One More Point

The Court has created a hierarchy of which religious beliefs it’s going to protect. That’s not good for religious liberty.


3 thoughts on “One More Point

  1. Oh God, don’t read the comments at Pith. I’m not really getting the same thing from it you are. From what I’ve read, it was done that way (and with phrasing you didn’t quote) that indicated that these other things would be considered on a case by case basis. So basically they were trying tell people they couldn’t just refuse to fund those others without coming back to the court.

    And of course as I lay it out that way it occurs to me that this is pretty much the same thing as what you already said. They’re just trying to deny their own precedent.

  2. Right. They’re setting a standard for what is a legitimate religious belief while at the same time denying that they’re setting that standard. And yet, if they’re saying “Oh, those other things don’t meet that standard” or “We can’t tell if they meet the standard without considering them on a case-by-case basis,” they’re setting a standard.

    Like I said, that’s not a win for religious liberty to have the Court setting itself up as the arbiter of what constitutes a good enough religious reason to not follow the law.

  3. The Roberts court has already set it set up as the arbiter of national elections (without admitting to setting a precedent, of course). Why should we be surprised that they have taken another step?

    I refuse to be the liberal flip-side of all the “Impeach Earl Warren” idiots of my childhood. But I do think that there is a competition going on right now among our three branches of gov’t that isn’t really healthy for the country, and I think we need to look at that, and deal with it, as a whole.

Comments are closed.