The Penultimate Day of Overtime July: Religious Liberty Wednesday

Tax Return Thursday is on deck.


On Wednesday, the Supreme Court decided two religious liberty cases. First, Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru expanded the so-called ministerial exception beyond the scope of Hosannah Tabor v. EEOC. Justice Alito did little to stifle retirement rumors with his citation in Footnote 16 to The Benedict Option. Second, Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania narrowly upheld the Trump administration's efforts to rescind the Obama-era contraception mandate. The Justices did not consider the underlying RFRA issue that has been simmering for the last 7 years. But that case is far from over. (I have edited these cases for the Barnett/Blackman supplement; please let me know if you'd like a copy: josh-at-joshblackman-dot-com).

On the penultimate day of Overtime July, the Court gave us Religious Liberty Wednesday. I always wonder how the Court decides to pair cases. The fact that both cases today went to the right tells me that the remaining cases go against Trump tomorrow.

Tax Return Thursday is on deck!

NEXT: Restrictions on Personalized License Plates "Offensive to Good Taste and Decency" Likely Unconstitutional

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. More like Straight Conservative Men Shooting Themselves in the Dick Wednesday. Seriously, why would anyone give Our Lady of the Worthless Miracle one dime for their ridiculous “cause”??? Some people play golf, others give time and money to nuns so they don’t have cover birth control in their health insurance plan. DREAM BIG!!

    1. Gosh you have your finger right on the pulse of the nation.

    2. 'Leaving me alone and letting me make my own decisions'==government forced shakedown specifically for mah 10 dollar bc pills.

  2. There's no way Trump wins over Vance. I see the Chief writing for the Court and the history books, with rhetorical echoes of Jefferson and Lincoln, while Justice Alito whines in dissent (perhaps alone).

    Given the decisions so far this week, I can see the House case going either way, but I'm looking forward to Justice Kagan calling them out for their transparently disingenuous arguments. Delicious sarcasm turns me on. I can see both her and Roberts voting with the conservatives just to rub Nancy Pelosi's nose in the mess she and her leadership team have made of this case, disclaiming the one argument that would guarantee a unanimous decision in their favor and claiming an amorphous, unspecified legislative purposes for the investigation. In the absence of an honest justification (impeachment inquiry), a court will credit the opponent's argument when supported by evidence in the record: they want to release the tax returns to torpedo the President's reelection campaign. The fact that the President's accusation is true, coupled with the fact that subsequent events and current political realities have made such a politically motivated release unnecessary, just might lead to a similar vote pattern to Wednesday's 7-2 splits. If there is a dissent, I would bet on Breyer and maybe SS and/or RBG. If I was to bet on the number of separate opinions between the two cases, I'd say at least six. Does anyone know where I might find odds on such events?

    1. When I read your comment I thought of Eric Swalwell’s fart. Very random, and I’m not sure why. No offense.

      1. hope for the SC to put its stamp of approval on ripping open tax returns for the purpose of hurting political enemies using a facetious pretense?


        1. Everyone, including you, is assuming that disclosure of Trump’s returns would hurt him. Hmmm. . .

          1. Can I assume thats also why Dems closed rank on Obama's college records?

            1. McCain, Romney, GW Bush, Clinton, Trump, etc., as well as Obama, all objected to disclosure of their college records (though Bush's were eventually leaked). Think of a real response.

              1. He doesn't have one.

                It's just Fox News bile and mendacity.

                1. Watching the birthers struggle to defend Trump on tax returns is great entertainment.

                  Until January, at which point it will be time to set aside sport and return in earnest to stomping right-wingers' stale, bigoted preferences into political and cultural irrelevance.

                  1. The walls are closing in! It's the beginning of the end!

                2. Awwww, what a good little bitch sticking up for your pimp like that. Now be a good hoe and suck daddy's cock, it's the only thing your 45 IQ mouth is any good for.

              2. Hillary Clinton's Alinksy-worshiping thesis was made public with no objection. Bill Clinton is pretty proud of his college records - he was a Rhodes scholar. John Kerry released his entire college transcript, as did George W. Bush (Bush had the higher cumulative score at Yale - 77 vs 76). McCain declined to release his full transcripts, but freely acknowledged his weak performance and having graduated 5th from the bottom of his class. If you get bored with being a stupid fucking lying cunt, you could always, you know, stop.

                Think of a real response.

                Coming from the knuckle dragging retard who began this interchange by literally employing the "if you have nothing to hide then you don't need privacy" solipsism and then proceeded to throw a little bitch fit when confronted by the fact that prominent Democrats including the last Democratic president have invoked the exact same arguments to bury records they would rather keep from public view, this is fucking rich. Good thing you've got your little sockpuppet bernard to bolster your devastating case here.

                1. George W. Bush did not release his transcript. It was leaked to the New Yorker.

                  Do you think President Obama should have released his school transcripts? (I do. So did the current President, although he later had his lawyer threaten legal action against any school that released his own transcripts.)

    2. So, I was half right. 7-2 against Trump in NYC, and 7-2 against BOTH SIDES in the Congressional cases. Also, it was Thomas who got to chide Congress for disclaiming reliance on the only power that wasn't subject to judicial review - impeachment. I thought it would be Kagan, because I was hoping for some of her dry wit to point out just how frigging stoopid they're being.

  3. I suppose if Josh was around in 1896 he would call the Plessy v. Ferguson decision “Equal Treatment Monday”.

    1. If Josh had been around in 1896, he might actually appear mature enough by the present day to be an actual professor with independent credibility. (No offense to the baby face).

    2. Awwwwwwwwwww poor baby faggot can't violate the constitutionally protected rights of religious people. See, poor baby faggot is exactly like a black man in the Jim Crow south who can't eat at the lunch counter. It's exactly analogous. Let us all take a moment to commiserate with poor baby faggot.

Please to post comments