What in the world are we mere mortals supposed to make of the Supreme Court hearing of arguments in respect of the Little Sisters of the Poor? We listened to every word streamed in the case today and came away wondering: How is it possible that in America a group of nuns has to make repeated trips to the Supreme Court to avoid having to arrange for their employees to be covered by birth control insurance?

This case has been going on in one venue or another since the Obama administration. The hostility to this heroic, wholly admirable order of nuns has baffled the country. It’s as plain as the constitutional parchment that it’s wrong to force the Little Sisters to break their religious vows on this head. No one has brought to court a single one of the nuns’ employees who is complaining of mistreatment.

Yet if the court is going to deliver some clarity from the pettifogging, it was hard to discern during the Internet hearing Wednesday. It may happen, but the court and the lawyers fretted over the standing of the nuns even to be in court in the first place. They stewed on the logic of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. They spoke in jargon that no layman — or master of grammar — could comprehend.

The few flashes of plain language only added to the sense that we are in trench lawfare. Here is Justice Samuel Alito, who has been marvelous on religious freedom and announced himself in favor of accommodation, questioning the attorney for the Little Sisters, Paul Clement. “What,” he asked, “would the Little Sisters feel compelled to do if they lose this case and they are told you must provide this coverage through your plan?”

Justice Alito also asked whether, “since this has now been going on for some period of time,” Mr. Clement has “identified the number of women who work for the Little Sisters who want contraceptives, but they can’t get them through their employer’s plan or through the insurance plan of a family member or a government program and can’t easily afford to purchase them on their own.” It was a terrific question, we thought.

Responded Mr. Clement: “The Little Sisters believe that complying with this mandate is simply inconsistent with their faith. And so, if this burden is imposed on them, they will have to reconfigure their operations.” He noted that “the government, from the beginning, has exempted religious orders.” But, he added, if they go out to care for the elderly, poor, and for the sick, they lose the exemption.

Yet caring for the elderly, poor, and sick is not merely something the Little Sisters like to do. It, too, is a religious commandment. How can it not be protected by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment? Meantime, Mr. Clement notes, “the Little Sisters have never complied with the mandate throughout this entire litigation.” So “no one will lose their coverage” if the Little Sisters are given the exemption for which they’re suing.

Plus, Mr. Clement added, throughout all the years this suit has been dragging on, “we have not heard of even a single employee who views this as a problem.” That’s because even the Sisters’ non-Catholic employees have “come to work for the Little Sisters understanding the mission” and “I don’t think they would really want to put the Little Sisters in the position that you alluded to of maybe having to stop serving the elderly poor.”

The Chief Justice this morning seemed baffled and frustrated at the failure of the parties to reach an accommodation. How, though, can the Little Sisters accommodate? The place to direct the question is to the states that are bringing this suit. What is their problem? Do the liberals see the Sisters as a threat? As this case drags on, it’s hard not to at least wonder whether, deep down, it’s hostility to the Little Sisters’ religion itself.

That question is the elephant in the room. Yet no one addressed it in the hearing this morning. Clearly Pennsylvania and New Jersey and at least some of the liberal justices fear that after the Little Sisters comes the deluge. If so, in our opinion, their objections are even less credible. The Little Sisters might well embolden others to claim their rights. Why shouldn’t the First Amendment apply to the rest of the country as well?

________

Drawing by Elliott Banfield, courtesy of the author.