Soulless Supreme Court Sponsors Corporate Christian Religion

7 Jul

Roberts CourtThe United States is still reeling from the Supreme Court decision last Monday, July 1 — now a day living in infamy. Disappointing, but not wholly surprising to see the Koch Bros. purchased Justices: Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy imposing their collective Catholic male dominated perspective on a nation that purportedly honors separation of church and state.  Our SCOTUS is starting to feel and look more like a branch of the Papacy pre-Vatican II, rather than part of a system of checks and balances among the three branches of American Government.

This infamous decision by the Catholic Five is not just about access to birth control — it is directly about women’s health and who gets to determine women’s health.  This decision also reinforces the never accurate and consistently sexist idea that sex is solely for the purpose of procreation and must never be considered for recreation by consenting adults. It sends a clear message that women are here for the sole purpose to produce children — they are objects owned by their husbands.  Yes, I am astounded that we are even having this conversation in 2014.  What will the next decision be? Shall the Catholic Five on the Supreme Court designate a police force to police every bedroom to ensure people are only have sex for the purposes of procreation?

What happened to separation of church and state? What will be the ripple effects of this monumental disaster of a decision? Do we now have a set precedent where corporations can limit services or goods to the LGBTQ community or the Muslim community? The intersections of race, class, gender, and religions other than Christianity are apparently now targeted officially by the highest court in the land. The Hobby Lobby decision shores up any potential cracks in the Citizens United decision where we witnessed how corporations can purchase their very own supreme court justices.

Fortunately, we have the sage voice of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. If you have not read her dissent, I encourage you to read her wise words and warnings. We also have an ally in President Obama, who is dedicated to using executive orders wherever possible to minimize the damage. However much the Teahadists may bemoan his actions, we must remember that the Presidency is part of the three-party system. The Executive branch can — and at times MUST — check the judiciary when it over-reaches!

Don’t let the complacent, corporate cogs at the major news outlets fool you. This is no “narrow” decision! If corporations have free speech and religion rights, what else might they do? Do they have the right to form “well-ordered” militias? If one religious sect can impose its will on a common good like health care — based on their “firmly held” but scientifically false beliefs — what else might lower courts decide they can do? With the death of DOMA we saw how quickly lower courts will adopt a major SCOTUS ruling and effect a sea change in state laws. Is Hobby Lobby the next wave? If so, this will be a tsunami of hate and bigotry.

Sadly, we now see the floodgate of religious hate sanctioned and legalized with the Wheaton College injunction.

CALL TO ACTION: The Justices are in it for life. Little can be changed on the Judicial front for now. We need Congressional action to reverse Citizens United and Hobby Lobby, restoring the corporate veil and re-affirming that corporations are NOT people. That won’t happen in Boehner’s house or if the GOP takes over the Senate. Vote wisely this November. Targeted populations, like women, African Americans, LGBTQ people, and other intentionally marginalized populations who tend not to vote in mid-terms must mobilize to send the message: We will not stand for this!

24 Responses to “Soulless Supreme Court Sponsors Corporate Christian Religion”

  1. Dr. Rex July 7, 2014 at 7:54 am #

    So very well done, Michael. Reblog!!!

    • Michael Hulshof-Schmidt July 7, 2014 at 7:56 am #

      Thank you, Dr. Rex. Thank you for reblogging this important article! Peace, Michael

      • Dr. Rex July 7, 2014 at 7:57 am #

        Welcome! I share your thoughts about this … this has to be undone!!!

        Peace, dear friend!!

      • Michael Hulshof-Schmidt July 7, 2014 at 7:59 am #

        Let us hope there will be enough of us in the United States that will take action to stop corporations from taking over the highest court in the land.

      • Dr. Rex July 7, 2014 at 8:03 am #

        Michael … if they take over, I strongly believe we are doomed!!

        Sad about this. Hope this is not the decline of this once great nation!!

      • Michael Hulshof-Schmidt July 7, 2014 at 8:05 am #

        I have to believe that good people will take action and put these five men on the Supreme Court in check!

      • Dr. Rex July 7, 2014 at 8:06 am #

        I do too!!!

  2. Dr. Rex July 7, 2014 at 7:54 am #

    Reblogged this on It Is What It Is and commented:
    The time is now … to keep pushing!!
    “We need Congressional action to reverse Citizens United and Hobby Lobby, restoring the corporate veil and re-affirming that corporations are NOT people.”

  3. Jan Hobbs July 7, 2014 at 8:13 am #

    This is extremely well said. I am definitely also going to read blog it.

  4. Jan Hobbs July 7, 2014 at 8:15 am #

    Reblogged this on Blissfully Single and commented:
    A very powerfully written piece about the recent SCOTUS decision concerning Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods.

