The Latest Crusade to Place Religion Over the Rest of Civil Society

[j brown's body]

"Federal civil rights law requires employers to accommodate their employees’ religious needs unless the request would impose “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” Congress didn’t bother to define “undue hardship,” so 46 years ago the Supreme Court came up with a definition of its own. ...Treating religion as nothing particularly special, the decision reflected the spirit of the times but was deeply unpopular in religious circles. There have been many attempts over many years to persuade Congress to amend the law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to shift the balance explicitly in favor of religiously observant employees. Between 1994 and 2019, more than a dozen such bills were introduced. None emerged from Congress.

And so now, a very different court from the one that ruled 46 years ago is about to do the work itself. ...The moment is remarkable for the bold activism the court is about to display. In the days when the justices professed respect for the doctrine of stare decisis, or adherence to precedent, the general understanding was that decisions that interpreted statutes should be harder to overturn than those that interpreted the Constitution. That may seem counterintuitive at first glance, but the reasoning went like this: Only the Supreme Court can issue a definitive constitutional interpretation, so only the court can revisit a constitutional precedent if the justices later perceive a problem with it. But Congress has the last word on the meaning of a federal law, so the court should stay its hand and let Congress repair an erroneous statutory interpretation.

... When the court doubtless rules for him later this term, the decision will not stand for a vindication of minority rights. It will instead signify the court’s complete identification with the movement in the country’s politics to elevate religion over all other elements of civil society. Whether today’s Supreme Court is helping to lead that movement or has been captured by it is by now beside the point. Religion is the lens through which the current majority views American society; as I have written, there is no other way to understand the overturning of Roe v. Wade."

Link

Kind of an interesting contrast: when the Court gutted the enforcement provision of the Voting Rights Act, they said it was up to Congress to fix it. But when it comes to religious rights, they step in and make the law themselves.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Terms not well defined by the Supreme Court are a problem, but the courts are forced into these no win terrible solutions because of terribly crafted laws coming from Congress. It happens time and time again not starting with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 from Congress or Roe v Wade from the Supreme Court (as examples.)

 

[EMNofSeattle]

"Federal civil rights law requires employers to accommodate their employees’ religious needs unless the request would impose “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” Congress didn’t bother to define “undue hardship,” so 46 years ago the Supreme Court came up with a definition of its own. ...Treating religion as nothing particularly special, the decision reflected the spirit of the times but was deeply unpopular in religious circles. There have been many attempts over many years to persuade Congress to amend the law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to shift the balance explicitly in favor of religiously observant employees. Between 1994 and 2019, more than a dozen such bills were introduced. None emerged from Congress.

And so now, a very different court from the one that ruled 46 years ago is about to do the work itself. ...The moment is remarkable for the bold activism the court is about to display. In the days when the justices professed respect for the doctrine of stare decisis, or adherence to precedent, the general understanding was that decisions that interpreted statutes should be harder to overturn than those that interpreted the Constitution. That may seem counterintuitive at first glance, but the reasoning went like this: Only the Supreme Court can issue a definitive constitutional interpretation, so only the court can revisit a constitutional precedent if the justices later perceive a problem with it. But Congress has the last word on the meaning of a federal law, so the court should stay its hand and let Congress repair an erroneous statutory interpretation.

... When the court doubtless rules for him later this term, the decision will not stand for a vindication of minority rights. It will instead signify the court’s complete identification with the movement in the country’s politics to elevate religion over all other elements of civil society. Whether today’s Supreme Court is helping to lead that movement or has been captured by it is by now beside the point. Religion is the lens through which the current majority views American society; as I have written, there is no other way to understand the overturning of Roe v. Wade."

Link

Kind of an interesting contrast: when the Court gutted the enforcement provision of the Voting Rights Act, they said it was up to Congress to fix it. But when it comes to religious rights, they step in and make the law themselves.

Look a dishonest leftist purposefully choosing a paywalled source than editing the quote so no one can see what the case is about

 

[VanceMack]

"as I have written, there is no other way to understand the overturning of Roe v. Wade."

