alito said that is not allowed under the religious freedom restorationant. this is the first time the court has found this religious freedom law applies to for-profit companies. alito said the decision covers only the contraceptive mandate, but ruth bader-ginsberg called the decision sweeping, and asked . . . >> at the white house, the president declined to comment. but his spokesman said mr. obama feels the decision puts women's health in jeopardy. >> we believe that the owners of for-profit companies should not

clarence thomas, samuel alito, stephen breyer and sonia sotomayor. that was not that atypical. in lots of difficult and divisive cases, you get these unusual alignments. there was a decision that the book deals with in some detail where kennedy led a 5-3 majority. kagan was recused. striking down most of arizona's show me your papers anti-immigrant law. scalia wrote a dissent that called the court's decision "mind-boggling." he went out of his way and outside the record of the case to attack obama for something unrelated to the case. his use of executive power to favor the immigrant children hone the a as dreamers -- known as dreamers. the washington post which usually selects the president or a senator or a cabinet member for the honor bestowed on scalia its worst week in washington prize. partly because he was also outvoted in the obamacare decision that came down three days later. those are just some examples, and the book deals with them, explains them, gives you a way to understand them. it's not just the unusual alignments in cases decided by sort of a bare majority that

when alito was nominated for the court, people called him scalito. they battled one another furiously about free speech, about privacy, about the need to stick to the original meaning of various parts of the constitution. for instance, in the oral argument about selling violent interactive video games to kids without the consent of their parents, it looked like alito was prodding the lawyers about, well, you know, hansel and gretel, that's pretty violent. the original constitution didn't treat a violent speech differently. and alito, losing patience, told one of the lawyers, i think what justice fully wants to know is what james madison thought about video games. did he enjoy them? and what if they were violent? or what about the opinions involving the government's use of a gps to track somebody's car for a month without a warrant? in that case there was an even more fascinating active with in the opinions between alito and scalia. scalia said the art analogies from the 1790s to this, and alito basically said, yeah, like what? and scalia said, well,

it's impossible to imagine, though justice samuel alito imagines it, that it stops here. the families in these two cases, the religious corporations objected to four. there's some that object to all 20. how does that case stop. if you can't join the line, justice collins burg will say what about employers that don't want to pay equally to many, or those that don't want to the allow blood transfusions because they are jehovah witnesses. >> it's complicated, it's a trust of a family. >> in the majority justice samuel alito said it's limited to closely held corporations, and would limit whether it provided to exxon on another day. it's not clear in corporations can come forward and say we have a relimbingon. >> and even though samuel alito says it will not happen, they can't say it won't. >>> another case that the court decided on today was that this had to do with health care, yes, but union power as well. that. >> it's a complicated case. it could have been huge. in the case justice samuel alito, again writing the majority 5-4 is selling seeds for saying there's an agency

there's a case which upholds -- that said, alito did not have kind things to say.he aboud court's analysis is questionable an several grounds. some more notable or apparent before the time of decision. some have become more evident and troubling in the years since. this is him telling you, and everyone else in the public sector unions, we are coming for you next. >> well, more importantly, he's threatening our entire nation. 9/11 operators. family service providers. public health nurses. firefighters. teachers. that being able to join together and make sure you have a strong voice in being able to create good jobs in this country, and improve the quality of service in our communities is not okay to justice alito and not going to allow him to stand in the way of millions of workers joining together to insist that we deserve better. >> there are think tanks and legal entities looking for the next teacher plaintiff to do a full challenge. mary kay henry, president of sei. thank you. >>> imagine if you had to pay as much for water as internet access or your cell phone.

justice alito said,, no that's not the case. there is a compelling government interest in enforcing those laws. there is no less restrictive way to do. so so i think it's incumbent on those who think it's broader than judge alito says it is needs to make a case. >> woodruff: why doesn't what the majority justice says hold? >> i think it would be great to take the roberts' court at their word, but look to the legal reasoning. with respect to limiting it to closely held corporations, the majority opinion actually doesn't expressly limit the recognition of corporate free exercise rights to closely held corporations. they say that it's unlikely or improbable that a publicly traded corporation would be able to make these similar claims, but they could still bring them in court. they might lose, but it's still a right that is so broadly extended in an unprecedented manner. >> woodruff: why couldn't this happen again or something... why couldn't a case similar to this, kevin bane, be brought say on behalf of a firm with employees with

