Esquire Theme by Matthew Buchanan
Social icons by Tim van Damme




Yup. (Source)



Let’s put this in some context. Here are the Roberts Court’s major campaign finance rulings in the last few years:

*2007: FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life. The Court ruled that corporations could air ads discussing candidates in the weeks before election day.
*2008: Davis v. FEC. The Court struck down the “Millionaires Amendment” to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which raised the contribution limit for candidates facing self-financed opponents.
*2010: Citizens United v. FEC. The Court ruled that corporations and unions can spend as much as they want on campaigns, giving birth to the super PAC.
* 2011: Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s FreedomClub PAC v. Bennett. The Court struck down Arizona’s public finance system, in which candidates who entered the system got matching funds if they were outspent by privately funded opponents.

Every time this Court has confronted a question of campaign finance, where there is a conflict between the freedom of wealthy donors to do as they wish on one hand and the integrity of the system on the other, it has sided with the wealthy donors. Every time.



anchor-and-hope asked: Opening up a can of worms. Here we go: Blast me for being a man, but your "response" to that post is just "idiotic." Of course there are other uses for birth control. But get it through your biased skull that Hobby Lobby OFFERS BIRTH CONTROL COVERAGE and is only objecting to IUD's and "morning after" alternatives. Please quit acting like these, or birth control in general have existed forever, aren't a luxury and are some how an inane right. It's idiotic.

1. The post you’re referring to wasn’t a response to the Hobby Lobby case. It was in response to an “article” posted on Facebook that told women they should just stop having sex, AKA the “stop being a slut and making everyone pay for it” argument.

2. Thanks, but I know the facts of the Hobby Lobby case and I’ve never tried to claim otherwise. My “biased skull” understands that they object to “drugs and devices that end human life after conception.” Therefore my “biased skull” understands that the Greens (owners of Hobby Lobby) and their allies don’t understand how the so-called “morning after” pill or IUDs work. At all. Personally I don’t believe that a woman’s access to contraceptives should be in any way affected by their employer which is what the ACA attempts to protect against.

3. The Hobby Lobby case is not really about religious freedom, but about corporate personhood. The question before the court is whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which was designed to protect individuals can be applied to for-profit companies.

4. As the UN and other international organizations have established family planning is a human right. This is not only a health issue, but an economic issue. When woman have access to birth control and other family planning tools they are healthier and more economically stable.



1. More than two in three (68%) women voters say that corporations should not be able to exempt themselves from the requirement of covering prescription birth control in their health plans if they object to contraception on religious grounds. More than half of women characterize their opposition to this exemption as strong.

2. Women voters’ strong feelings about corporations not being exempt from the birth control provision is grounded in a solid and durable rejection of the broader argument that corporations should be exempt from any law because of their religious beliefs.

3. Women voters identify an array of reasons for why they oppose
religious exemptions for corporations on the birth control provision, including concerns about employers’ interference in personal decisions, the limits of corporate rights, and the practical implications such exemptions would have on women in their daily lives.

4. Consistent with other public polling, women voters are overwhelmingly supportive of the provision of the ACA that health plans cover preventive services with no additional copay, including birth control. On these two points, the consensus is so strong that a majority of women in every major demographic and attitudinal group agree, including Republicans.

A newly released study commissioned by Planned Parenthood found that women overwhelmingly disagree with the idea that corporations should be exempt from covering contraceptives because of religious beliefs. (via)



Your understanding of this law, your interpretation of it, would essentially subject the entire U.S. Code to the highest test in constitutional law, to a compelling interest standard," [Kagan] told Paul Clement, the lawyer arguing against the mandate for Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood. "So another employer comes in and that employer says, I have a religious objection to sex discrimination laws; and then another employer comes in, I have a religious objection to minimum wage laws; and then another, family leave; and then another, child labor laws. And all of that is subject to the exact same test which you say is this unbelievably high test, the compelling interest standard with the least restrictive alternative.


There is no contraception mandate. 





Today, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing a challenge to a buffer zone law that protects patients and staff at clinics in Massachusetts from anti-choice harassment and violence.

Across the country, extreme, often violent, anti-choice protesters physically block access to clinics and intimidate people exercising their constitutionally protected rights.  Learn more about this issue and the laws that exist to protect patients and their doctors.



"Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg officiated at the marriage of a longtime friend, John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts President Michael M. Kaiser, to economist John Roberts in the atrium of the center in Washington."
(via NBC News)

"Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg officiated at the marriage of a longtime friend, John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts President Michael M. Kaiser, to economist John Roberts in the atrium of the center in Washington."

(via NBC News)



"By invalidating preclearance the Supreme Court has shifted the burden back on to citizens facing discrimination and those lawyers willing to stand with them… Citizens will be disenfranchised, victimized by the law instead of served by it and that progress, that historical progress toward a more perfect union will go backwards instead of forward."

— Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Voting Rights Act




Scalia, who really takes after the court for taking over legislative turf in same-sex marriage, doesn’t make a whimper in voting rights, which passed 98 to nothing in the Senate and 330 to something in the House. I didn’t put that to him, but surely he’s going to be asked the question, `How do you distinguish the two?’
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

(Source: The Huffington Post)