Opinion A9
|
THE DAILY HERALD
|
WWW.HERALDNET.COM/OPINION
|
Editorial Board Josh O’Connor, Publisher Peter Jackson, Editorial Page Editor Carol MacPherson, Editorial Writer Neal Pattison, Executive Editor
TUESDAY, 07.01.2014
IN OUR VIEW | HOBBY LOBBY AND HARRIS V. QUINN
Court tilts against precedent The Supremes, for all their talent, can’t carry a tune. Monday’s dissenting opinions in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and Harris v. Quinn illustrate the U.S. Supreme Court’s inharmonious divide. And when the public interest aligns with dissenting opinion, as it does in both rulings, Americans feel the sting. Neither decision was comprehensive. Instead, they chisel away at the status quo, creating the legal scaffolding for future Supreme Court monkeying. The Hobby Lobby decision, which says that employers can withhold certain birth control methods from insurance coverage because of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, just applies to closely held for-profit corporations built around
religious principles. But it’s a corrosive precedent, written by five uterus-free conservatives, that imparts religious protections to commercial, for-profit enterprises. “The court’s expansive notion of personhood invites for-profit entities to seek religion-based exemptions from regulations they deem offensive to their faiths,” writes Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her dissent. “The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.” Harris v. Quinn is a narrow, complex decision that recasts home-care aides as “partial” public employees who should not be required to pony up union dues. Is “narrow” an appropriate descriptor? No, writes legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. “It’s generally a
two-step process: in confronting a politically charged issue, the court first decides a case in a ‘narrow’ way, but then uses that decision as a precedent to move in a more dramatic, conservative direction in a subsequent case.” In Harris v. Quinn, the court did not strike down the 1977 Abood decision which gave the OK for requiring union dues as long as the money doesn’t underwrite political activities. “The decision at a minimum likely applies to home healthcare workers, family child-care providers and language access providers (it may also impact others),” writes the Washington Policy Center’s Jason Mercier. As University of Washington Prof. Jake Rosenfeld observes in a Monday Politico
commentary, Harris v. Quinn likely puts the kibosh on unions representing home health-care aides. But the labor movement shouldn’t hitch its future to public-sector organizing. Rosenfeld underlines in his book, “What Unions No Longer Do,” that four-fifths of Americans are employed in the private sector. They need to be labor’s strategic focus. UW Harry Bridges Labor Chair George Lovell is pessimistic. The decision could be a blow to organizing around minimum wage and other issues critical to low-wage workers. Organizing requires a sustainable revenue source, and that just went “poof.” “It’s death by a thousand cuts,” Lovell said. It’s also why federal elections matter.
get at funds, keeping dollars cozy and untaxed inside the Roth is a major tax benefit.
exclusive to Christianity. The natural rights expressed in the Declaration provide the foundation for human dignity, something the letter-writer, as president of the local Humanists association, should appreciate.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR ■■COUNTY COURTHOUSE
Council decision mocks democracy Concerning the article “County to condemn land for new courthouse”: Is it right for five people to have so much control and say about what can and cannot be done? This is not democracy. Why was this not put up for a vote of the people if they wanted to spend so much money to build a new courthouse? The courthouse they have now would last another 50 years, and it is perfectly good enough for the judges and lawyers to use. This is a travesty of justice to take or steal in the name of the government/law. This is a want, not a need, and it is not right. Ruth Rust Sultan
■■GOVERNMENT
It is time to rein in some powers Like the writer of the letter, “Tax assessment way out of whack”, we also are appalled at the rate of increases in our property values. The rate of increase for us this year was 27 percent. This, coupled with the 16 percent increase last year, and the 29 percent two years ago is a bitter pill to swallow. The assessor is correct by law in their opinion no matter what. They can place value on the highest and best use of your property. That opinion is very difficult to challenge and I have tried in the past. Perhaps it is time to cut the size and cost of government at all levels. We have voted in every election for over 50 years. For the most part conservative Democrats have been our choice with a few liberal Republicans mixed in. It is too early to join the tea party but some of their thoughts on reducing the size, powers and cost of government should be heard. Our elected leaders should be ashamed of themselves for pressuring Boeing employees to accept a sub-par contract while giving more corporate tax breaks. The plans for the new courthouse should be shelved as the last bite they took from us pays for about 50 percent. As a property owner, I can say enough is enough. The council is guilty of legalized robbery for what they are doing in condemning property for the project. The powers of the assessor and council are too much. It is time to reduce the size and cost of government at all levels and get future funding as
Have your say Feel strongly about something? Share it with the community by writing a letter to the editor. You’ll need to include your name, address and daytime phone number. (We’ll only publish your name and hometown.) E-mail: letters@heraldnet.com Mail: Letters section The The Daily Herald P.O. Box 930 Everett, WA 98206 Have a question about letters? Call Carol MacPherson at 425-339-3472 or send an e-mail to letters@heraldnet. com.
