A telling revelation from today's oral arguments to the SCOTUS

[Roland99]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/elena-kagan-antonin-scalia-birth-control-mandate

"If you look at that parade of horribles -- Social Security, minimum wage, discrimination laws, compelled vaccination -- every item on that list was included in Justice Scalia's opinion for the Court in Smith," he said.

Social Security, Minimum Wage, Discrimination Laws, Compelled Vaccination

"parade of horribles"


Let that sink in for a bit.


That's the mentality we're fighting.

[Vattel]

1. This is hard to follow. Scalia did not refer to them as a parade of horribles. The attorney

defending the plaintiff did. But what was the context of his remark?

[Glitterati]

2. Clement, the attorney arguing for Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood

Kagan's remarks might sound familiar to the legally-trained ear. In a 1990 majority opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, Scalia alluded to the same examples of what might happen if religious entities are permitted to claim exemptions from generally applicable laws. He warned that "[a]ny society adopting such a system would be courting anarchy."

"The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind," Scalia wrote in the 6-3 opinion, "ranging from compulsory military service, to the payment of taxes, to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races."

Indeed, Clement picked up on the reference.

That is what precedes the comment posted in the OP......the "horribles" came from Clement.

[Roland99]

3. Thanks for clarifying my post

[Glitterati]

4. You're welcome

It's hard not to violate the copyright rules and try to get it all in sometimes.

[JDPriestly]

5. Shows how far our national discussion has regressed since that case.

It's shocking. And a lot of the regression is due to the DLCers, the third way types. The Democratic Party is not doing its job.

[mountain grammy]

6. Yeah, wow. this is going to be a fight.

[Kablooie]

7. So Scalia's opinion is essentially...

if you are an ordinary citizen you can't demand religious exemptions from the law.

If you are a for profit corporation with a rich CEO you are allowed to demand those exemptions.

[Berlum]

8. "Smirk." - SupremOs

[TekGryphon]

9. Oh, cmon. We don't need to take things out of context to make a point.

He was clearly defining the "parade of horribles" as the scenarios of all those laws being challenged in court, not the laws themselves.

Sorry, but it's a pet peeve of mine seeing Fox News (slice and distort) mentality on a progressive forum.

[spanone]

10. that's the 'lack of mentality' we're fighting

[Enthusiast]

11. Antonin Scalia does not deserve the term "Justice" applied to his name.

He has a 19th Century mentality. He would vote in favor of the inquisition.