbys around here as I don’t have the time to waste on such a pointless tho (I like to think) costly to HL exercise. Sigh… but a man can dream about HL clerks spending hours returning $500 worth of nickel and dime googaws to their proper places in the aisles.

  49. 49
    Cervantes says:

    @SFAW: The Democrats have wasted numerous opportunities, you’re right, but who hasn’t?

    As for “the Occupy leaders,” at least they tried. They enunciated some principles and tried to embody those principles in their actions. It’s more than a lot of people do. What’s even more, their movement was such that if you or anyone else had better ideas re how to achieve shared goals, they were open. If anything they were too open. Mocking them now in non-specific ways does nothing — well, it irritates me, and that’s not nothing, but it’s pretty close!

    Who’s asking you to move to Texas? I thought your point was that something could be made of the Court’s terrible decision in this case. My question was: what would you suggest?

    And from the entirety of your writing here, I had already surmised that you contribute financially to pretty much the same causes I support. Thank you for that.

    PS: No apology needed from you, but I do apologize for being irritable (as stated above).

  50. 50
    JPL says:

    @raven: I started streaming at six and stopped about ten minutes later. “The ruling isn’t about contraception, it’s about religious liberty”

    You were being kind with your comment.

  51. 51
    Baud says:

    @JPL:

    Yeah, that’s why Alito went out of his way to say that the decision was not about any other medical procedure.

  52. 52
    JPL says:

    @Baud: Yup! Once it goes to the Supremes, Roberts who created the federal exchanges by his rulings, will now take it away. Of course, there will be no harm done because states could choose to create exchanges.
    At least that’s what I think.

  53. 53
    OzarkHillbilly says:

    @SFAW: Don’t blame him, Morning Ho is on. That would be enuf to turn me into a raving lunatic too.

  54. 54
    Baud says:

    Although I’m wary about bringing up Hillary here, I thought this was a good response to the decision:

    Clinton said she made women and girls a priority during her tenure as secretary of state because she saw the rights of women around the world routinely violated.

    “Among those rights is control of their bodies,” she said. “It is a disturbing trend that you see in a lot of societies that are unstable, anti-democratic and, frankly, prone to extremism, where women’s bodies are used as the defining and unifying issue to bring together people — men — to get them to behave in ways that are disadvantageous to women but prop up rulers.”

  55. 55
    David Koch says:

    the corruption of decision is mind boggling. they say religious beliefs can be used to dodge laws, but only the particular religious beliefs they deem suitable.

    So instead of interpreting laws, they’re now creating a defacto state religion by designating which religious beliefs are valid and then forcing the effect of those beliefs onto the public. There can be no greater violation of the separation of church and state.

  56. 56
    Baud says:

    @David Koch:

    They’ve created a law-free buffer zone around the devout.

  57. 57
    Sherparick says:

    @Linkmeister: And we should always add “They don’t want pay you a decent wage whether you are a man or a woman. And now they want to let your boss tell you how to have to behave to be a “Good Christian.”

    This opinion basically will let slip 10,000 lawsuits about Bosses not hiring, firing, and disciplining workers “because the employee’s conduct/status (except for race) conflicts with the Boss’s “religious beliefs.” It will be really interesting to read the coming headline cases of Gays and single parent women being refused businesses services, not hired, fired, not promoted, etc. which Alioto basically invited in this decision (because he explicitly stated that discrimination based on race because of religious reasons was not allowed under RFRA and “Hobby Lobby” because of the “State’s” compelling state interest in fighting “race discrimination,” he implied that such a standard would not be used regarding discrimination based sex, sexual orientation, national origin, or religion – in fact, I would not be surprise to see a slew of cases involving discrimination based not hiring someone or providing business services because they are a “Muslim” or a “Good Christian.”
    http://thinkprogress.org/justi.....nd-switch/

  58. 58
    scav says:

    @Baud: While enforcing conformity to their religious beliefs on everyone around them. Hell of a Superpower this Religious Freedom mode is. Especially as their Lordand Savior has pre-forgiven them for all their own lapses that spill out into light of day.

  59. 59
    debbie says:

    How is this decision anything other than the tacit endorsement of Christian Sharia?

  60. 60
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @raven: That’s a known known.

  61. 61
    SFAW says:

    @Cervantes:

    As for “the Occupy leaders,” at least they tried.

    Yeah, and that was great, but plenty of people have taken the first step, or half-step, without any follow-up. The TeaBaggers, hate them ‘tho I do, at least did significantly more follow-through. Yes, it’s a lot easier when you have The Brothers from Hell, a/k/a Spawns of Satan, a/k/a the Kochs bankrolling things. But for the Occupy “movement” to die, as it has, makes it almost worse than never starting. (No, not really, but you get my sort-of point.)

    My question was: what would you suggest?

    That’s a good question. I’m not a great political organizer, but I’d first try to find someone who is, and get them onboard. Jim Messina? Howard Dean? (because despite the shit he originally took for it, his 50-state strategy was pretty successful) I really don’t (yet) know, but having a strategy-and-tactics genius would be key.

    PS: No apology needed from you, but I do apologize for being irritable (as stated above).

    We’re not going to have a group hug, now, are we? Sheee-it.

