Why HL decision should be taken as the threat it is.

[Skidmore]

For at least five of ten years I lived under Shari'a law in post-revolutionary Iran. When religion slammed the door shut on women's rights it felt pretty much the same as this decisions does now. This decision is an intrusion on women's rights to their own choices and bodies. It is just another one of a full on assault right now. And, it comes wrapped in the shiny sanctified cellophane wrapper of infallible religiosity cloaked as freedom--for some. What makes this SC decisions so awful is the finality it carries because, in the absence of a Congress that is concerned with the effects of policy on women, the chances the law being changed are slim to none. It also sets a precedent which will be tested to the limits over and over again. Whether you are forced into hejab or into silence, it is all the same as the door slams shut. I take this very seriously and it is frightening to see how many are willing to help slam that door.

[doxydad]

1. AGREED! n/t

[Squinch]

3. Kick. Those posting that this is no big deal are clueless.

[lovemydog]

4. Thanks Skidmore

[el_bryanto]

5. There's a certain detatchment from some on this issue.

Which comes from two things, in my opinion. Firstly it is a confusingly set out decision, which attempts to give Hobby Lobby what they want without setting any precedent for other cases. Secondly, while the court seems to want to say that this decision shouldn't be a precedent, it could be used for that purpose.

But that's in the future; we don't know right now if such challenges (to allow businesses to impose their religious beliefs on their employees and to continue treating Woman's health care as something she shouldn't be able to decide for herself) will be made (although I think we can all safely assume that they will be). We don't know if such challenges will be successful - if lower courts will want to treat this decision as precedent. It's possible 10 years from now we'll barely remember this decision, but it's also possible that in 10 years we'll talk about it as a key decision in the further ruining of America.

Bryant

[Skidmore]

30. I fully expect challenges because the people who are engaged on are the ones who seek

to do the most harm. The question becomes how far the zealots will be permitted to go before the backlash comes. I hope we do not lose a generation given the push to privatize education. I do not want to see a resurgence of Catholocism or any other -ism. Too many -ism have brought the world to the brink of disaster.

[noiretextatique]

44. there should be no confusion: another fucked decision

By a court dominated by rw idiots. This is just the latest bad decision by these tools.

[el_bryanto]

47. I agree with you, but I think that the court itself wrote a confused decision

that's part of what makes it such a bad decision. Although I suppose if they had written it more clearly to allow corporations to impose their religion on their employees that would be worse.

Bryant

[RKP5637]

6. It will morph slowly, sometimes more quickly, into something with greater reach as it

has set a precedence for religion overpowering governmental precedence. In a country that brags about its equality and freedom to the rest of the world, the SCOTUS decision is bizarre. I think one can well expect to see numerous test cases now casually or directly linked to this decision. In essence, it's akin to the 'foot in the door' sales technique. IMO there will be many cases now of 'this offends my religion and my religious freedom.' Individuals not seeing this are rather naive IMO. Then, one day, when something affects them they will say, "WTF, how could this happen."

[Lindsay]

27. This, to me, is the greater point.

As a woman, I hate that this decision discriminates against women.

But even more, I hate that they have set religious beliefs above the law.

[Arkansas Granny]

7. My fear is that birth control will become an issue like abortion. The right has been chipping away

little by little at the right of a woman to have a procedure that should be between a woman and her medical professional until they have made the process of getting an abortion harder and harder to obtain. They now have their foot in the door with birth control. If anyone thinks they will stop there, they are a fool.

[Aerows]

9. They want to turn women

back into baby factories. It's extremely difficult for a teenager to escape the cycle of poverty if she becomes a single mother at a young age. It results in large amounts of women and children ripe for exploitation.

[VanillaRhapsody]

10. what they really want is for other people to stop

Having enjoyable sex.....they want women punished for that.

[trotsky]

20. That right there is the heart of the matter.

I once got into an "argument" with a right-wing coworker about abortion.

Me: "Abortion needs to be legal and available because sometimes no matter how many precautions you take, a woman can still get pregnant."
Him: "Not true, abstinence prevents 100% of pregnancies."
Me: "People are going to have sex. You can't stop it. So what do we do if a woman who doesn't want to get pregnant, does?"
Him: "Well, she shouldn't have had sex."
Me: "But she did. So now what?"
Him: "She shouldn't have had sex."

And that's all the farther he could go in his reasoning.

