Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Supreme Court Rules Against First Amendment
The left has won the culture war, and now they’re roaming the countryside shooting the wounded. The Supreme Court quietly endorsed progressives’ mop-up operation by refusing to hear the case of Kevin Stormans who had his life turned upside-down by government bureaucrats in Washington state.
The Stormans family pharmacy has served Olympia residents for four generations. But in 2007, they ran afoul of the state’s pharmacy board which mandated that every pharmacy stock and dispense the “morning-after” pill, an abortifacent. This violated Stormans’ religious, moral, and ethical beliefs, so he challenged the regulations in court.
If women wanting a Plan B pill called in a prescription, he would gladly refer them to one of the 30 other pharmacies within a five-mile radius supplying the drug. No one was harmed or prevented from receiving the pill, while Stormans was allowed to freely practice his faith.
This wasn’t acceptable to state bureaucrats, who insisted that every man and woman bend their knee to a strange new god, Planned Parenthood. After years of litigation, a federal court agreed with Stormans. The state immediately appealed to the famously liberal 9th Circuit which sided with the bureaucrats.
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to enforce the first amendment and ensure that an all-powerful government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. Instead, they abstained, refusing to even hear the case.
Representing the constitutional minority on the Court, Justice Samuel Alito (joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas) registered his disapproval with the majority:
This case is an ominous sign. At issue are Washington State regulations that are likely to make a pharmacist unemployable if he or she objects on religious grounds to dispensing certain prescription medications. There are strong reasons to doubt whether the regulations were adopted for—or that they actually serve—any legitimate purpose. And there is much evidence that the impetus for the adoption of the regulations was hostility to pharmacists whose religious beliefs regarding abortion and contraception are out of step with prevailing opinion in the State. Yet the Ninth Circuit held that the regulations do not violate the First Amendment, and this Court does not deem the case worthy of our time. If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern.
Great concern, indeed. This anti-constitutional interpretation might as well insist that kosher delis serve bacon and Hindu-owned restaurants sell hamburgers. But that comes later. For now, the left’s social warriors are focused on stamping out the scourge of “live and let live” Christians like Kevin Stormans. Every knee must bow before the strange new god.
For more background on the case, Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Stormans, created this video:
https://youtu.be/gSpH6EU1YM0
Published in Law
An excellent organization. So is First Liberty (nee Liberty Institute) which has a 90% win record on religious freedom cases.
Eric Hines
So what is the difference between the U.S. and Iran? One pretend to have elections, but in reality is ruled by an oligarchic council of black-robed elders and the other is ruled by an oligarchic council of black-robed elders but pretends to have elections.
The unions call it “working to rule”. You do exactly what the letter of the law allows/requires, no more. Sabotage the system from inside, until sanity prevails.
I’m happy to call for outright wrecking at this point, if it will do any good. Swing an Andrew Ryan and torch the pharmacy rather than see it fall into the Government’s hands.
I believe the edict came from above, not below. The pharmacy board in the state was inclined to let it go, but the governor ousted one of the members and planted her own so that she could go with the rules PP wanted. At any rate, PP seeks out such cases and governors willing to be the hammer.
Teresa, my hat is off to you. I’ve been told that being an allied attorney means you commit to thousands of hours of pro bono work. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for being one of these generous and courageous people.
Neither, for it makes little difference in and of itself. I prefer getting better at legal strategies that prevent stuff like what happened to the Stormans.
Are you listening, Alliance Defending Freedom?
Brad, ADF took this case and did all they could. Believe me, they are very good at strategies, but the problem is that Scalia died at a very bad time. Had he been around, they would have taken the case. It takes 4 justices to grant cert to hear cases. The blame can be laid at the feet of the feckless Kennedy, where a great deal of blame already resides.
Merina, I wonder what ADF’s position would be regarding Muslim cab drivers refusing to pick up blind people with seeing-eye dogs, due to dogs being considered unclean in Islam? Those Muslim cab drivers do possess a government-issued license to operate a public conveyance, after all, much like the Stormans possess a WA state license to operate a pharmacy.
Considering the compositi0n of this Court, I’m not sure that certiorari would have been a good thing. There are still other Circuits out there. See #35, above.
Edit: BTW, I hope that this rather pragmatic approach doesn’t indicate that I’m not sympathetic to the Stromans. They’re victims of authoritarianism, which is never good.
They’d be sympathetic for sure. They can’t take all cases, however, and they are a Christian organization. They might at some point decide that taking a Muslim case is a good strategy. They certainly choose their cases carefully. The Stormans, for example, have very good facts supporting them, and have been longstanding and upstanding community members. Baronelle Stutzman, whose case they have taken, is a Washington Florist who got sued by a longtime customer for not doing his gay wedding flowers, and she is about as appealing a person as they could possibly defend. They have sympathy for all people suffering under religious intolerance, but they have to pick the cases most likely to win in order to set precedents. The right case might come along so that they will defend a Muslim client, who knows. Their big picture is religious freedom. I know the Becket Fund has taken Muslim cases. Not sure about ADF so far.
Abortion is a crime against humanity and nobody should be forced to become a part of it. Maybe it is time to go on the warpath and condemn as evil anyone involved in it and anyone who supports it. Time to rent billboards that equate these people as every bit as evil as Nazis.
Civility is more important than liberty, in the minds of many…