RE: Latest from The Supremes. On unionization rights/requirements.
These likely will be representative:
GOP view.
DFL view.
Not to put either blogger into a constrained category that way, but the labels are offered to let readers have in mind a pro-decision vs anti-decision expectation for each item.
Do your own web searches for reporting, to find the opinion text online; etc. It will be more a wheat-from-chaff winnowing task for readers, than looking for a needle in a haystack.
_____________UPDATE____________
Worse, the contraception decision - reported, e.g., here.
The Supremes, as now constituted -- proof positive of lasting dangers of Republican presidents and their predilection to appoint mediocre narrow-minded idiots to the nation's top court. The wise answer, elect Democratic presidents, avoid the nasties like Roberts, Alito, Siamese twins Scalia-Thomas, all that stuff.
This sort of judicial activism is appalling and should result, in the best of worlds, in a big-time moderate/liberal voter turnout this November to aim to begin to curb the forces of darkness and theocratic imposition upon the many, based on the biases of the few with strident vocal intensity.
Taking the narrow [and narrow-minded] 5-of-9 majority's view to its logical conclusion, a for-profit private corporation could avoid providing healthcare coverage for full-time employees by putting Christian Scientists in control.
Yes/no? You read the opinion and decide that for yourselves. I don't have patience to suffer stupidity in many, many pages of sophistry. I understand that's a weakness, in today's world, but it is how it is.