[randys1]

51. Yes, it all comes back to RW men unable to get laid when teens and in their twenties

and they hate Women for it, and they want to punish them and control them.

Rush Limpdick, for example, cant get laid without paying for it, he HATES Women...duh

they ALL do

[tea and oranges]

17. Perpetual War

(which the neocons have told us is their goal - we will sing their praises & all) requires women to be baby machines. It's not peaceful countries that attempt to control women's bodies.

[Skidmore]

42. The neocons need an enemy and, in the absence of the old Soviet empire, what better new

nemesis is there than a caliphate fueled by the fervor of zealots. The problem is "The Wall" (analogous to the citadel in "Game of Thrones&quot they fancy the US to be has been weakened from within by the very people who would profit from war. The notion of "wildings" hurling themselves at "The Wall" only to slide off is a fantasy neocons dream because they personally have not experienced the true pain of war. War is for the little people; neocons fancy themselves to be thinkers of great thoughts while others simply see them for the nattering ideologues they are.

[LiberalArkie]

18. I think they (Conservatives) want to turn the clock back to the 1950's

to before the "sexual revolution" of the 60's - 80's. Before the "hippies", to before "women's liberation". They want women barefoot and pregnant, and staying home taking care of the kids. But the ones thinking this are so out of touch, they think even the poor have money to spend. They forget that this economy is not the same as the 60's - 80's.

[VanillaRhapsody]

22. no they just have boring sex lives and resent

Anyone who gets to enjoy theirs.....pure jealousy. Cant have other people have THAT advantage over them.

[Skidmore]

26. Baby factories allow them to drive women from the work force too.

[Aerows]

28. Of course

It makes them absolutely dependent and therefore exploitable, along with the children.

[mountain grammy]

8. This is very serious indeed, and also very scary.

Against the first amendment, the corrupt 5 have "established" the right of one religion over all others.

[Liberalynn]

11. I just saw a woman posting on FB what a great victory this is over Obama.

Is she serious? Doesn't she have any clue of what a setback this is for women? Doesn't she have even a modicum of self respect for herself or her daughter?

Racism is ugly in itself. How horrifyingly ignorant that you want this President to fail so much that you not only want to destroy his rights but your own in the process.

I despair. How do you fight this kind of blind hatred driven stupidity? It's scary!

[Skidmore]

25. I haved a FB acquaintance who is a nurse and

does not have a problem with it. She does not even recognize the medical lies given in front of the court as an issue. If we have women in healthcare who are willing to tolerate this because of the church they belong to, it will be a very long slog back.

[VWolf]

12. I keep thinking

there must be something more to this. Something the constitutional scholars know that I don't. Something above my head that makes this ruling more understandable. They're the experts, whereas I'm the novice, right?

Alas, there isn't any justification. None that I could find. It's a bad ruling, plain and simple.

[treestar]

46. There were two factors in RFRA

One is it has to burden the religious practice. Second the government has no less restrictive means. Since the ACA allowed nonprofits to not cover things they didn't think were consistent with religion, the Court said that the government could do it for profit seeking corporations and cover the birth control another way. So the least restrictive means test wasn't met here, but presumably could be in other cases.

So it's not true that any religious belief can be used to not follow a law. In a different case, they could find there are no less restrictive means and that the practice of religion could be burdened. This is the subtlety being overlooked on DU. As usual, no one really wants to read a legal decision.

The RFRA is what they used. I remember the traditional rule was that as long as the practice was illegal for everybody, it did not burden religion to prohibit it. I hope the Rastafarians try again. Let's see them justify their not following the marijuana laws where it's still illegal. What less restrictive means exist for not letting them practice their religion?

[Skidmore]

48. We'll see.

I think this will be tested six ways until Sunday.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/religious-groups-lgbt-hiring-hobby-lobby

[rurallib]

13. Eloquently put Skidmore!

Controlling women, their sex lives and their reproductive lives is central to far right wing politics in all countries and crosses religious boundaries.

[olegramps]

14. How can this not be seen as forcing workers to comply with the owner's religious beliefs?

I am also very disturbed that it appears to disregard that corporations, when given special rights, are not compelled to respect every employee's rights regardless of their religious beliefs. What impact will this decision have on ancillary issues in the future. No one knows what impact this will have on similar issues.