needed by closing corporate loop holes and taxing the wealthy even if their funds are stashed offshore. Let’s cut the size and cost of government at all levels and obtain needed future funding by closing corporate loopholes and taxing the 1 percent their fair share. Mike and Sharon Pendergrass Lynnwood
■■ROTH IRAS
Here’s another big advantage The otherwise excellent article in Sunday’s Moneywise section, “Here’s why a Roth IRA makes sense”, left out a major advantage of the Roth IRA. Roth IRA owners do not have to start taking out required minimum amounts at age 70 ½ like traditional IRA owners do. If the owner doesn’t need to
Fred Sirianni Marysville
■■UNITED STATES
Declaration played big role The June 26 letter, “Country wasn’t founded on pledge,” unnecessarily deprecates the Declaration of Independence. In fact, the Declaration was the founding document of the United States, issued jointly by the several states (in the Second Continental Congress, a proto-national government) in order to form one body politic. One can find the Declaration in the U.S. Code as the first of the organic laws (fundamental, or foundational, laws) of the United States. Jefferson and Madison referred to the Declaration as “the act of Union of these states,” and in 1863 at Gettysburg, Lincoln dated the founding to “four score and seven years ago,” that is, 1776, the year of the Declaration. The United States in many ways is founded on an idea: the natural rights doctrine of the Declaration of Independence, belief in which has defined “American-ness” in the way that religion or ethnicity does for other nations. The Declaration’s statement: “that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,” and its reference to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” make it a natural law document, much more than a simple declaration of grievances. Natural law is a higher law, rooted in an objective and universal moral order, discoverable by human reason. While many natural law theorists believe God to be the author of natural law, it is derived from human reason, not divine revelation, and is certainly not
David Poortinga Arlington
■■SCHOOL TREATS
Legal pot also a reason for ban A lot has been made of the ban on edible treats in Edmonds schools. There may be a factor that was involved in this decision that was not mentioned, and that is the possibility of marijuana poisoning from home-made treats. This is happening on an increasing basis with individuals, and with the legalization of marijuana it is only a matter of time before it happens at some school event. If I was a school administrator, I would not want to have this on the national news on my watch. Keven Jackson Everett
■■LEGISLATURE
Needs to finish its schoolwork It looks like the Legislature is late on its writing assignment. When children are late with assignments that must be done, teachers may have them stay in at recess to complete the task, providing guidance as necessary. Perhaps it’s time for the Legislature to stay in from recess until the work is finished, with guidance provided by the courts. Writing financial legal documents is not an easy task for those who may not be well-trained in the skill. Jean DeWitt Mill Creek
Hillary is not finished
W
ASHINGTON — In politics, as in many endeavors, it helps to be underestimated. In this sense, Hillary Clinton is doing great. Clinton’s book tour, which bears some resemblance to a presidential campaign, is being portrayed as some kind of disaster. Her attempt to portray her family as less than fabulously wealthy was bad; her effort to justify that pretense was worse. Her political instincts seem rusty, her reflexes a bit slow. To top it off, the book she’s flogging — a memoir of her years as secretary of state — is not a publishing juggernaut, merely a best-seller. At the same time, she is described as being cursed by inevitability. The logic, if that’s the right word, goes like this: If she decides to run, she is certain to win the Democratic nomination. Therefore, she probably won’t get it. Nothing about the Hillary-is-finished narrative makes much sense to me. To the contrary, I think the past few weeks of scrutiny — and partisan attacks — may well have brightEUGENE ROBINSON ened her chances of becoming president, if that’s what she wants. I also think she’s being truthful when she says she hasn’t decided whether to run. Finished? Polls have consistently shown that Clinton would defeat any of the Republicans frequently mentioned as potential candidates — but given the GOP field, perhaps this is not saying much. It may be more significant that while Clinton’s approval rating has dipped in some surveys, significantly more voters approve of her than disapprove. People are so fed up these days that any politician whose approval numbers are above water is doing just fine. Is she vulnerable to an insurgent challenge from the activist left? She was in 2008. But is there another Barack Obama out there with the skill and charisma to beat her? If so, who might that be? The person most often mentioned is Sen. Elizabeth Warren, whose populist message is powerful and whose political acumen grows sharper by the day. Warren says she is “not running for president” but carefully phrases the demurral in the present tense, meaning “not running at this very minute.” If Clinton decides not to run — or if she runs and her campaign falters — my guess is that Warren would quickly become a formidable contender for the nomination. Absent these circumstances, however, I see no indication that she intends to take on the Clinton machine the way Obama did. For Clinton, the good news from a bad few weeks is that if she wants the nomination, she has a goal to focus on, an obstacle to overcome — and it’s not a particularly daunting one. Her description of her family as “dead broke” upon leaving the White House was tone-deaf. Her subsequent attempt to distinguish her financial situation from that of the “truly well-off” — when Bill Clinton had made more than $100 million from speeches — was like nails on a blackboard. Her task now is to convince voters that she can relate to the everyday concerns of the middle class. But she is already being given the benefit of the doubt. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released Sunday showed that 55 percent of those surveyed believe that Clinton — despite those remarks — can relate to middle-class struggles as well as other potential 2016 candidates, while 37 believe she cannot. It’s not a mountain that she has to climb, in terms of public opinion, but more of a modest hill. Bill Clinton defended his wife in a “Meet the Press” interview, saying she had “advocated and worked as a senator for things that were good for ordinary people — and, before that, all her life.” It’s true that the Clintons are chummy with corporate America, but Republicans can hardly take this line of attack. And it’s also true that when her husband was in office, Hillary Clinton tried and failed to win health care reform that was truly universal — and more populist, in many ways, than the measures Obama managed to enact. If Hillary Clinton, with an assist from Bill, can’t make voters believe that she’s back in touch with their lives — and that she understands how disillusioned they are with Wall Street and a financial system that seems designed to serve the very rich — then she doesn’t deserve the nomination. This has to be part of her campaign message, which she should begin crafting. She can’t afford to let people think she doesn’t have one. Eugene Robinson is a Washington Post columnist. His email address is eugenerobinson@washpost.com.