As told by the Supreme Court Historical Society…
“I thought they would, well, talk Latin or something.” The visitor had heard argument at the Supreme Court for the first time. On another occasion, a high-school student reported “shock” that a black-robed Justice would rock in his high-backed chair and actually laugh out loud…
To its majestic setting and moments of sheer ritual, the Supreme Court brings its distinctive manner of working in public—by listening to one lawyer at a time and asking tough questions. Its atmosphere mingles informality with dramatic tension. In a city of bureaucracy, it keeps the directness of a group of nine. It cherishes its courtesies. But formality, courtesy, and dignity are not empty custom; they are vital to colleagues who are compelled to disagree publicly in print, expressing their deepest convictions, but always respecting the equally deep convictions of their fellow Justices.
Dare I thus humbly submit — based on that last statement — that the Supreme Court and the slightly-less-popular-often-more-sarcastic Intramuralist have a common goal: respecting the deep convictions of another.
In a government system of three equal branches (note to the current Congress and President: much to your obvious dismay, neither of you trump the other), the Supreme Court was established by the Judiciary Act of 1789, as called for by the Constitution. Consistent with their long history, yesterday, on the final session of their 2013-14 term, the high court released the following decisions with significant implications…
In BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC., the Supreme Court rejected the administration’s argument that the owners of companies forfeit all protection under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, ruling that Obamacare’s mandated provision of perceived abortifacient methods conflicts with the faith of the proprietors. As written in the majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, “Because RFRA applies in these cases, we must next ask whether the HHS contraceptive mandate ‘substantially burden[s]’ the exercise of religion… We have little trouble concluding that it does.”
In HARRIS ET AL. v. QUINN, GOVERNOR OF ILLINOIS, ET AL., the Supreme Court determined it is a violation of the First Amendment to force non-union members — in this case belonging to an Illinois rehab service — to pay union dues, thereby subsidizing the speech on matters of public concern by a union that they do not wish to join or support. As also written in the majority opinion by Justice Alito, “The First Amendment prohibits the collection of an agency fee from personal assistants in the Rehabilitation Program who do not want to join or support the union,” reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Resist being lured into thinking a decision is foolish or wise because of who or how your emotional strings are tugged. We have to learn to discuss and solve absent the bias and disrespect. A prudent first step for each of us would be to read the court’s written opinions as opposed to reacting instantly, emotionally — typically not fully understanding the totality of the arguments.
The bottom line in these two cases contains a common thread; what violates our First Amendment?
In other words… how far does religious freedom extend? … for persons? … for proprietors? What’s the relationship between one’s religious beliefs and being incorporated? Also, how far does freedom of speech extend? … can unions force the payment of dues if that payment then subsidizes issues with which we disagree — issues we would never choose to subsidize? When does forced compliance violate our constitutional rights?
And one more question: are there places — most likely due to passion or unchecked emotion — where we’re a little blind? … where hypocrisy within our opposition or support may also be a common thread?
Just asking…
Respectfully, of course…
AR