  62. 62
    JPL says:

    @debbie: The Supremes didn’t force us to wear a burka.

  63. 63
    JPL says:

    Doesn’t the ruling open the door for corporations to start the day off with a group prayer?

  64. 64
    Iowa Old Lady says:

    I’m well past the age when I need contraception, but this decision still hit me hard. I am enraged at the assumption that my employer (a corporation) can impose the personal religious beliefs of the owner on me. My fury is increased by knowing those happen to be the beliefs of most of the SC judges, that those beliefs appear to be strong and impose-worthy only when they have to do with sex, and then only when they have to do with women controlling their own sexuality. I feel like a second-class citizen who’s expected to admire the smug virtue of those who decided they should take charge of my life.

  65. 65
    SFAW says:

    @JPL:

    Doesn’t the ruling open the door for corporations to start the day off with a group prayer?

    If led by an imam: NO!
    If led by a Talibangelical: FUCK YEAH!

  66. 66
    SFAW says:

    @Iowa Old Lady:

    I feel like a second-class citizen who’s expected to admire the smug virtue of those who decided they should take charge of my life.

    Well, clearly they ARE better people than you, because Baby Jeebus told them so. So, yes, you SHOULD feel unworthy.

    Doesn’t that make you feel better now?

  67. 67
    David Koch says:

    @Baud: that would be bad enough. but it goes much further by forcing the results of those beliefs onto others.

    for example, Jehovah Witness are a recognized pacifist organization and members are exempt from military service. But the court would never extend their exemption to their employees.

  68. 68
    JPL says:

    @Iowa Old Lady: Sarah was right. Obamacare will restrict the medical advice your doctor can give you. Of course, Palin failed to mention that it was the evagelicals who took away that care.

  69. 69
    OzarkHillbilly says:

    @SFAW:

    Yeah, and that was great, but plenty of people have taken the first step, or half-step, without any follow-up. The TeaBaggers, hate them ‘tho I do, at least did significantly more follow-through.

    Just for shits and giggles, I feel the need to point out that it is a lot easier to take that 2nd step if you aren’t in jail. I wonder why none of the teabaggers never went to jail or got maced, or sexually assaulted or…. Hmmmm….

  70. 70
    Cervantes says:

    @Iowa Old Lady: Are there women you know who will vote now whereas they might not have before? How many?

  71. 71
    OzarkHillbilly says:

    @OzarkHillbilly: SOCIAL!

  72. 72
    beth says:

    @Sherparick: The only possible bright spot in this is that these religious nuts will definitely overreach. I read yesterday where the leader of the group that sponsored the discriminatory law in Arizona that allowed business to refuse service based on religious beliefs was sayjng that they’re going to try and get the bill passed again. This was the bill so extreme Jan Brewer vetoed it.

  73. 73
    Schlemizel says:

    @JPL:
    Probably not as the 5 morans did what they have done repeatedly in the past when they make a decision even they understand to be shitty law (see: Bush v Gore) they explicitly state in the decision that their ruling can’t be use for anything else ever again to justify anything.

    I say probably because if the case made it that far they could easily create another one-off to mandate prayer.

    At some point a future USSC is going to have to find a way to go back and vacate all the shit the 5 morans have burdened the law with. I would guess 2 generations from now.

  74. 74
    gnomedad says:

    I’m waiting for someone like Coulter or Limbaugh to say “it’s not a war on women, it’s a war on sluts.” Good news for Democrats.

  75. 75
    JPL says:

    @Schlemizel: How do they not expand the law without the establishment of one religion?

  76. 76
    bemused says:

    I don’t expect media interviews with regular American husbands/male partners who are outraged that they, the couple, will have to pay out of pocket for contraception but they should be heard from. It’s not just a woman’s issue.

  77. 77
    Gindy51 says:

    @max: Anything you can get inside a store you can get online and for way cheaper. I haven’t been in a retail store except for food in over 2 years and I buy stuff for crafting all the time. I can research the company and buy what I want at the same time in my pajamas.

  78. 78
    Schlemizel says:

    @JPL:
    They would abuse previous decisions to draw out the answer they want – thats another sign of bad law from the gang of 5. They probably would put some fancy window dressing on it to start with, say ‘non-secular’ or make no reference to religion at all knowing that there is only one group pushing for this shit. They understand this is a long game & eating away the foundation will have the desired effect given time.

  79. 79
    JPL says:

    How soon before another Union case goes before the Supremes? Harris v Quinn has set precedent and Alito must be anxiously awaiting the chance to rid our nation of pesky unions. The only thing left will be the power of the corporation.

  80. 80
    Schlemizel says:

    Will be at Gettysburg in an hour or so. I think that might be illustrative. Most people see this battlefield as the death of treason but it really was a side show. The actual death knell was sounded on the 4th a 1000 miles West at Vicksburg. This decision will get a lot of attention but really its just the death rattle of a walking corpse. The tide has turned and it is simply a matter of time.

    The cleanup is going to take 2 generations though so I’ll never see it complete. Also like ‘the recent unpleasantness’ the damage is not stopped yet there are still a lot of losses to be sustained & some brutal fighting ahead. We need more Grants, people who will not withdraw after a victory or a defeat but just keep pressing ahead. We out number them we should be pressing that advantage as hard as we can.

