Supreme Court Oral Argument Shows How Religious Freedom Claims Have Become Ideologically Charged | Michael C. Dorf | Verdict | Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia

Liberals and conservatives have switched sides on the religious freedom debate, Cornell law prof Michael Dorf argues.  Liberals used to argue for the primacy of conscience (think loyalty oaths), and conservatives the opposite (national security trumps all).  But now liberals are pro-equality and conservatives pro-freedom.  More evidence that experience, not logic is the life of the law? - gwc

Supreme Court Oral Argument Shows How Religious Freedom Claims Have Become Ideologically Charged | Michael C. Dorf | Verdict | Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia:

Is it surprising that Hobby Lobby looks like it will cleave the Court along ideological lines? In a sense, no. After all, this was the third consecutive Term in which President Obama’s Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli, squared off against former President Bush’s Solicitor General, now private lawyer, Paul Clement. Two years ago they battled over the constitutionality of the ACA’s individual mandate. Last year they locked horns over the Defense of Marriage Act. And so Hobby Lobby appears to be a natural conclusion to the trilogy.
Yet the very familiarity of the ideological divide in Hobby Lobby should be perplexing, at least initially. After all, not that long ago, claims like the one made by the current plaintiffs were less ideologically charged. Indeed, to the extent that there was any discernible ideological pattern, it was the opposite.

- See more at: http://verdict.justia.com/2014/03/26/supreme-court-oral-argument-shows-religious-freedom-claims-become-ideologically-charged#sthash.ZPYzFhR6.dpuf

'via Blog this'