I always have issue with not broadening rule on cases to stave out like cases. Narrowly put, the SCOTUS ruled that you cannot force someone to go against their religious beliefs; in essence. The liberals are livid. Ginsburger had the descent. Why is it that liberals think the Constitution doesn’t mean what it says, but rather has some hidden meaning that only they can decipher? I, personally, trust the Constitution’s understanding and believe the SCOTUS interpreted things correctly. This was a no-brainer from the beginning so I really don’t want to focus so much on the outcome but rather the process these things go through.
This suit started back in September 2012. It took that long to work up to the SCOTUS for ruling. During that period, healthcare was forced in full upon Hobby Lobby. Monies were taken but no restitution will be made back to Hobby Lobby. And what would have happened if the SCOTUS didn’t take the case? It would have been ruled from a lower court, where justice rarely comes to past since too many judges are completely political. My point is this: if the U.S. Government changes a law illegally, or takes executive action, from the initial time to its final conclusion, many lives and businesses are changed. Some will not come back to where they were before the acts were instituted. Time lost, money lost, goals not met, lives hurt or ruined. And where is the restitution? And where are the penalties, fines, incarcerations for the people and entities that caused the problem in the first place? Saying,things were done in good faith and on sound advice does not hold water when the effects put people in ruination. And what is to stop them from doing something similar tomorrow, to where we have to wait 2 years or more to get a final outcome? There must always be severe consequences to curtail this type of flagrant abuse. Yet, on the left, all I hear is silence on these type issues.