  81. 81
    Kay says:

    @Iowa Old Lady:

    Dana Milbank is actually pretty funny on this:

    There was a certain risk in having Alito deliver the 5-to-4 opinion defending corporate personhood, because his mannerisms are strikingly robotic for a human. Assigned both of Monday’s opinions, Alito delivered a 33-minute monologue — his only departure from the text before him was to raise his head mechanically at intervals and glance at a table to his right — that seemed to have a soporific effect on his colleagues.

    My overall impression of all of this is droning lectures by grim and joyless people. The constant finger-wagging sanctimony delivered from on-high is just unbearable. Another sermon from lawyers. Oh, goody. People love those.

  82. 82
    JPL says:

    @Schlemizel: Thanks. Do you think Unions will survive, if the court stays the same?

  83. 83
    Iowa Old Lady says:

    @Cervantes: I’m an old. The women I hang out with already vote, and not always the way I’d wish.

    My ex-grad students are flaming liberals. What do you expect of English profs?

    My online writer friends are a different matter. That’s the crowd that says they hate politics and deliberately ignore it. And those folks are mostly young enough to use contraception. I’ll have to see whether this comes up at all.

  84. 84
    SFAW says:

    @OzarkHillbilly:

    Just for shits and giggles, I feel the need to point out that it is a lot easier to take that 2nd step if you aren’t in jail.

    It’s not as if the entire “movement” ended up there. And it’s not as if they had any kind of path/plan in place before, or after, some of them ended up in jail.

    Not ignoring that the TeaTards were able tacitly to threaten harm when they showed up at town meetings (etc), exerting their Second Amendment rights without consequence. But saying “Not fair!” only goes so far. We KNOW the game is rigged, and the Occupy “leaders” [sic] knew that, and yet there was no apparent blueprint for action, outside of “Hey gang! Let’s put on a show!”

  85. 85
    JPL says:

    Why can’t Hobby Lobby refuse to treat ectopic pregnancies. Wouldn’t the same standard apply?
    Gosh, I still in a state of disbelief, that companies can dictate what health care insurance can cover.

  86. 86
    Iowa Old Lady says:

    @JPL: @Kay: @SFAW:

    To be more succinct, I’m sick that

    1. the rights of a corporate person’s religious beliefs were upheld over those of a real person

    2. the right of a boss to interfere in an employee’s life was upheld

    3. the validity of the conservative Christian faith was coded into law

  87. 87
    SFAW says:

    @Iowa Old Lady:

    No argument from me.

    ETA: I just hope you and I live long enough to see it fixed. Not likely, but we can hope, and keep working on it.

  88. 88
    gogol's wife says:

    Having read the first 30 comments, I love this thread and wish I had time to read it right now! You guys are so fierce. I wish the whole country were like you.

  89. 89
    debbie says:

    @SFAW:

    Like stuffing the genie back in the bottle? I don’t think it’ll ever happen. I blame all those who, like me, just rolled their eyes when O’Reilly started with his War on Christmas.

  90. 90
    OzarkHillbilly says:

    @SFAW: Oh I am more in agreement with you than not, but jus sayin’…

  91. 91
    Kay says:

    @SFAW:

    They didn’t have a legislative strategy but there is a consensus forming for liberals on “what to do”. It pops up more and more often.

    The basic focus is (broadly) corruption, not actionable, like violating a federal statute, but the corruption that comes from unlimited money in the campaign system and captured lawmakers and regulators and pundits and media people.

    I think it will resonate with people, voters, as they refine it and narrow it down because it’s an alternative to anti-government rhetoric. This could be described as “good government”, ie: not bought and paid for. I think it’s big enough that it will be an issue in 2016.

    I’m glad. Liberals need a response to anti-government rhetoric and the sort of technocratic bloodless ultra-savvy “this is how it is and we must accept that” version isn’t going to cut it. People believe politicians are captured, that they aren’t serving us. Liberals have to speak to that, or the Tea Party will.

  92. 92
    JPL says:

    Well the good news from yesterdays rulings was that I got a lot of gardening done. I have a lot of anger to vent and what better way, than with physical labor.

  93. 93
    JPL says:

    @Kay: You would think that anti-government type wouldn’t deem corporations as people. You would think that anti-government type wouldn’t want corporations deciding what is appropriate health care.
    You are a treasure here and I hope this encourages you, to write more posts.

  94. 94
    Keith G says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    Here’s the fun thing about V*agra: Unlike the Pill, which is totally unnecessary for hot girl on girl action, you still need a hard on for hot man on man action.

    Only if you lack imagination.

  95. 95
    Kay says:

    @JPL:

    So the key is this: money. One would look at any decision made by the state (politicians, judges) and ask “what monied interest could this possibly affect?” This one was easy. Poor women are the people who will be negatively affected by this, they don’t have any power or money (obviously) therefore, it gets done.

  96. 96
    J.D. Rhoades says:

    The Hobby Lobby and Harris v. Quinn decisions are why liberals can’t pout and stay home on election day because the Dem candidate on the ballot isn’t “progressive” enough or “they’re all the same.” There are going to be changes in the SCOTUS in the next few years, and we need to try and make sure those changes go the right way. Otherwise, we’re going to keep sliding into oligarchy kept in line by theocracy.

