The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionBig Win at SCOTUS
by Michael Sean Winters on Jan. 11, 2012
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that the ministerial exception is required by teh First Amendment and that it clearly applied in the case before the court, Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC.
Rick Garnett has posted this commentary on the decision. I will have nore on the subject tomorrow once I have a chance to read the opinions.
Big win? All of the other
Big win? All of the other news outlets say that the position of the Obama administration was rejected.
from the heavily polemical
from the heavily polemical article we have a possibly factual summary:
"The question for the Court was whether the Constitution’s protections for religious liberty allow secular courts to consider lawsuits brought by “ministers” against religious institutions, organizations, and communities. A long line of cases makes clear that it violates both the separation of church and state and the freedom of religious believers and communities for the government to assume the right to decide whether a minister was appropriately hired or fired."
This is a great loss for workers all across America, specifically for religious workers or clerical staff in officially religious offices, that the new bishop may hire and fire at will anyone, including those who have given a lifetime of devoted service to the church, but who do not match the new bishop's totalitarian ego.
This is a loss for the poor, the weak, the worker, the very ones whom the courts must defend.
We are now even more at the mercy of Morlino.
all this means is that when
all this means is that when some bishop chooses the whim to purchase a crystal cathedral, or pursue uselessly some abuse case to this SCROTUS, or has to pay out millions in legal settlements for some ordained scumbag, he can fire at a moment's notice an entire church agency, serving food to the hungry, warmth to the homeless, clothing to the naked, freeing the prisoners, loving the enemy,
all at a bishop's whim and political flavoring . . .
yeah
this is the traditional church all over again, reforming the reform . . .
legalizing the central committee totalitarian wojo-ratzo ecclesiology.
You do know this case had to
You do know this case had to do with a Lutheran Church? Yes it would be a terrible thing if the Lutherans expected to have their employees support the tenents of the Lutheran fait. Just intolerable. Seeing the angst this causes you Charles makes the decision even sweeter.
Ironically, Lutheran Social
Ironically, Lutheran Social Services hires quite a few Catholics, especially in their national office. Maybe not for long. Be careful what you wish for.
our bishops most eagerly
our bishops most eagerly receive this mistaken decision as serving their totalitarian ends most snugly
no surprise scalia alito
no surprise scalia alito roberts kennedy thomas bow to the hierarchy rather than the poor worker, the humble, the oppressed, the enslaved servants of God, but Sotomayor? Ginsberg? Kagan??
Perhaps they, unlike you,
Perhaps they, unlike you, actually KNOW what it is that the Constitution mandates?
Whatever the position you have on this issue is, the point before the court was: does the government have the constitutional authority to do this? The answer was no.
Your argument is with the U.S. Constitution, not court.
my dearest colleague pete,
my dearest colleague pete, the greek, please tell me which clause of the US Constitution gives corporations the right to squeeze the little people dry and to enslave us all, as you are a more eminent student of the US Constitution than I , I am most eager for your response. I do recall reading something about the general welfare, and even life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and nothing about denying rights in the name of religion.
See Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story, where I recall he cites these relevant citations.
"gives corporations the
"gives corporations the right"
- You have a very poor understanding of what the Constitution is. The Constitution enumerates what the various rights, powers, etc of the government are. The question before the court was, once again, like I said above, is there a right granted to the federal government, within the Constitution, that says the government may take the action they wanted to take? The answer was, of course, no.
Your 'argument', if it can be called that, is a very poor straw man. You have the case exactly backwards.
I am not a scholar on the Constitution, but I do have a basic understanding of it. Perhaps it is because, as you have told us, you live in Mexico, where the government is of a different type, that you don't understand the US Constitution.
so you admit you have no
so you admit you have no actual Constitutional basis for your earlier remarks, which you hereby retract.
I thought so.
Thank you for your refreshing honesty.
"you have no actual
"you have no actual Constitutional basis for your earlier remarks"
- Do you know why I don't take you seriously, charles? Because you don't try to understand what people are saying before you respond.
The government's grab was unconstitutional. Why you don't understand that...
As for me 'retracting', retract what? My statement of fact? No, I don't retract it. Now please, don't post more silliness on things you obviously don't understand.
A constitution defines and/or
A constitution defines and/or limits the powers of the government. It does not give rights per se to corporations, people or anything else.And life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness isnt in the constitution-its in the declaration of independence.
which is why we have none of
which is why we have none of them?
Please see the very interesting observations of these points in the distinctly Catholic documentarian Mr. Moore's insightful Capitalism: A Love Story.
watch all these fraudulent
watch all these fraudulent loud "Christian Businessmen" suddenly declare their larcenous corporations "ministries" as this mistaken and unjust ruling destroys generations of US Labor LAws and what little protection was left the workers after Reagan and the Bush dynasty's assaults.
Suddenly every corporation in the USA gets religion now and becomes reconstituted a ministry, to fire workers at will for monk's wages and no benefits, no guarantees, no contract worth its weight in paper.
