'Maybe you all can quit complaining about “activist” judges now? Never before have people been more miserable in victory.'
- libfreeordie on July 1, 2014 at 3:19 PM
Activist judges??? lolz
Do you realise that it was Bill Clinton, Chuck Schumer, and almost every Democrat in Congress that gave us the RFRA? It passed the Democrat-controlled House on a voice vote and passed the Senate 97-3 with only 2 of the dissenters being Democrats.
Do you even know why the RFRA even became a gleam in two of its fathers’ (Look, Ma! I’ve got two dads!!!) – Schumer and Kennedy – eyes?
It was Scalia’s opinion for the majority in Employment Division v Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), which held that the law, when applied to the population at large, could not sustain carve-outs for religious reasons. And, this pizzed off a whole lot of people, especially those on the Left.
Because Manifest Destiny, racism, and genocide against Native Americans or something. Oh, and drugs!!!
You see, Mr Smith was a Native American, who smoked peyote as part of his ‘religious’ rites, but he wanted unemployment insurance and the State of Oregon had a law that prohibited the payment of such benefits to individuals that smoked the illegal drug. Well, we couldn’t have that. I mean, shit, we gave them smallpox and took their land. Soooo, Democrats, especially, led the charge up Religious Freedom Restoration Act hill.
Later, the Supreme Court ruled that a city in Florida couldn’t prohibit the ritual slaughter of chickens by practitioners of Santería. See: Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993).
And, the Court, again relying on RFRA, held that the Federal government failed to prove a compelling interest (strict scrutiny applies in cases that infringe upon Constitutional rights) in seizing the Schedule I tea that was used for sacraments by members of a New Mexican branch of the Brazilian church União do Vegetal. See: Gonzales v O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006).
Instead of this being a decision by ‘activist judges,’ the Court was actually relying on legislation overwhelmingly supported and driven by Democrats. If Democrats hadn’t pushed for the RFRA and let Scalia’s opinion in Smith stand, the Obama administration may very well have prevailed yesterday.
So, tell us again, liveenslavedthendie, just exactly who the ‘activists’ were?
Call it Scalia’s Scimitar or something. He warned you. You didn’t listen. And, yesterday, he, along with Justices Kennedy, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas, used Democrats’ own law to hack off their heads.
Mr Progressive, I understand that you know your hoist, but please allow me to introduce you to Monsieur Petard.