In one piece of a sentence the idiot leftist completely shits on his own credibility.

Little wonder other leftists love him.

 

[j brown's body]

Terms not well defined by the Supreme Court are a problem, but the courts are forced into these no win terrible solutions because of terribly crafted laws coming from Congress. It happens time and time again not starting with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 from Congress or Roe v Wade from the Supreme Court (as examples.)

They aren't forced into anything. and they have precedence to guide them.

 

[OrphanSlug]

They aren't forced into anything. and they have precedence to guide them.

Not sure that changes the argument, at all.

 

[j brown's body]

"as I have written, there is no other way to understand the overturning of Roe v. Wade."

In one piece of a sentence the idiot leftist completely shits on his own credibility.

Little wonder other leftists love him.

How so? There is no legal definition of life before birth. It comes from religious teachings.

 

[j brown's body]

Not sure that changes the argument, at all.

Its just a reflection of an activist court with a political agenda.

 

[VanceMack]

How so? There is no legal definition of life before birth. It comes from religious teachings.

RvW was not decided on religion...it was correctly decided on bad law.

If advocates of butchering children were sincere they would have pushed for and passed an amendment.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Its just a reflection of an activist court with a political agenda.

I remain convinced that anyone reasonable will conclude that politicalization of the courts is very real, but I remain unconvinced that the Supreme Court is the one thing wrong with political agenda colliding with legal application. It is not that your argument is muted, it is that you are being narrowminded on how the Supreme Court ends up in the position that it is (appointment and decision.)

Regardless, hate on as if this is all exclusive to the courts... will be entertaining to watch you try.

 

[btthegreat]

The reason that the definitions in legislation are either not included or vaguely/ambiguously constructed, is often because the votes are not sitting on the committee for any other more definitive result and the bill will lose a vote or two on the committee or on the floor, if they pick one. Even if “undue hardship" was not defined because of sloppiness or laziness in the original statute, we are left with 46 years in which Congress refused to correct an obvious problem for the courts, for employers, and for potential victims of discrimination in employment practice. Its a political tactic and a legal tactic in that it invites different appelate courts to do the dirty work of coming up with a definition as caselaw comes up, that legislators did not want or could not do themselves.

Appelate courts can lean not just on the specific wording of the statute in order to interpret meaning, but also look to the Congressional record itself to glean legislative intent. Had I been a jurist, I might look to the lack of any Congressional action to amend the bill for greater clarity, despite all those bills showing up at so many legislative sessions to do otherwise, as tacit assent that the courts got it right all along. Its not an invitation for the SCOTUS to do anything differently than what they have done in those 46 years and respect the prior precedent of interpretation. That is - at least until they find the votes to amend the bill on their own. Make the legislature do its job better and clean this up, if they want to regain control over this bill or assume they are happy with the status quo.

 

[j brown's body]

RvW was not decided on religion...it was correctly decided on bad law.

If advocates of butchering children were sincere they would have pushed for and passed an amendment.

I have pointed out the fallacy of this argument.

"Bad law" is the givaway.

 

[j brown's body]

The reason that the definitions in legislation are either not included or vaguely/ambiguously constructed, is often because the votes are not sitting on the committee for any other more definitive result and the bill will lose a vote or two on the committee or on the floor, if they pick one. Even if “undue hardship" was not defined because of sloppiness or laziness in the original statute, we are left with 46 years in which Congress refused to correct an obvious problem for the courts, for employers, and for potential victims of discrimination in employment practice. Its a political tactic and a legal tactic in that it invites different appelate courts to do the dirty work of coming up with a definition as caselaw comes up, that legislators did not want or could not do themselves.

Appelate courts can lean not just on the specific wording of the statute in order to interpret meaning, but also look to the Congressional record itself to glean legislative intent. Had I been a jurist, I might look to the lack of any Congressional action to amend the bill for greater clarity, despite all those bills showing up at so many legislative sessions to do otherwise, as tacit assent that the courts got it right all along. Its not an invitation for the SCOTUS to do anything differently than what they have done in those 46 years and respect the prior precedent of interpretation. That is - at least until they find the votes to amend the bill on their own. Make the legislature do its job better and clean this up, if they want to regain control over this bill or assume they are happy with the status quo.