That's ok. This entire nation cannot last another five years, let alone another generation, as the Republican project achieves its nefarious, anti-Catholic goals.
My confusion is over the fact
My confusion is over the fact the defendant was disabled. How does that fair with all the jubilation on the part of religious organizations? I can see how religious organizations should be able to hire and fire for religious purposes but in this case the defendant was disabled, not of the wrong religion for the organization.
Tut, tut. This is about
Tut, tut. This is about religious freedom to discriminate at will. What does being disabled have to do with it?
Anyone who works for a religious organization after this is a hopeless nincompoop.
If the court had ruled the
If the court had ruled the other way a women or married man could have sued to be a priest. And BTW Charles you're so disrespectful to the pope, I hope you dont act that way to others you dont agree with in YOUR work place.....I always chuckle that you are so often the kettle that calls the pot black......................
If you were respectful in the
If you were respectful in the manner to which you expect others to adhere, you would have written "The Pope," not the pope.
On your knees and rattle off 15 decades before dinner.
And, by the way, respect is given when earned, not when demanded.
Not respect in a catholic
Not respect in a catholic sense but in a human sense...Ratzo. And if you believe that you owe respect to another human being only if he earns it in your eyes you really have a problem...and Im glad I dont work for you....
The Most Very Reverend Father
The Most Very Reverend Father Ernesto Cardenal knelt upon his knees upon the tarmac of the Augusto Cesar SAndino Airport in Managua, Nicaragua when wojo landed. Rather than a blessing that simoniac enabler of marciel's crimes, fresh from blessing the genocide of the Salvadoran generals, stood like an old Polish washerwoman to publicly wag a stern finger at the beaming, truly saintly Father Cardenal.
Respect can be destroyed.
And respect may flourish, well nourished by the lifetime of faithful and heroic witness by the Reverend Father Ernesto Cardenal, most recently publishing his moving meditation on the Origin of Species, far more learned and true to our FAith than anything wojo and ratzo ever have penned or paid to have penned, condemning to their book burning fires anything that threatened to overshadow their own book sales, whether by Johnson, Boff or Cardenal.
I am surprised this got
I am surprised this got through the editorial board, seeing as it is a huge blow to the Obama administration and the MSW column is only here to convince Catholics to vote for Obama. 9-0 decision?? They almost never decide 9-0! I guess Obama lost the bet big time on this one! And the added bonus of it annoying Charles is awesome, dude!
Actually, most cases are
Actually, most cases are unanimous and have to do with cut and dried commercial or administrative issues, like this one.
Hey anonymous, don't put down
Hey anonymous, don't put down Charles J. Scanlon. At least he had the class to use his name.
I guess this mean that the
I guess this mean that the dress up priests can't sue to become real priests after all.
That would be no victory.
That would be no victory. Getting the hierarchy to geek is the victory. They won't actually, geek, however - they will gork and be replaced by priests of the generation I went to college with who were raised in the Spirit of Vatican II. As a hierarchical organization, they will get there turn. Funny thing, when that happens, the so called John Paul priests will fall in line, or most of them will, since conservatives tend to put respect for the boss as a political tool above all else, at least until they are in charge. That is why all but two GOP appointed justices, including Alito and Roberts, voted to not overturn Roe when the issue came up in the Partial Birth Abortion Law case. The last of the pre-Vatican II dinosaurs will be retired or dead soon and I predict the changes the current hierarchy is afraid of will happen.
The U.S. Constitution
The U.S. Constitution protects religion. It does not mention "church." I wonder what fraction of Church business and Church structure is actually concerned with religion?
as little as possible, as our
as little as possible, as our all-giving Faith runs opposite business practices.
In effect, this should
In effect, this should prevent HHS from mandating contraceptive coverage for Catholic employers - since the workers now have no legal recourse to complain. I suspect that some do and will offer the coverage anyway. I know we had it whenmy wife was working for CCUSA, probably because no one thought to have it excluded. I hope that somewhere there are limits to the Church's discretion on this. If there are, the matter may not be settled after all, but I am sure it will embolden the Church's lawyers to try. This won't help them with the Human Trafficking contract, however, since that exemption does not give them license to not perform the contract statement of work as required.
Legally, the decision is
Legally, the decision is correct. Under our Constitution, churches are free to limit their ministers (as defined by the churches themselves) to the not-disabled, to heterosexuals, to men only, to people of only certain races, to only left-handed persons, to persons with beards, to people who use drugs, or to persons the opposite of any of the categories above. The government cannot interfere. They have perfect freedom to operate at a lower moral level than the "secular" world in which they operate -- like the Lutheran church in the case before the court. But it is a phyrric victory: who wants to belong to a church which operates at a lower moral level than society in general? The Catholic Church now tries to do so re women and gays, one reason it is losing ground fast.
Post new comment