Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

My male colleagues didn’t really understand the Hobby Lobby case

Posted by on Jul. 31, 2014 at 12:18 PM
  • 48 Replies
2 moms liked this

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: My male colleagues didn’t really understand the Hobby Lobby case

By Scott Kaufman
Thursday, July 31, 2014 9:08 EDT

ruth bader ginsburg
 

Speaking with Katie Couric on Yahoo Global News, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that five of her male counterparts on the court have “a blind spot” when it comes to women’s issues.

After noting that all three female justices were in the minority in the recent Hobby Lobby decision, Couric asked Ginsburg whether she “believed the five male justices truly understood the ramifications of their decision.”

Following a long pause, Ginsburg said, “I would have to say, ‘No.’”

“But,” she added, “justices continue to think, and can change. So I’m ever hopeful that if the Court has a blind spot today, its eyes can be opened tomorrow.”

“But you do, in fact, feel that these five justices had a bit of a ‘blind spot’?” Couric asked.

“In Hobby Lobby?” Ginsburg replied. “Yes.”

“Because they couldn’t understand what it is like to be a woman?” Couric asked.

“They all have wives. They have daughters. By the way, I think daughters can change the perception of their fathers.”

Ginsburg went on to note that her opinions on these matters are contained in her dissents, and that there is a tradition of dissents becoming “unquestionably, the law of the land.”

In her scathing dissent in the Hobby Lobby case, Ginsburg noted that the majority’s willful misreading of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act would have unintended consequences.

“Little doubt that RFRA claims will proliferate, for the Court’s expansive notion of corporate personhood – combined with its other errors in construing RFRA – invites for-profit entities to seek religion-based exemptions from regulations they deem offensive to their faith,” she wrote.

Earlier this week, in fact, the Satanic Temple declared that it would use the majority’s interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act just as Ginsburg predicted groups would.

Watch the entire interview with Ginsburg via Yahoo Global News below.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/31/ruth-bader-ginsburg-my-male-colleagues-didnt-really-understand-the-hobby-lobby-case/

by on Jul. 31, 2014 at 12:18 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
JTROX
by Bronze Member on Jul. 31, 2014 at 1:32 PM
2 moms liked this

She seems to think women don't want religious freedom too, as if it's just a male thing. 

FromAtoZ
by Bronze Member on Jul. 31, 2014 at 1:53 PM

Doesn't surprise me.

Most men do have a blind spot in areas they simply have to capability of understanding or knowing.


Clairwil
by Gold Member on Jul. 31, 2014 at 3:16 PM
1 mom liked this


Quoting JTROX:

She seems to think women don't want religious freedom too, as if it's just a male thing. 

Or possibly she thinks the precedent set by this particular ruling is too high a price for the particular gain?

JTROX
by Bronze Member on Jul. 31, 2014 at 3:35 PM
1 mom liked this

Based on her statements in the article she is making this out to be a sexist issue.

Quoting Clairwil:


Quoting JTROX:

She seems to think women don't want religious freedom too, as if it's just a male thing. 

Or possibly she thinks the precedent set by this particular ruling is too high a price for the particular gain?


AdrianneHill
by Bronze Member on Jul. 31, 2014 at 3:37 PM
1 mom liked this
She's right. I think next year st this time, they'll see it because the docket next year will be full of the cases caused by their precedent. Hopefully hopefully hopefully, they will see the folly their actions because of the mountain of religious cases they'll have to decide. I hope
AdrianneHill
by Bronze Member on Jul. 31, 2014 at 3:40 PM
1 mom liked this
Do you think they realized their decision wild cause avalanche of religious litigation where facts will no longer be cause enough to dismiss bad science or policy because someone believe sincerely in the wrong thing and their stupidity must be protected.

Quoting JTROX:

She seems to think women don't want religious freedom too, as if it's just a male thing. 

Clairwil
by Gold Member on Jul. 31, 2014 at 3:45 PM
1 mom liked this


Quoting JTROX:
Quoting Clairwil:
Quoting JTROX:

She seems to think women don't want religious freedom too, as if it's just a male thing. 

Or possibly she thinks the precedent set by this particular ruling is too high a price for the particular gain?


Based on her statements in the article she is making this out to be a sexist issue.

Not incompatible.   The thing she thinks is a 'male thing' is underestimating this particular price.

JTROX
by Bronze Member on Jul. 31, 2014 at 3:51 PM

What "price" is that?  And why is it something a male would "underestimate"?

Quoting Clairwil:


Quoting JTROX:
Quoting Clairwil:
Quoting JTROX:

She seems to think women don't want religious freedom too, as if it's just a male thing. 

Or possibly she thinks the precedent set by this particular ruling is too high a price for the particular gain?


Based on her statements in the article she is making this out to be a sexist issue.

Not incompatible.   The thing she thinks is a 'male thing' is underestimating this particular price.


grandmab125
by Platinum Member on Jul. 31, 2014 at 11:58 PM
4 moms liked this

 The old bat doesn't know what she's talking about.

I guess those 7 out of 9, all male, SC Justices just didn't understand women's issues when then voted for abortion......Roe v Wade

How quickly you all forget.

AdrianneHill
by Bronze Member on Aug. 1, 2014 at 1:08 AM
2 moms liked this
One price is that people are able to create policy when the givens they are operating from are factually inaccurate from the jump.
Such as hobby lobby doesn't want to provide that birth control because they believe it causes abortions. They're wrong. doesn't cause abortions but that doesn't matter because their beliefs are assumed to be sincere by the courts. The next factually inaccurate opinions that a business owner appeals to might not be so innocuous.


Quoting JTROX:

What "price" is that?  And why is it something a male would "underestimate"?

Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting JTROX:
Quoting Clairwil:
Quoting JTROX:

She seems to think women don't want religious freedom too, as if it's just a male thing. 



Or possibly she thinks the precedent set by this particular ruling is too high a price for the particular gain?


Based on her statements in the article she is making this out to be a sexist issue.

Not incompatible.   The thing she thinks is a 'male thing' is underestimating this particular price.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)