  97. 97
    SFAW says:

    @Kay:

    They didn’t have a legislative strategy but there is a consensus forming for liberals on “what to do”. It pops up more and more often.

    Not sure I have enough time left to wait for consensus to work its magic. No, I’m not THAT old, nor physically sick (as far as I know), but I’m old enough to know that waiting for a “consensus” movement to change things sufficiently.

    You are doing a ton of great work, but we need to multiply you by at least 100,000, maybe a 1,000,000, for things to change place within a decade.

    Liberals need a response to anti-government rhetoric and the sort of technocratic bloodless ultra-savvy “this is how it is and we must accept that” version isn’t going to cut it.

    Agreed. Something akin to “The one-percenters, and their Republican minions, will stop at NOTHING to destroy YOUR quality of life so that they can have just a little more for themselves.” My wording is clumsy, but I think the key points are there. Probably need to work in some “and they’ve convinced you that it’s the people who are EVEN WORSE OFF are the source of all your troubles.”

  98. 98
    Brian R. says:

    @max:

    Papa John’s is one of the better restaurants where you live? Cardboard and ketchup shit?

    Holy hell, that’s depressing.

  99. 99
    Brian R. says:

    @JPL:

    Doesn’t the ruling open the door for corporations to start the day off with a group prayer?

    Are you serious? Lots of corporations have had prayer meetings etc. for decades now. It’s a private company, they can pray whenever they want.

  100. 100
    SFAW says:

    @JPL:

    You would think that anti-government type wouldn’t deem corporations as people.

    Not sure if that’s a non-sequitur, or you’re just conflating two disparate groups. The corporatists (i.e., Rethugs and the Inferior Court) are absolutely OK with government – as long as they can get it to do what they want, vis-a-vis accreting more power to themselves. And helping corporations doesn’t really conflict with that sentiment.

    The TeaTards only hate government that helps browns and (undeserving) poors. Government that helps THEM, on the other hand, is A-OK. Of course, they also like corporations if said corporations piss off liberals, but that’s a different discussion.

  101. 101
    Baud says:

    @gogol’s wife:

    I wish the whole country were like you.

    My lord, is it that bad out there? I’m never leaving the boat.

  102. 102
    Emma says:

    @Iowa Old Lady: Yes. Exactly. And I would like to add this: the next man who tells me I need to focus on the union decision because it’s “more important” will get a punch in the snout. I can keep two ideas in my brain at the same time and I suggest you learn. If you don’t get the point that declaring more than half of the citizens of the United States second class is an attack on the rights of all Americans you should really, really sit down and shut up.

  103. 103
    scav says:

    This tin-pot self-appointed gatekeepers of religious freedumbs to my mind also put themselves above their own God and substitute their judgments for his. He supposedly gave his creation free will, which to me (working within their system, assuming it is a logical one — well, there’s my mistake) sounds like it only counts if we willingly and with effort accept his precepts and laws and freely and personally attempt to follow them. Not sinning takes an effort of belief and intent other why the hell give us free will at all, why put that tree in the middle of the original setup. The Hobby Religionists are taking free will as much out of the equation as possible by imposing their ethics as secular “law”. Obeying the mere secular “law” isn’t enough to get your way to heaven. And beyond denying everyone a condition supposedly granted by their All-Powerful, the Lobby Religionists (works both ways) have interfered in the personal relationship between a human and their so-called personal God. Shit the hypocrisy and pride of these people is stunning.

  104. 104
    Sherparick says:

    @David Koch: This is great. What saccharine hypocrites these people are.

  105. 105
    Kay says:

    @SFAW:

    I think you’d have to set the bar for what is ethical. Is it okay with people that Eric Cantor is calmly discussing whether he’ll be a lobbyist immediately after he loses an election? Is that the best we can do?

    And it implicates “both sides”, so that’s tricky, right, because it could just degenerate into despair and “both sides do it” and dropping out completely, and that’s anti-government by default. Is it okay that Howard Dean can write an op ed opposing the Medicare rate advisory board and not reveal that he works for a law firm that lobbies on behalf of providers?

    If Democrats are going to pick this up, “good government” or “clean government” or “wash some of the money out of this system” they’re going to have to clean up their own act, and that’s going to be really difficult to do. The legal barriers are difficult enough (Citizens, etc.) but the culture of modern politics may be difficult to change as well. We’re drowning in money. To get some of that out, a lot of powerful people in “politics” (campaigns, pundits, lobbyists, whatever) are going to have to take a pay cut :)

  106. 106
    Capri says:

    Here’s what I don’t get – why is birth control framed as an issue for single women? Who has sex more than single women? Married women, that’s who. And except for the Duggers, women in heterosexual marriages pretty much all use birth control. So if you don’t want 9 or 10 kids, limiting birth control options is going to result in less nooky with the hubbie. One would think this would be of concern to many married men.

    The tacit, or not-so-tacit, assumption that the only women who worry about access to birth control are single is just an excuse to slut shame.

  107. 107
    The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik says:

    @J.D. Rhoades:

    The Hobby Lobby and Harris v. Quinn decisions are why liberals can’t pout and stay home on election day because the Dem candidate on the ballot isn’t “progressive” enough or “they’re all the same.” There are going to be changes in the SCOTUS in the next few years, and we need to try and make sure those changes go the right way. Otherwise, we’re going to keep sliding into oligarchy kept in line by theocracy.

