Durbin to Gorsuch: Did You Stop and Think About the Impact of the Hobby Lobby Decision?

[excerpt DURBIN I d ░░░░░░░░ to go if I ░░░░░░░░ for just a moment ░░░░░░░░ this famous case which ░░░░░░░░ and I discussed at ░░░░░░░░ Hobby Lobby I still ░░░░░░░░ all the way through ░░░░░░░░ and it was a ░░░░░░░░ decision with trying to ░░░░░░░░ a corporation into a ░░░░░░░░ Boy did the court ░░░░░░░░ a lot of time ░░░░░░░░ and turning and trying ░░░░░░░░ find some way to ░░░░░░░░ RFRA and to say ░░░░░░░░ Congress really meant corporations ░░░░░░░░ Hobby Lobby when they ░░░░░░░░ person It was dictionary ░░░░░░░░ and so many different ░░░░░░░░ of this What I ░░░░░░░░ troubled by and I ░░░░░░░░ you then I ll ░░░░░░░░ you again when we ░░░░░░░░ setting out as that ░░░░░░░░ did to protect their ░░░░░░░░ liberties and freedom of ░░░░░░░░ Green family the corporate ░░░░░░░░ and their religious belief ░░░░░░░░ what s right and ░░░░░░░░ when it comes to ░░░░░░░░ planning and the court ░░░░░░░░ that s what we ░░░░░░░░ decide it what the ░░░░░░░░ family decides when it ░░░░░░░░ to health insurance You ░░░░░░░░ a decision that thousands ░░░░░░░░ their employees would not ░░░░░░░░ protection of their religious ░░░░░░░░ and their religious choices ░░░░░░░░ it came to family ░░░░░░░░ You closed the door ░░░░░░░░ those options in their ░░░░░░░░ insurance and by taking ░░░░░░░░ position to the next ░░░░░░░░ to all those who ░░░░░░░░ for closed in corporations ░░░░░░░░ America 60 million people ░░░░░░░░ their health insurance and ░░░░░░░░ family planning and their ░░░░░░░░ beliefs denigrated downsized to ░░░░░░░░ corporate religious belief whatever ░░░░░░░░ is Did you stop ░░░░░░░░ think when you were ░░░░░░░░ making this decision about ░░░░░░░░ impact it would have ░░░░░░░░ the thousands and thousands ░░░░░░░░ not millions of employees ░░░░░░░░ you left it up ░░░░░░░░ the owner of the ░░░░░░░░ to say as you ░░░░░░░░ me there is some ░░░░░░░░ of family planning I ░░░░░░░░ and some I don ░░░░░░░░ like Gorsuch Senator I ░░░░░░░░ every case that comes ░░░░░░░░ me very seriously I ░░░░░░░░ the responsibility entrusted in ░░░░░░░░ in my current position ░░░░░░░░ grave I think if ░░░░░░░░ asked the lawyers and ░░░░░░░░ of the 10th Circuit ░░░░░░░░ I a serious and ░░░░░░░░ judge I think you ░░░░░░░░ hear that I am ░░░░░░░░ m delighted to have ░░░░░░░░ opportunity to talk to ░░░░░░░░ about that decision As ░░░░░░░░ know in RFRA the ░░░░░░░░ Freedom Restoration Act Congress ░░░░░░░░ dissatisfied with the level ░░░░░░░░ protection afforded by the ░░░░░░░░ Court under the First ░░░░░░░░ to religious exercise The ░░░░░░░░ in a case called ░░░░░░░░ v Maryland written by ░░░░░░░░ Scalia said any neutral ░░░░░░░░ of general applicability is ░░░░░░░░ That doesn t offend ░░░░░░░░ First Amendment so laws ░░░░░░░░ the use of peyote ░░░░░░░░ Americans tough luck even ░░░░░░░░ it is essential to ░░░░░░░░ religious exercise for example ░░░░░░░░ Congress decided that that ░░░░░░░░ insufficient protection for religion ░░░░░░░░ in a bill sponsored ░░░░░░░░ Senator Hatch Senator Kennedy ░░░░░░░░ Schumer when he was ░░░░░░░░ the House wrote a ░░░░░░░░ very strict law And ░░░░░░░░ says that any sincerely ░░░░░░░░ religious beliefs cannot be ░░░░░░░░ by the government without ░░░░░░░░ compelling reason and even ░░░░░░░░ it has to be ░░░░░░░░ tailored strict scrutiny the ░░░░░░░░ legal standard known in ░░░░░░░░ law, OK?”