The real crux of the problem is the lifetime appointments of the justices. Their appointments should be limited to perhaps tens years. The founding fathers had far too much faith that the justices would, without regard to their own religious or political beliefs, judge each case solely on its constitutionality. They assumed that by making these lifetime appointments that this would insulate them from politics. The fact is that every case has become a political football and the conservative justices have especially made a mockery of impartiality.

[angrychair]

15. I agree

This is a dangerous road road we've started down.

[Grey]

16. K&R

[Garion_55]

19. the gop tried to warn us

[Marrah_G]

21. I had no idea you had lived in Iran

That must have been quite an experience. The laws there seem contrary to how nice and educated the Iranian people there are.

[Skidmore]

24. Most Iranians are lovely people.

The extremists are just as nasty as the fundamentalists we find here. I was a foreign wife of an Iranian citizen and subject to the same laws there as everyone else. My children are from that marriage. I watched that door slam and saw very well educated women closed in by the suffocating theocratic regime that took over. I watched well educated and erudite men I knew tow the theocratic line. I asked one of them how he could change so drastically in his demeanor and opinions after Khomeini returned and he told me that because Khomeini was accepted as the Imam of the time, he could not afford to be wrong spiritually if he were to reject him. Such is the pull of religion. I see it here with the fundamentalist harping on the writings in Revelations. I find it frightening because that teaching contains the vision of apocalyptical chaos demanding a world conflagration and these people are working overtime to shape the political state of the world to match their interpretation of that book. I find it astounding when fundamentalists are dismissed as kooky aunts or uncles. I hope we can get quickly to a point where good people are rightfully shocked into standing up to this insanity instead of looking down and being polite because the theocrats have cried so vociferously about being persecuted that society is afraid of standing up to them.

[Marrah_G]

29. That is scary

Sounds a bit like what happened in Afghanistan when the Taliban came into power. The fundies here scare me too.

[redruddyred]

36. thanks so much for sharing.

your posts on this thread have been extremely informative.

[riderinthestorm]

23. Yup. Agreed 110% K&R nt

[sheshe2]

31. We must be aware of the enemy from within

and see the terrorists for who they truly are.

Thanks for your post Skidmore. It frightens me too.

[BrotherIvan]

32. That is the only hope I can see from this decision

And we have to educate everyone so they understand that this could lead down the path to theocracy very quickly as you say.

These people have moved from kooky weirdos who are making up their beliefs from whole cloth to very dangerous people. Everyone talks about how great it is that people/corporations can practice their faith. But now they are pushing their faith onto everyone else. They are using their power to discriminate. Everyone thinks this is cool because it is their religion. But just wait until some Muslim, Jew or Mormon tries it. They do not understand how bad this could be.

[calimary]

33. Everybody on this thread from Skidmore onward has said what I'm feeling.

This is utterly frightening! I really can't believe what I'm seeing in this country now. Women are UNDER SEIGE!!! Our rights are UNDER SEIGE!!! I wonder how many of us really will take the bull by the balls and go vote in November? Have we had enough yet? Are we SCARED enough yet? I'm watching the devolution - like that mess in Murrieta CA, and actually feeling ashamed of being an American. I am NOT that. WE are NOT that. I want MY country back - the one I fought and marched for and which inspired my first activism. I want the America that believes in a level playing field. One in which ANYBODY can realize at least a few of their dreams. One in which nothing surface-related holds you back, what color you are, whom you might love, where you came from, what language you first learned, whatever. Things I worked toward when I was younger. All that progress my generation initiated and shepherded at least part-way through - it's all being rolled back, peed on, shredded and unraveled, pitted and pock-marked, chipped away and eroded in every sense imaginable. WHY is that America viewed so horribly by this rowdy little rabble? And why are they getting their way? They're in the minority, moreso every day as the demographic shift proceeds. WHY does what they want supersede what the majority of us want? Why is their agenda more important than the numerical majority's?

It's horrible, and horrifying. And deeply discouraging.

[pnwmom]

35. A bunch of my FB friends are talking about going to the march in DC on September 13.

They're pretty riled up.

Maybe this march will get some attention.

[Skidmore]

43. That incident in Murrieta was shameful. How does someone stand and threaten small children

and not have a twinge of conscious? These people are despicable. Equally despicable are those who also warm pews and never stand up and utter a single word of dissent.