    Our main problem isn’t the ‘purity patrol’. It’s the disaffected casual voter, the one who’s only so marginally interested in politics, the ostensibly agreeable but not dedicated enough vote in every election because they think it doesn’t matter. The ones who only follow politics on a passing basis, enough to know names but not enough to know issues, etc. For all that we on the liberal side of the interwebs get into pissing matches with each other over details, wishes and fishes, etc., the tipping point for Dems always seems to be the casual voter, the lack of passion and fervor in our base, compared to the rabid fervor of the GOP voters who churn out en masse for everything.

  108. 108
    OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Capri: BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH…I CAN”T HEAR YOU!!! BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH….

  109. 109
    coin operated says:

    @scav:

    The more I see the types of folk that publicly cuddle up to Jesus, the less I respect the man, especially as they all claim to emulate him. I should remember not to judge a show entirely by the quality of its noisiest cosplaying groupies. Thing is, the road crew on this act aren’t helping much.

    Damn…that made my day.

  110. 110
    Jado says:

    @SFAW:

    In defense of the Occupy movement, the Teabaggers didn’t have cops in riot gear herd them into a small area and then arrest them for creating a public disturbance, or loitering, or whatever trumped up charge they used. Occupy had a LOT of help in dissolving away into the ether.

  111. 111
    beth says:

    @coin operated: One of my favorite bumper stickers: I love Jesus – it’s his fan clubs I can’t stand.

  112. 112
    Sherparick says:

    Digby points out how Susan Collins, who voted to have both Alito and Roberts on the bench, and concerns trolls as “centrist Republican, while voting with Mitch McConnell on every vote, still gets “love’ from the very same folks she kicks in the teeth.

    http://digbysblog.blogspot.com.....again.html

  113. 113
    rikyrah says:

    I keep on saying…

    if your azz can’t run on Obamacare with numbers like this…

    then your azz doesn’t remotely deserve to win.

    ………………..

    Kentucky: Another 29K headaches for Mitch McConnell, & at least 78% of Medicaid-eligible enrolled!
    Submitted by Charles Gaba on Monday, June 30, 2014 – 3:14pm.
    Source: Aspen Daily News, 06/28/14:

    A nice unofficial update from Kentucky…but again, no QHP/Medicaid breakout. As I did last time, I’m going to play it cautiously and assume 90% Medicaid & 10% QHPs; since the combined total was around 421,000 last time, this brings the totals up to around 87,000 exchange QHPs and 363,000 Medicaid enrollees;

    Sebelius later tweaked Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky by pointing out that Kentucky’s state health insurance program, the Kentucky Health Connector, now has 450,000 people enrolled in it and many of them had no health care before.

    But there’s more! As I noted a couple of weeks ago, KFF.org estimated that the total number of uninsured Kentuckians who were eligible for Medicaid (expansion + Woodworkers) prior to January 1st was around 350,000. Kentucky has consistantly reported that roughly 75% of both QHP enrollees and new Medicaid enrollees via the KynectKY exchange were previously uninsured.

    This strongly suggests that Kentucky has now enrolled at least 272,000 of those 350K…or 78% of the total.

    http://acasignups.net/14/06/30.....e-enrolled

  114. 114
    Cervantes says:

    @Keith G: I was wondering about that!

  115. 115
    rikyrah says:

    @Sherparick:

    Digby points out how Susan Collins, who voted to have both Alito and Roberts on the bench, and concerns trolls as “centrist Republican, while voting with Mitch McConnell on every vote, still gets “love’ from the very same folks she kicks in the teeth.

    This is why I fault the Dems. They can’t run someone and make every other commercial about the % that she votes with the Turtle?

    Seriously?

    Seriously?

  116. 116
    SFAW says:

    @Kay:

    Kay –
    I loves ya (in a purely platonic and non-sexist sense, of course), but running on “ethics,” and against “corruption.” is a losing path, in my opinion. It’s too nebulous an idea for most people to glom onto. And altruism, although a good thing, does not generally get the masses motivated.

    The key is to Attack Attack Attack the Rethugs, wherever and whenever, and having a sound-bite-y phrase to point out that the Rethugs are actively trying to destroy whoever is not a one-percenter would go a long way in aiding that. And, although the preceding sentence might be considered hyperbolic, it really isn’t so much. Look at all the public institutions and safety nets the Rethugs have destroyed, or come close to, since St. Ronnie took office. People still think that the Lie-berals are actively preventing them from becoming one-percenters; it’s time to show them that it ain’t us that’s stacking the deck against them.

    The time for attending to altruism will be after those Rethug motherfuckers are crushed.

  117. 117

    I feel that allowing a religious exemption in ACA for churches opened the door for Kennedy to walk through with his vote.

    The first amendment reads in part:
    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..”

    It seems to me allowing exemptions in law – any law – for religious belief is the government creating law for the establishment of religion. To promote or restrict religion is unconstitutional. How can the government determine what is a valid religious belief that should be exempted from law? Why birthcontrol and not slavery? It cannot, therefore we should have no exemptions. If a law is good enough for the general public it is good for all beliefs systems. (example: vacinations)

  118. 118
    SFAW says:

    @Jado:

    Yeah, sure, whatever.