Previous courts didn't seem to have this problem.

 

[j brown's body]

I remain convinced that anyone reasonable will conclude that politicalization of the courts is very real, but I remain unconvinced that the Supreme Court is the one thing wrong with political agenda colliding with legal application. It is not that your argument is muted, it is that you are being narrowminded on how the Supreme Court ends up in the position that it is (appointment and decision.)

Regardless, hate on as if this is all exclusive to the courts... will be entertaining to watch you try.

Can you be more specific?

 

[btthegreat]

Previous courts didn't seem to have this problem.

Of course they had to have. That's one reason this case ended up at the Supreme Court. It was undefined in statute that is something that is inevitably going to be problematic when one side claims altering the work schedule represents 'undue hardship' and the another does not. But I am on your side on this. I agree with you as a matter of policy, that what you really want to discourage is employers who exploit scheduling to penalize people of faith or people of the wrong faith, but you also don't want employers to penalize atheists or agnostics bending over backwards to appease this statute for a Christian who wants to use his faith to step in the front of the line to get Christmas day off. I am just offering a slightly different appelate court argument than the OP put forward to continue with the same interpretation it has for 46 years, namely if this interpretation was not consistent with the legislative intent of Congress when they wrote bill, they could have made it clear in an amendment to that original Federal civil rights law, but they chose not to. I'd leave the whole thing alone and force Congress to clarify what they really want by better defining what they believe undue hardship looks like .

I know what I did as a manager. I put up a holiday list asking each employee to list in order which holidays they most wanted off (#1), and which ones were the second most important(#2) and which ones they were completely indifferent to (#3), and they actually wanted to work for double time (#4). I tried to give every single employee their #1 choice and if I couldn't, strict seniority broke ties. I never asked anyone why. None of my business. It almost always worked out with everyone satisfied.

 

[VanceMack]

I have pointed out the fallacy of this argument.

"Bad law" is the givaway.

Sorry...getting your ***** hurt because you dont like the outcome of the decision doesnt mean the decision was made improperly.

 

[Jetboogieman]

RvW was not decided on religion...it was correctly decided on bad law.

Why are you lying?

It's entirely, 110% based on religion, the excuse the Supreme Court gave is not convincing to anybody, even you.

You know that, but you choose to lie about it.

 

[j brown's body]

Of course they had to have. That's one reason this case ended up at the Supreme Court. It was undefined in statute that is something that is inevitably going to be problematic when one side claims altering the work schedule represents 'undue hardship' and the another does not. But I am on your side on this. I agree with you as a matter of policy, that what you really want to discourage is employers who exploit scheduling to penalize people of faith or people of the wrong faith, but you also don't want employers to penalize atheists or agnostics bending over backwards to appease this statute for a Christian who wants to use his faith to step in the front of the line to get Christmas day off. I am just offering a slightly different appelate court argument than the OP put forward to continue with the same interpretation it has for 46 years, namely if this interpretation was not consistent with the legislative intent of Congress when they wrote bill, they could have made it clear in an amendment to that original Federal civil rights law, but they chose not to. I'd leave the whole thing alone and force Congress to clarify what they really want by better defining what they believe undue hardship looks like .

I know what I did as a manager. I put up a holiday list asking each employee to list in order which holidays they most wanted off (#1), and which ones were the second most important(#2) and which ones they were completely indifferent to (#3), and they actually wanted to work for double time (#4). I tried to give every single employee their #1 choice and if I couldn't, strict seniority broke ties. I never asked anyone why. None of my business. It almost always worked out with everyone satisfied.

There is a precedence to follow.

 

[j brown's body]

Sorry...getting your ***** hurt because you dont like the outcome of the decision doesnt mean the decision was made improperly.

the fallacy of your argument has no effect on me.

But, yeah, the decsion was made improperly.

 

[Ruby Wizard]

Why are you lying?