[calimary]

53. I actually think we should start loudly and publicly challenging their claims of being "Christian."

True Christians honor Jesus's version of the Golden Rule: Do unto others ... in His view it was "whatever you do to the least of these, you do to Me."

Is shouting and bullying and terrorizing a busload of unattended children from a foreign land, all of them alone, confused, probably frightened to death at this rabble in front of them, no one to turn to, no one to trust - is THAT taking care of "the least of these"? Seriously?

Is insisting YOUR views trump the health and welfare of the people working for you who need insurance coverage taking care of "the least of these"? Especially when it's women and others who are working low-pay jobs where you also whine and moan and groan about having to pay them a higher minimum wage? 'Zat good for "the least of these"?

Is swaggering around with your automatic rifles and other assorted massacre machines in public, in stores, in malls, in fast-food joints and other general-interest restaurants because YOU DEMAND the right to swagger and intimidate and bully - how's THAT for taking care of "the least of these"?

Does bellyaching about paying a few dollars extra in taxes so the poor can eat, and throwing hissy fits in public about how aggrieved you supposedly are - how's THAT for taking care of "the least of these"?

Does giving aid and comfort to the rich, the money-changers, and all others who are doing just FINE, thank you, and don't need any help from anybody, so those who really DO need the help - does THAT take care of "the least of these"?

Does cutting back so mercilessly on women's health clinics and hospitals both, because you hate the idea of women having the right to decide important things for themselves and also you hate the idea that anything out there will sustain the Affordable Care Act (which most of you don't realize is the dreaded "Obamacare" you think you despise because it's another freebie for moochers.

Modern-day christianity (I question the whole idea of capitalizing the word in this type of case - seems to me this kind of alleged "Christianity" is really anything but!) is so damn CRUEL! With what clearly appears to be a view of life in which there's supposed to be pain and suffering, either meted out or allowed by an unforgiving, punishing God. To put it in crudely and heathen-esque, you weren't supposed to have any fun. I suppose this is an across-the-eons extension of Adam and Eve being evicted from the Garden of Eden.

Indeed, when I was pregnant the first time, I read as much as I could find about that whole business and I came across one passage that described the "controversy" ("controversy?" Huh? Whaddya mean "controversy"?) over, of all things, the epidural, which an obstetrician administers during labor for pain relief. BELIEVE ME! Any woman who is going through childbirth the hard way, you WANT that epidural BIGTIME!!! CRIMINY!!! Sounds like something that is so broadly acceptable and deemed essential that it just sorta goes without saying, doesn't it? Well! I didn't know that at one time there were VERY strong voices raised against epidurals from pastors and ministers and conservatives of the day (Conservatives! Hah, figures. Color me shocked. NOT!). Those primordial limbaughs and swaggarts objected to ANY pain relief being made available to a woman in active labor. ANY of it. Why? Because it was part of the price she was expected to pay for the Sin of Eve. Childbirth was supposed to hurt. You weren't supposed to interfere with that, it was God's will. It wasn't for you to go against God's will and try to change that or alleviate the pain in any way. It was a women-only toll bridge - indeed, a bridge to nowhere.

I was shocked to read this. Astonished! I hadn't known that. That there were actually people who opposed and actively fought the practice of alleviating labor pains - because it was the sin that womankind for which atonement was expected - from the Daughters of Eve. Yep, we were expected to pick up the tab for that by enduring unrelieved but easily relievable pain!!! CRAP! What the HELL!?!?! Because we weren't worthy of happiness until and unless we reached their God's Heaven at the end of the line? WHAT????

I wonder if what we have here are the sons and daughters of the Puritans. Heck, I remember reading about how, back in the day, even dancing was considered improper, because, again, the underlying philosophy was about the severity of life, how everything was about work and no time for fun. Just slogging through the years, the hard way, where suffering is king and you're aiming for something in the afterlife rather than the now or even the foreseeable future.