    Long before the riot squad put a beat-down on them, it had become blindingly clear that they had no “next step” in mind. It was like they only listened to the first 18 seconds of Spader’s speech on Boston Legal, and said “Yeah, they’ll rise up! Oo-rah!!”

  119. 119
    SFAW says:

    @The Other Bob:

    It seems to me allowing exemptions in law – any law – for religious belief is the government creating law for the establishment of religion.

    Well, yeah, but that’s only because you’re rational.

  120. 120
    ellie says:

    @Capri: I agree. I really can’t see this being a winning issue for repukes: Hey ladies! We are getting rid of birth control coverage! Vote for us!

    What the hell? It is like they haven’t thought this through. Unless they believe they have the married woman vote locked up. This married woman has never voted republican in her life, and at 50, isn’t going to start now.

  121. 121
    Kay says:

    @SFAW:

    I really disagree:

    “Only about a third of Americans believe the Supreme Court decides cases based on the law alone, according to new polling data about the court.
    According to the new poll, Americans believe the Supreme Court justices are political, letting their personal views sway their decisions — an opinion held across party lines. And more than three-quarters of Americans oppose the Citizens United ruling four years after the Supreme Court handed down the landmark campaign finance decision.”

    We’ve been here before. Campaign finance laws were enacted to address corruption. It goes back 150 years at the state level.
    People know that all the money washing around is profoundly affecting the process. One can go two ways with that. The Tea Party route where you say “leave the unlimited money in but add new lawmakers” (that will fail, IMO, is already failing, which is why they’re so mad all the time) or one can get some of the money out.
    Liberals don’t have any ideological dogma attached to unlimited, dark campaign funding. Conservatives do. They can’t get the money out. Only liberals can.

  122. 122
    Jennifer says:

    Since the Greens argued, successfully, that they are synonymous with the corporation they set up presumably to shield themselves from personal liability, that needs to be tested.

    They cannot both be one and the same with the corporation, which they would have to be in order for the corporation, otherwise a separate lifeless entity, to have definable “religious beliefs,” while at the same time maintaining that hiding behind a fictive shield of incorporation magically deflects liability for them personally.

    They either are the corporation, or they ain’t. And they argued, successfully, that they are.

    Sounds like it’s time for a slip-n-fall, or maybe lots of them, at Hobby Lobby.

  123. 123
    Steeplejack says:

    It warms the cockles of my heart to hear the Hobby Lobby owners talk about their little ol’ “family business”—which had revenues of $3.3 billion last year. Just a little mom-and-pop operation. With 555 locations.

    And I’m not sure this got enough play when it first came out: “Hobby Lobby Invested in Numerous Abortion and Contraception Products While Claiming Religious Objection.” Even the capitalist Forbes was distressed. Rick Ungar:

    Remarkably, the contraceptive devices and products that so offend the religious beliefs of this family are manufactured by the very companies in which Hobby Lobby holds a substantial stake via their employee 401(k) plan.

    [. . .]

    According to the Green family, interfering with an already fertilized egg is tantamount to abortion—an act unacceptable to the family and one they refuse to participate in no matter what the Affordable Care Act may require .

    However, it turns out that the owners of Hobby Lobby do not appear to have any problem with profiting from the companies that manufacture the very products that so grievously offend their religious principles.

    [. . .]

    While I may not agree with the legal position Hobby Lobby has taken in their lawsuit, I always stand in admiration of those willing to fight for their constitutional rights when they believe they are being taken.

    Hobby Lobby is entitled to no such admiration—only contempt. You simply can’t say that you will give your all in defense of your closely held beliefs when it suits you while seeking to make money in violation of those beliefs. You also cannot pretend you were simply negligent in learning what investments you hold if you are going to hold yourself out as an example of righteousness.

    Link to the original Mother Jones story.

  124. 124
    SFAW says:

    @Kay:
    I’m not disagreeing with the overarching sentiment. I’m saying that running on that platform – in the current environment – is not a winning plan, because (A) it’s too easy for things to degenerate into a he-said-she-said confuse-a-thon (confusing mainly because the MSM is either aiding and abetting, or asleep, or both), and (B) there’s not as distinct a causal relationship which (the majority of) people understand. A lot of it is, at some level, inside baseball. We get it, but a lot of people vote against their self-interest because their not as in tune with this shit as, say, the average FPer here.

    I REALLY, TRULY, want to believe that the electorate is smart enough to understand the higher-level issues you raise. But, as far as I can tell, they haven’t demonstrated that awareness for at least 35 years. I would LOVELOVELOVE to be able to come back here on November someteenth and say “Kay, you were right, I should have trusted your judgment.” But I’m not getting my hopes up.

  125. 125
    Matt McIrvin says:

    Hobby Lobby is getting a lot of outrage on my Facebook feed right now from friends/family who I’ve always thought of as relatively apolitical, and, in one case, a flat-out religious conservative.

    What they have in common is that most of them are female.

    An interesting moment.

  126. 126
    Svensker says:

    @gnomedad:

    I’m waiting for someone like Coulter or Limbaugh to say “it’s not a war on women, it’s a war on sluts.” Good news for Democrats.

