Liberals are praising Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburgs pointed dissent from the ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, which found that closely held corporations can be exempt from having to provide insurance coverage to their employees that includes birth control. Ginsburgs opinion savages the majoritys departure from precedent, its double standards regarding religious freedom, and its disregard for the impact of denying women coverage for contraception. But some legal experts say it might end up doing more harm than good.
Ginsburgs dissent begins by calling the decision one of startling breadth. The high court ruled that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the government cannot require closely held corporationsthose with most of their stock owned by fewer than five individualswhose owners possess sincerely religious beliefs against the use of contraception to provide health insurance to employees that covers birth control. Ginsburg fears that the majority has ventured into a minefield with the decision, which could allow corporations to opt out of any law that they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.
Two of the justices in the majority disagree with herJustice Samuel Alito, writing the courts majority opinion, wrote that Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employers religious beliefs. Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a concurrence, tips his hat to Ginsburgs respectful and powerful dissent, but says that the opinion does not have the breadth and sweep ascribed to it.
Ginsburgs opinion, some legal experts say, may turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. By stating that the opinion is much broader than the majority claims it to be, she may be providing lower-court judges with a stronger foundation to provide more religious exemptions in the future.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/why-ginsburgs-hobby-lobby-dissent-might-backfire?cid=sm_m_reidreport_4_20140701_27032116