I was looking around, considering whether this was latter-day Calvinism or something and when I attempted to look that up, I found this:

Fundamentalist Christianity, also known as Christian fundamentalism, is defined by historian George M. Marsden as "militantly anti-modernist Protestant evangelicalism." Marsden explains that fundamentalists were evangelical Christians who in the 20th century "militantly opposed both modernism in theology and the cultural changes that modernism endorsed. Militant opposition to modernism was what most clearly set off fundamentalism."[1] The name is taken from the title of a series of essays published by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles, The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth.

https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Fundamentalist_Christianity.html

"Militantly anti-modernist." AHA! I think we've found our truth! They don't want modern times. No wonder a lot of 'em want so badly to "take their America BACK." As in BACKWARDS. We weren't allowed to progress or evolve. No wonder they don't believe in evolution either. Weren't no birth control back in the day (when we was ridin' 'n' ropin' them dinosaur varmints...) or some such thing, so we certainly can't enjoy that modern scientific advancement now. Maybe they want us all back in the day when we had to chisel words into stone, or press them into wet clay? Even that probably wouldn't be acceptable to them.

[Skidmore]

55. This deserves its own thread.

The wealthy unleashed this scourge on the nation and loet control of it. Soon we will be up to our necks in the world conflagration the zealots seek if the fundamentalists of the other monotheistic faiths are successful. In the meantime, social order must be reestablished for them to succeed. This assault on women is one salvo.

[calimary]

56. I just might do that, Skidmore. It's all about the REFRAMING.

Last edited Fri Jul 4, 2014, 04:17 PM - Edit history (1)

We need to REFRAME the issue, press ahead with a new dialogue. NEW ways of talking about this and wording this and NEW ways to attack. As kkkarl rove did, WE should do. We should attack them at their strength. Their so-called "Christianity."

Why not? Nothing else has worked. This would help put at least some of them on the defensive, and present another way to think about the issue.

We need to "just have a conversation" in which WE determine what the messaging is and how relentlessly it has to be delivered. If all of us started talking about it in OUR way, maybe others would come to think of it in OUR way, too. They just haven't been allowed to (or invited to) think about it in any other way.

I think the mass media is largely to blame. I was watching one of the MSNBC shows - they're almost interchangeable on this front - and it was republiCON after republiCON after republiCON after republiCON, pounding home the same shrewdly-crafted, focus-tested, incessantly-repeated, and deliberately coordinated talking points. That's the only stuff you hear, one after another. Then the host comes on to refute it all - meaning there's ONE voice talking truth versus 1) mccain, 2) paul ryan, 3) a look back at wrongney, 4) limbaugh or some other hate-radio-du-jour figure, and maybe also 5) another teabagger-du-jour - whoever else the loudest-mouth/know-nothing-du-jour is at the moment. Outnumbered. Even on a cable channel presumably focused on all things Left/Liberal/Progressive.

Also, nauseatingly, there remains a cringeworthy attitude among many in the press that their only responsibility was to bring the statements and talking points and blatant straightforward agenda propagandizing out of whatever interview subject, guest, or panelist was sitting before them. Let them spew. Leave it there on the table. And you're done! Your job is done. Nice, 'eh? Many of us here have observed and complained about the lack of follow-up questions, the ready-made list of questions to which to cement yourself, and not really listening to the answers or probing or challenging or asking a simple - "...but what do you mean by that?" or "...so what does that MEAN?"

DANG!!!!! I just remembered!!!

Shit - sorry this is getting long, but I had an epiphany earlier today, on a freeway offramp.

Top of the offramp. The signs directly in front of you, and the large painted arrows on the pavement IN the lanes-in-question are ahead of the wheels of your car. Really can't miss 'em. The roads have been rebuilt, repaved, re-marked - newly-painted arrows on the asphalt. It's a "T" intersection with three lanes intersecting the main one. Two lanes go only in one direction and the third lane goes exclusively in the opposite direction. That's different from what this "T" intersection offramp used to be configured before the road was refurbished.

[IMG][/IMG]

(Bad photo, I apologize, but if I can find/figure out a different one I'll replace this.)

So - imagine there's this asshole who insists that - in the center lane, that is clearly marked to take you to the left - he can still turn right. Because that's how it was originally, and THAT is how it's Still Supposed to Be! It worked Just Fine the way it used to be! So that's how I'm still using it!
- So says the proudly self-proclaimed "Originalist". (You listening, bill o'reilly?) Another self-title: "Traditionalist." (You listening, alito and scalia?)
NEVER MIND that the routing of the right and left turn lanes needed to be changed when the offramp got fixed! NEVER MIND that it was done because changing and evolving conditions in traffic flow and mushrooming traffic volume demanded a roadway and turn lanes that accommodated the different new levels of demand. THINGS CHANGE. THINGS EVOLVE. THINGS NATURALLY PROGRESS AND FINE-TUNE. That's how you get fish starting slowly to evolve legs. That's how you get eyeballs that adapt to changing environments - Neil deGrasse Tyson explained it in the new "Cosmos" series and stirred up a hissy fit among "creationists", religionistas, CONservatives, science deniers, and know-nothings everywhere.
So this asshole tries to take the lane HE wants, the way HE thinks it oughta go, regardless what the current traffic flow reality now requires and dictates. And he inevitably fouls things up. Lots of honking, screeching tires as people have to slam on their brakes to avoid hitting him, jangled nerves, bruised feelings, violations of space, and constipation of the traffic flow, by subverting the newly reorganized management of this extremely congested little intersection. Maybe there IS a fender-bender. You sure lose time waiting in a longer delay because this asshole insisted on having his way and he fucked everything up for everybody else. But it wasn't supposed to change. HE's right. HE's the ONLY one who's right, too. Doing it the way it was, ORIGINALLY. BEFORE the goll-durned changes!

And they didn't even consult him about it in the first place! The NOIVE!!!! - as the Three Stooges might say!

THINGS CHANGE. THINGS EVOLVE. THINGS NATURALLY PROGRESS AND FINE-TUNE. And new adaptations in behavior are REQUIRED, in order to get along successfully with the INEVITABLE changing, evolving times. Maybe we start reaching the core motivation among the evolution deniers and refuseniks when we understand this.

They don't like change. They want it back the way it was. Probably still with all the modern conveniences of today, but they still want the "Father Knows Best"/"Leave It To Beaver" days. You know, when Dad was master of the house, king of the castle. He alone went out into the world every morning with his briefcase to his job - a job that clearly paid enough to support that nice house with the white picket fence in the nice lily-white neighborhood, so the "little woman" could stay home. And there she stayed, running the vacuum, making cookies, dressed in her pearls and nice shirt-dress and medium-height heels. The kids went to school with small classrooms of other kids who were all white like them. Add station wagon and dog and a visit up to the lake on holidays to go fishing and there you are. The 50s and 60s! YAY!

NEVER MIND that such a lifestyle, back in those days, was largely generated by UNIONS. Costs were lower because taxes in general were higher, but markedly higher on the rich. NEVER MIND that this is also delightful FICTION not only viewed with rose-colored glasses but written and filmed that way, too.

They don't like change. Change is "Other." AHA!!! Just like that black guy in the Oval Office who (GASP!!!)isn't the janitor! WRONG! RESET! He's not supposed to be there! That's not how things are s'posed to be! Press RESET, dammit! What - you are pressing and it doesn't work? Well I don't care! Do SOMETHING! 'Cause this is NOT how it's supposed to be!

NEVER MIND that things change in society such that women and minorities have grown in number and clout and need/require/demand changing and evolving situations, accommodations, new laws and regulations, new conventions, new thinking, new trends and trendings, new social behavior, new societal mores, new priorities - THAT ADDRESS AND MEET THE CHANGING TIMES. The "originalist" or "traditionalist" sees those changes - going in directions HE doesn't like or approve of, and so his solution is to fight rather than adapt.

So let's work the Constitution that way, too! I'm an "Originalist"! I'm a "Traditionalist!" That's how it's supposed to be. How it was at first, back in the day dontchaknow.

Nobody challenges somebody on that whole "Originalist"/"Traditionalist" baloney. Nobody ever points out stuff as simple as the metaphor in that newly-installed traffic sign, put in place to govern and underscore the new changes painted-right-on-the-road - because times changed, traffic volume increased dramatically, and the road finally got its urgently-needed update, accordingly.

This is why we DO see the laws evolve - so that women seeking abortions don't have to do it in a back alley and maybe bleed to death in these changing times. Which is what the Roe v Wade decision responded to - since a rather dramatic, indeed crisis-level need was clearly recognized. No safe and legal abortion? Women sought one anyway and died, horribly, or were permanently maimed internally. So things CHANGED. And then these butt-inskis stepped up and decided they didn't like it, that this wasn't the way it was supposed to be way back when, and who cared if women died - this is no right they can claim and it must be stopped.

SAME thing for the evolution on marriage. Well, the obstructors and relentless closed-minded refuseniks and feet-draggers don't like that either, don't acknowledge it - OR the changing times that now loudly call for it. It's not supposed to be that way! BACK! BACK where it was a long time ago, when this wasn't discussed or even considered, and it certainly wasn't anybody's so-called "right." (And besides, God's on MY side and that's what God says. I know this because He spoke to me and told me so, even! So don't even question it! THIS is how it IS.)