    Here’s Erick Erickson’s tweet:

    “My religion trumps your “right” to employer subsidized consequence free sex.”

    That close enough for ya?

  127. 127
    Matt McIrvin says:

    @Jennifer: That’s the thing I don’t understand. The decision extends corporate personhood to religious rights. Even accepting that… who says the corporation’s religion is the owner’s religion? In the case of a religious organization, it’s pretty clear, but not here. The corporation is an entity created to limit the owner’s legal and financial liability by not being the owner. There’s no reason for the owner’s religion to bleed through.

    You shouldn’t be able to have it both ways: either the corporation you own is a separate legal person from you, or it isn’t.

  128. 128
    Ksmiami says:

    Only one thing to say… There are simply no good republicans…

  129. 129
    Alce_y_Ardilla says:

    While personally I am hopeful that we can capitalize on this ruling to gin up our base, I am reminded of how short sighted Establishment Washington can be. Back in the day when Alito was up for confirmation, apparently PP and NARAL and other pro-choice organizations cut a deal with the Democratic senators not to got to the mat to stop the nomination, in exchange for, uh, something… I think they thought that there was more money to be made using Alito as a boogeyman to scare up donations, and underestimated his real extremism.

  130. 130
    chopper says:

    @David Koch:

    the corruption of decision is mind boggling. they say religious beliefs can be used to dodge laws, but only the particular religious beliefs they deem suitable.

    and the belief at issue is completely incorrect. birth control does not cause abortions.

  131. 131
    Matt McIrvin says:

    @The Other Bob: Right… The opinion and various discussions seem to emphasize that exempting corporations from contraceptive coverage isn’t inherently a burden on employees, because the government could just adopt the same workaround currently used for religious organizations, instead requiring the insurer to pick up the bill.

    The thing that’s unclear to me is whether this will actually happen. For one thing, various religious organizations are already fighting that workaround: they don’t even want to fill out the form or write the letter that might indirectly result in a woman getting contraceptive coverage from somebody other than themselves. Some courts already seem to be of the opinion that it’s going to be struck down in short order.

    For another, I’m not sure how much cooperation from Congress it requires and whether the administration will get it. Did it matter to the Supreme Court whether the workaround would actually exist, or was its mere potential existence enough?

    I also don’t like the idea of coverage that will go away the next time there’s a Republican president.

  132. 132
    flukebucket says:

    Can anybody point me to the burnspbesq opinion of the ruling? I am truly interested if he has posted it up in a comment somewhere. I tried to get his prediction before the ruling came down and never was able to get it or find it if he gave it.

    I am not trying to be an ass. I am just honestly interested in his judicial opinion damn it!

  133. 133
    Cervantes says:

    @SFAW: Hugs are under-rated, I find.

    Anyway, is that your analysis of the Occupy movement? Have you written it up in more detail? Have you (or has anyone else here) seen a good analysis by someone else?

    There was a video project about two years ago (March-April, 2012) that set out to interview some Occupiers:

    1. How did you become involved with Occupy Oakland?

    2. How has Occupy Oakland been good and/or bad for Oakland?

    3. Given the benefit of hindsight, what are some of the things that Occupy Oakland and/or the City of Oakland could or should have done differently?

    4. What’s next (or, what do you hope is next) for Occupy Oakland and the City of Oakland?

    If you take a look, let me know what you think.

  134. 134
    Anoniminous says:

    Until this anger is expressed in the voting booth it’s pointless.

    GOTV. GOTV. GOTV. GOTGDV.

    And then beat on Democratic pols, hold their feet to the fire, to make sure they act.

  135. 135
    Bugboy says:

    “Hobby Lobby may have won this battle. But it won at the price of portraying the Christian right as little more than a movement of sex-obsessed busybodies…”

    At Pandagon (Amanda’s blog) last year, I mentioned that “hair on fire” opponents of the legislative progress against reproductive rights need only wait until the moment that effort overreaches itself and implodes for the tide to turn against it.

    For that, I was crucified for telling the “little ladies not to worry their pretty heads” about it. I don’t post there any more…

  136. 136
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Bugboy:

    At Pandagon (Amanda’s blog) last year, I mentioned that “hair on fire” opponents of the legislative progress against reproductive rights need only wait until the moment that effort overreaches itself and implodes for the tide to turn against it.

    Except that you need both. You can’t say We told you so unless you’ve actually been telling people so all along.

  137. 137
    Wally Ballou says:

    I love how Wifey does all the talking in that YouTube clip. It’s like Frank and Hot Lips in Henry’s office.

    “Frank, if you don’t say something soon I’m going to have to punch her in the mouth.”

  138. 138
    Matt McIrvin says:

    And so much damage can occur in the meantime. Saying “all you need to do is wait” is that “mythical concept of time” that King was complaining about in the Birmingham jail.

  139. 139
    gene108 says:

    @⚽️ Martin:

    They don’t want to give it up because the know they’ll still have to pay for it, but won’t be able to control it any longer. That means they’ll have to shift to other benefits to compete. And those that don’t provide it don’t want to go to single payer because then they will need to pay for it.

