Thing 1: The majority of the Supreme Court doesn’t get science.
Thing 2: The majority of the Supreme Court doesn’t get economics.
On the merits, I’m not in agreement with the decision, but I’m actually more favorable to it than this bit of snark would suggest. There certainly must be some limits to what the government can compel “closely held” corporations (and people) to do. I’m just not convinced that this is where the line is, particularly given the evidence.
But, back to my main point: It’s deeply troubling when any branch of government (or anyone at all) makes policy decisions that turn on arguments in contradiction with evidence. That doesn’t make such decisions wrong, but it makes them improperly justified. Find a less obviously incorrect argument or rethink your position. This, perhaps, is too much to ask in America or of people in general. And if so (either one), it’s sad. Deeply sad.
UPDATE: Be sure to read Nicholas Bagley’s follow up and Jonathan Adler’s.