  5. Central Oregon Coast NOW July 7, 2014 at 8:44 am #

    Michael, I reblogged this and got this comment from one of my readers:

    B. Jackson 3m
    You are so correct. The error many people are making is that this revolt against Hobby Lobby and the Supreme Court is all about birth control pills. It is not. It is about DISCRIMINATION against American citizens – women. American women are citizens of the United States and therefore are also protected by the Constitution. With that said, there are certain medical treatments that is EXCLUSIVE ONLY TO WOMEN and we, as citizens, have the right to CHOOSE our treatment with our doctor using our health care plan just like men do. A for-profit business-MAN participating in the American business market decided to use his ‘so call’ religion to prohibit service to his female employees which he did not prohibit to his male employees and this discrimination was back by Catholic Supreme Court MALE judges. This institution is supposed to be biased and non-political and they not only failed to maintain that – they actually participated in the discrimination against FEMALE AMERICAN CITIZENS’ CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

    • Michael Hulshof-Schmidt July 7, 2014 at 8:47 am #

      Nancy, I so appreciate you sharing this comment from the article I wrote! Sadly, the comment is spot on! This is nothing but intentional discrimination against women and I would say it also sets the stage for more discrimination under the guise of religion.

      • Central Oregon Coast NOW July 7, 2014 at 3:44 pm #

        The Wheaton College injunction by the Supreme Court, which happened only a few days after the Hobby Lobby decision is a prime example of exactly what you are saying.

      • Michael Hulshof-Schmidt July 7, 2014 at 3:48 pm #

        Yes, hence the floodgate opens for religious hate.

      • Central Oregon Coast NOW July 7, 2014 at 4:08 pm #

        I will say that this is all good argument for the Oregon Equal Rights Amendment!

      • Michael Hulshof-Schmidt July 7, 2014 at 4:27 pm #


  6. Rich McIntyre July 8, 2014 at 4:24 am #

    Michael you are aware that Hobby Lobby does provide 10 different forms of birth control for their employees. I believe their issue was with 4 specific devices and pills they considered to be abortifacients. I also think saying that this is a women’s health issue is a bit of a stretch. They are not withholding healthcare from their female employees. Distorting the facts diminishes the credibility of your argument. If you feel they should provide all forms of birth control and abortion then deal with that issue specifically and not blow it out of proportion by saying “it is directly about women’s health and who gets to determine women’s health” when in fact they are not withholding healthcare or birth control coverage. Just my opinion. Take care and congratulations Sharon and I are very happy for you.

    • Michael Hulshof-Schmidt July 8, 2014 at 6:26 am #

      Rich, thank you for your comment here. I’m afraid we are not going to agree here with this Supreme Court decision. An overwhelming issue of concern for me is the separation of church and state.

      Thank you for your well wishes and all my best to you and Sharon.

  7. Bruce Kestelman July 8, 2014 at 9:16 am #

    Hi Michael,

    Thanks for the post. It is! about 5 Catholic men imposing their will on women and their health. And while the methods of birth control opposed by Hobby Lobby may limit the implantation of fertilized eggs, the methods are some of the most long lasting, most effective and least intrusive at the point of use (intercourse). As a result these methods help to prevent unintended pregnancies and limit the consequences of keeping an unintended pregnancy to term and/or having an abortion.

    I’m not fully aware of what is happening with the Wheaton College injunction. The comment in one of the comments above took me to the internet where I found this blog post. It appears that things are never as simple as we would like them to be. I’m not sure I still fully get it, but the post appears to provide a legal analysis and also connects the reader to other blogs on this and the Hobby Lobby decision from multiple bloggers.

    The following information is provided by the authors of this blogging group, “We’re generally libertarian, conservative, centrist, or some mixture of these, though we don’t toe any party line, and sometimes disagree even with each other. We are not Washington Post employees, and we have sole editorial control over the blog.” The specific author of the blog post in addition to being a member of Case Western Reserve’s law school faculty is a member of a think tank that works to implement the idea of free market environmentalism. Seems like a centrist/libertarian approach. Maybe a blog and blogs from this perspective might be helpful then as opposed to those that come from the extremes.

    As always, thanks for all you do as advocate and as the person who through your blog continues to shine light at what is working and what is not working related to creating a world that is inclusive, fair, respectful and values social justice for all.

    Take care


    • Michael Hulshof-Schmidt July 8, 2014 at 9:29 am #

      Bruce, thank you for chiming in here! Thank you also for the link, for I found it helpful and confusing both. There is a good bit to parcel out here. Thank you also for your kind comments and support. You are truly a mensch! Peace, Michael

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: