In Justice Alito's majority opinion, he relies squarely on Catholic teaching about "complicity" to explain the supposed burden. In doing so, he reiterates the argument that the Catholic Church has made in the dozens of lawsuits it has brought challenging the contraceptive mandate.
I wondered if On the Waterfront offered any commentary on today's labor struggles, and whether its depiction of Johnny Friendly bore any responsibility for the perception, by some, of modern unions as a corrupting influence in American life.
Today the Supreme Court issued its decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. The decision effectively permits the deeply held religious belief...
The Hobby Lobby decision merits all the cheering (by its fans) and jeering (by its foes) that we are hearing. Love it or loathe it, the Hobby Lobby decision is limited in scope.
More than anything else, the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby vividly illustrates the need for a single-payer health care system that does not involve employers.
The Supreme Court's ruling directly affected a very small slice of the current TV landscape. However, its ramifications for the future are much, much greater -- especially considering that in 36 months, more people will be watching primetime television programming online than on broadcast TV.
Just when we thought the rights of women, workers and minorities faced enough setbacks, it appears the nation's highest court has done it once again. The Supreme Court's majority has very clearly shown where its interests are -- and they are not with the people.
A huge sigh of relief mixed with curses -- that's my reaction to the Supreme Court's decision today to block home care workers in Illinois from being required to pay union dues, while continuing to allow public employee unions to collect dues from all the workers they represent.
Two things are absolutely clear about this Supreme Court term. One, it's once again been a very good term for the Chamber of Commerce. And, two, it's been an even better one for the business community writ large.
This is deeply troubling territory. Are we going to say that the government has the authority to tell religious individuals or groups that their beliefs about the significance of an action or subject are simply wrong?
Was the court so overly-focused on the potential indirect violation of religious freedoms of one set of Americans that they forgot to consider the actual religious freedoms of millions of others?
This decision may well presage how the Court will rule on the constitutionality of the NSA metadata collection program when that issue inevitably comes before it.
On this final day of the term, the Supreme Court will be handing down a decision with potentially broad implications not only for the rights of women and workers, but also for corporate personhood and religious liberty.
This was a week of winning, losing, and sometimes winning by losing. On Wednesday, the Obama administration finally won the wide-ranging consensus it's always wanted by losing to a unanimous Supreme Court, which ruled decisively that police must get a warrant to search a cell phone during an arrest. On Thursday we all lost, as former Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker passed away. Known as "the Great Conciliator," he was a symbol of a more moderate -- and more effective -- Republican Party. In the World Cup, Uruguayan star Luis Suarez avoided using his hands, but not his teeth. For his toddler-worthy meltdown he was banned nine matches and given a four-month time-out. Meanwhile, the U.S. won by losing, advancing to the knockout stage of the tournament even while losing to Germany, thanks to Portugal beating Ghana. The U.S. fell only one goal short of remaining unbeaten, but, unlike Italy, they at least remained unbitten.
The end of June is an important time on the political calendar, but it is one which most Americans don't really think about all that much. It's hard to fault this, so let's take a quick run through the important decisions handed down in the past week.
In a very general sense, in evaluating the constitutionality of law restricting speech, the Court has drawn an important distinction between laws that restrict speech because of its message ("content-based" laws) and laws that restrict speech without regard to its message ("content-neutral" laws).