There is no other way to interpret the hissy fits it is throwing. In both instances, I note in my column in The Week,
the Supreme Court upheld the liberties of religion, speech and association enshrined in the First Amendment. But it did so on grounds so narrow so as to not even be worth chugging a Sam Adams for this July 4.
Hobby Lobby challenged Obamacare's mandate that companies offer contraceptive coverage even in violation of their religious beliefs. I note:
Yet instead of simply affirming the owners of Hobby Lobby's broad constitutional right not to be forced to violate their religious beliefs, the justices ruled in the company's favor only because not doing so would have violated the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act.
All that the act requires is that before violating someone's religious liberties, the government demonstrates that it had no other way to achieve its ends. In this case, the "conservative" justices questioned neither the end — provision of contraceptives — nor whether it was a "compelling state interest." These fanatics of limited government ruled only that because there were less-religious-liberty-busting ways to achieve contraceptive coverage — for example, by the government directly funding it as it's doing for religious universities and hospitals — the mandate did not meet the RFTRA test.
Despite such skittishness, the lefto blogosphere erupted into tiresome taunts of fascism and worse.
As for Harris vs. Quinn in which a mom sued Illinois' public unions for garnishing the state subsidies she receives for taking care of her disabled son, one would have thought that standing up for the mother would be a no-brainer for the left. But, apparently, letting her keep her money, according to Salon's Joan Walsh, is a victory for the "one percent" and the "plutocrat cartel."
I cannot do justice to Walsh's twisted logic in a few words, so just go and read the damn column here – and then weep tomorrow about how unhinged the left has become in this country.