    This may have been true a generation or two ago, but I do not think businesses view health insurance as a perk anymore, due the ever increasing costs.

    That said, I think employers that are providing it are increasingly interested in moving to single payer provided it can arrest costs, which we believe will happen but is far from proven. It’s happened in other countries, but they don’t usually have major political parties sabotaging government efforts on this scale.

    I think the “government is the problem” mindset is so ingrained into business owners that they reflexively would reject single-payer, even though it would take the headache of dealing with renewals off of their hands and probably save them money.

    To install single-payer would require a tax increase of some kind that would scare people off.

    Because tax increase..oooga boogaa boo…

    The reason we are where we are is not because of rational decisions for or against universal coverage, but because of irrational fear of change.

    There’s no rational solution, to an irrational problem.

  140. 140
    Bugboy says:

    @Matt McIrvin: Point taken. I guess I have more confidence in the process and the critical mass it takes for the electorate to push back, than is warranted.

  141. 141
    Stuart_B says:

    “and the belief at issue is completely incorrect. birth control does not cause abortions.”

    Actually isn’t the religious belief at issue here “it is a good thing to throw a monkey wrench into Obamacare”?

    And my recollection is that corporate personhood has been justified by the principle that somehow the corporation represented its customers or shareholders and/or its employees? Has anyone seen a case where it hasn’t actually been used to screw customers or shareholders and/or employees?

  142. 142
    singing truth to power says:

    Go here to see how Obama can fill the gap by executive action:
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/d.....-by-scotus

  143. 143
    PurpleGirl says:

    @flukebucket: Yesterday afternoon/evening, Burnsie made a point of telling us that he hadn’t completed reading the decision yet and would not post his reaction until he finished reading it. And he didn’t post any comments here.

  144. 144
    PurpleGirl says:

    I’ll repeat this in another comment but: Hormonal BC — i.e., the pill — cannot be made an over-the-counter drug. It can be a dangerous drug, it’s component chemicals interact with the bodies own hormones. You really do need to speak with a doctor about it to get the formulation that is best for you or if you should take at all.

    And mothers, talk to your daughters about health conditions in the family, problems aunts, grandmothers, sisters have had. Talk about who might have died due to cancer and what kind of cancer they had. I have a friend who lost one ovary because of a cancer that began after she began taking the pill. Her doctor asked her, several times (I know because I had the same doctor) if there was anything in her family background that contraindicated the pill. Her mother had never told her that a grandmother and an aunt had died of OVARIAN cancer. It was caught early in my friend’s case because the doctor kept asking my friend certain questions about how she was responding to the pill.

  145. 145
    SFAW says:

    @Cervantes:

    Anyway, is that your analysis of the Occupy movement? Have you written it up in more detail? Have you (or has anyone else here) seen a good analysis by someone else?

    I’m assuming you’re being serious, not snarking. So, here goes:

    It’s sort of a half-baked analysis. I haven’t spent a lot of time trying to seek out what the Occupy “organizers” have done, other than some of the verdicts in NYC, and even there, I’m only half-watching. However, keeping those disclaimers in mind: although we see tons of TeaTard-related coverage, we don’t see a whole lot of Occupy-related ,,, anything. There’s ActBlue stuff, there PCCC stuff, and so on, and there are people throwing the 99-percent moniker around at various times. And even though coverage of the TeaTards is getting increasingly negative, I don’t see a whole lot of “Tired of the TeaTards? Here’s Mandy Occupy for ya.” stuff. Maybe I’m seeing it and unconsciously ignoring it, or maybe I’m seeing it and not realizing that it’s the Occupy brain trust in a new form. But I’m thinking probably not. You want people to gravitate to your movement, then you should make it easy for them to find you, or set up a GOTV operation, or similar. Is there one?

    There have been analyses, I guess, but I can’t think of where to steer you.

    Re: the survey: it looks more like a post-mortem, not post-partum, survey. Haven’t seen it, probably won’t get a chance to do so anytime soon.

    Not sure if this answers your questions.

  146. 146
    SFAW says:

    @Cervantes:
    Tried to edit my previous reply, but FYWP eated it.

    What I was trying to add was: I don’t consider ActBlue and PCCC to be Occupy-related, just Occupy-sympathetic, because I am under the impression that they were here first. If I’m wrong, then I might need to eat shit.

  147. 147
    Nora says:

    Has anyone else seen the talking point about this decision, which I’ve seen repeated verbatim over facebook today? The idea is “nobody’s taking your birth control away, you have 16 possible types of birth control, and the 4 which were excluded were really abortion-causing and therefore not birth control at all.” Though I should know better than to engage with trolls, I did express surprise that this poster knew more about the effects of these methods than the doctors who filed amicus curiae briefs saying the IUD does not cause abortions, nor does the morning after contraception.

  148. 148
    SFAW says:

    @Nora:

    The Inferiors issued a clarification that the other 16 are also excluded. I think they resisted the urge to add “So suck it, Libtards!” to their clarification.

  149. 149
    Cervantes says:

    @SFAW: Was being serious. Thanks for addressing the questions.

  150. 150
    SFAW says:

    @Cervantes:

    Thanks, but you know what they say about free advice (and similar) …

    You know who ELSE gave free advice? Oh, wait, wrong thread.

Comments are closed.