It's entirely, 110% based on religion, the excuse the Supreme Court gave is not convincing to anybody, even you.

You know that, but you choose to lie about it.

RvW is one of the most egregious examples of Judicial fiat in the United States. A truly incoherent ruling that prescribes abortion as a eugenic solution for all of societies ills and enshrined it as a right without a single law being passed or executive order. The idea that the Supreme Court should have the power to just blanket legalize something so controversial is proven batshit by the fact that all it took was another arbitrary Judicial decision to pull the rug out under 50 years of legal precedent.

Judges have infinitely too much power in the modern united states. But no one on the left wanted to address this because at the time Judicial Branch power creep started Judges were stacked in their favor and were the only way to pass incredibly unpopular policy like Roe v Wade. Well now the Judicial Branch is stacked the other way and everyone who was soyjacking over RBJ has overnight realized this is a bad way to actually run things. But theres no undoing 50 years of rationalizing Judicial over-reach for partisan reasons just because the wrong partisans are in charge now, and the people that actually tried to stop this as it was happening arent going to take a principled stand against Judicial power just because it suddenly fell in their laps. They want payback for half a century of unpopular policies being shoved down their throats.

I just cant get over the fact that the people who supported Judicial over-reach literally did not once think the thought "what if a Judge I dont like is in charge next."

 

[EMNofSeattle]

How so? There is no legal definition of life before birth. It comes from religious teachings.

Well if that’s your argument then all it takes is congress passing one law and now there’s a legal definition.

 

[VanceMack]

the fallacy of your argument has no effect on me.

But, yeah, the decsion was made improperly.

That's the irony in all this. The decision made actually cited incorrect law...yet your idiotic claim is that it was solely due to religion.

But you did say something honest for once. The truth...facts...have no effect on you.

 

[Indydave]

"Federal civil rights law requires employers to accommodate their employees’ religious needs unless the request would impose “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” Congress didn’t bother to define “undue hardship,” so 46 years ago the Supreme Court came up with a definition of its own. ...Treating religion as nothing particularly special, the decision reflected the spirit of the times but was deeply unpopular in religious circles. There have been many attempts over many years to persuade Congress to amend the law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to shift the balance explicitly in favor of religiously observant employees. Between 1994 and 2019, more than a dozen such bills were introduced. None emerged from Congress.

And so now, a very different court from the one that ruled 46 years ago is about to do the work itself. ...The moment is remarkable for the bold activism the court is about to display. In the days when the justices professed respect for the doctrine of stare decisis, or adherence to precedent, the general understanding was that decisions that interpreted statutes should be harder to overturn than those that interpreted the Constitution. That may seem counterintuitive at first glance, but the reasoning went like this: Only the Supreme Court can issue a definitive constitutional interpretation, so only the court can revisit a constitutional precedent if the justices later perceive a problem with it. But Congress has the last word on the meaning of a federal law, so the court should stay its hand and let Congress repair an erroneous statutory interpretation.

... When the court doubtless rules for him later this term, the decision will not stand for a vindication of minority rights. It will instead signify the court’s complete identification with the movement in the country’s politics to elevate religion over all other elements of civil society. Whether today’s Supreme Court is helping to lead that movement or has been captured by it is by now beside the point. Religion is the lens through which the current majority views American society; as I have written, there is no other way to understand the overturning of Roe v. Wade."

Link

Kind of an interesting contrast: when the Court gutted the enforcement provision of the Voting Rights Act, they said it was up to Congress to fix it. But when it comes to religious rights, they step in and make the law themselves.

the eternal struggle......conservatism vs liberalism.......to live in the past or the present......to force religion or not to force religion ......pride vs wisdom.....freedom vs tyranny

 

[Noodlegawd]

... When the court doubtless rules for him later this term, the decision will not stand for a vindication of minority rights.

Rules for whom? What decision?

 

[ttwtt78640]

How so? There is no legal definition of life before birth. It comes from religious teachings.

The SCOTUS tried to create one in it’s RvW and Casey decisions via state law making authorizations.