Sorry I ran on so long. Yeeks - thanks for suffering me. But this offramp just struck me like a bolt of lightning - WHAT A GREAT METAPHOR to explain and counter and push back on those who strut and swagger about how they're "Originalists" or "Traditionalists" on what the Constitution covers NOWadays and how it's relevant or not relevant and this revisionist stuff is for the birds. And for the Devil, no doubt, because it was originally inspired by God and this was a Christian nation at its founding and that's how it's ALWAYS gonna be! What a GREAT metaphor to illuminate that stubborn refusal to acknowledge the inevitability of changing and evolving societal and moral times. What a GREAT metaphor to invite some independent analysis and critical thinking - and a DIFFERENT, more evolved way of thinking and discussing and debating this whole over-arching issue. What a GREAT metaphor to use as a response to those closed-minded, unyielding, backwards-leaning stuffed shirts who insist the Constitution is NOT a living document that can be relevant to changing times. It's rigid and unbending. Calcified. Cast in bronze. Frozen in time. Certainly noting living and breathing and acknowledging and being relevant to changing evolving times, but evolving, to stay relevant, along with the inevitable changing times. (You listening, scalia?) And I guess WE are supposed to be that same rigid way, somehow, too.

[CincyDem]

52. No, women are not under seige.

Women who think are under siege.
Women who want a say in the affairs of their life (including the ability to make their own health care decisions) are under siege
Women who want their daughters to have a sense of self esteem that isn't defined by their dependence on a man for validation are under siege.
Women who want to continue the generations old tradition of their children having a better life then they have are under siege.

But..

To say "women are under siege" is a gross overstatement because there are many many women who see the world through some warped lens that allows them to look at the HL decision (and others related to "control" of women, their minds, and their bodies) and say "we won".

All I can say is that it feels like the chicken voting for fresh chicken soup for dinner.

[Kennah]

34. This could well be a watershed moment

[defacto7]

37. For full support of your OP and lack of useful words

Kicked, recd and tweeted.

[Cha]

38. Mahalo for your Perspective regarding Iran, Skidmore! #ScaliaLaw Trending..

Joy Reid ✔ @JoyAnnReid
Follow
#ScaliaLaw trending big-time right now.
3:18 PM - 2 Jul 2014 70 Retweets 44 favorites

TOD

[blkmusclmachine]

39. Sadly, and terrifyingly, true. Washington, DC is Out. Of. Control.

[JDPriestly]

40. Beautiful post.

When I see a woman in a hibab I think of the habits the nuns wore when I was a child. The hibabs worn in Afghanistan -- those blue ones were pretty much blue versions of the old nun's habits of the 1940s and 1950s.

Controlling, silencing and hiding women -- that's pretty common in at least a couple of religions. And it's wrong. It is counterproductive. It hurts women. It removes from society, from the marketplace of goods and ideas about the half of the contributions that women can make. It deprives the world of the wonderful asset that women are.

Sharia law is the Muslim word for religious rule. It means imposing centuries old behavior limitations in our time. It is so obviously wrong. I don't understand how the Supreme Court Justices didn't see what they were doing. They set the stage to push America back into a darker age.

[Hugin]

41. Can someone tell me how the HL ruling is not in violation of the 1st amend?

You know, the part about passing no laws favoring an establishment of religion.

The SCOTUS is bound by the amendments just like everyone else.

Sorry, I don't mean to hijack anyone's thread, but, I feel like someone here may be able to explain it to me.

[noiretextatique]

45. this extremist court is activist

And ignores law, precedent, and reality to impose a conservative wet dream on the rest of us. Conservatives claim that liberal activist judges did not comply with original intent of the founders by extending the rights of citizenship to women, black people and gay people. This court is simply correcting all those years of activism by shifting power to corporations, who are now people. Funny that these new "people" are exercising their right to discriminate. Sick, but true, unfortunately.

[Hugin]

49. Thank you for a very comprehensive answer. n/t

[noiretextatique]

50. welcome

like roaches, these assholes like the dark

[Dawson Leery]

54. The Bishops/Cardinals are no better than the Ayatollahs.

The megachurch pastors are no better than the Ayatollahs.