>> is justice alito the most partisan of the justices as you see the court? >> there's competition for that title. justice scalia much his senior has distinguished himself for many years in writing opinions that basically mobilize the base. "the wall street journal" has an editorial this week purporting to criticize justice ginsberg's opinion as being overblown and seeking to mobilize the progressive base against the court's majority. and i thought, haven't they been listening to their friend for the last 30 years? >> before you came, i have been leafing through the new book by lawrence tribe and joshua mat. reminding us that justices can frame the way we live. so how is the roberts court framing the way we live? >> let's take race. let's take how the roberts court a year ago with five members of that majority framed the story of america and race. if you read that opinion, problem solved. we had a problem once. we had sort of a serious problem once. low and behold shs the problem is over. the law that was powerful tool to deal with racial discrimination is ou

for example alito comes out and tries to suggest that this is a that the that the opinion that that they reached yesterday having to hobby lobby is very narrow at the same time if he says it was very narrow what he didn't say what you had to read on further there in the opinion is what we're doing is we're creating a whole new right for a corporation we've now given him the right to free speech we've given the right to stay out of prison because of their corporate entity and now we're given the right to protect themselves on on religious. arguments next we're going to give the right to protect themselves from search and seizure so all of a sudden you have this psychopath corporation that we can't do anything about and what i'm trying to say what i'm what i'm really saying is you can't even you can't even analyze this modern court in terms of what went on with dred scott in marbury vs madison because it least there was some intellectual there was some intellectual honesty going on and but here this is not even intellectual honesty this is alito saying you know this is my preference o

alito says many of the justices send her notes after the visits, telling her how humbled they are.t experience do you want them to have? how do you want them to remember that, both the justices and the wounded warriors and their families? >> the biggest plus is that indeed their country and the justices value their service. >> the wounded warriors' next visit to the court is in november. a special thanks to the marines, army, and the supreme court for allowing us to share the story with you. and that's it for today. have a great week. we'll see you next "fox news sunday." ♪ >> who can you rely on to always be there when you need immediate help? and even when you don't? any time of the day or night, even when you're hundreds of miles away from home, always giving you and your family peace of mind with people, benefits, and services always there for you, to make your life a little easier. a company where you always know we're always with you. aaa, a company built by and for members. hello, i'm don wildman. chances are you know of aaa,

alito did not have kind things to/rñ?ñ?ñ?ñ?ñ? say about the7zñ.e, we are coming for you next. >> more importantly, he is threatening our entire nation. 9/11 operators, family service ñ?ñ?ñ?ñ?ñ? firefighters, teacher, being able to join together and make sure you have%@ñ?ñ?ñ?ñ?ñ?ñ a stn being able to create good jobs in thisgññ?ñ?ñ?ñ?ñ? country ande quality of service in ourgñ?ñ?ññ communities, is not okay, to justice alito and we're not going to allow him to stand in the way of millions of workers joining together to insist that we deserve better. >> there are think tanks and legal entities looking for the next teach plaintiff to do a full challenge. that will be coming up. mary kay henry, thank you. >> imagine if you had to pay as much for water as internet access or evenkwñ?ñ?ñ?ñ?ñ your ? in one american? i that's true for adwñ?ñ?ñ?ñ?ñ?f people. and you'll never guess what tha? is leading to. that story is next. of the review. and now angie's list is revolutionizing local service again. you can easily buy and schedule services from top-rated pro

justice alito, do you want to lead off? >> when i think about summers when i was young, they seem to have lasted forever. that is what my friends and i would do all summer. we played baseball. we collected baseball cards. unfortunately, my strategy then was not to collect a lot of mickey mantle cards or willie mays cars, -- cards, which would now be valuable. i would trade my extra all-star cards for the card of some guy who played one game. [laughter] so i would have a complete series. and i remember going to games with my family. in those days, we would go to a doubleheader on sunday, i think, for under $15. we could drive to philadelphia park on the street, i tend to games, bring our own lunch. we had a special spot where he was almost an obstructed view seats, but not quite, so it was a good bargain. and we tried to get into the two games before the sunday curfew in philadelphia. you could not in those days start an inning after 6:00 on sunday. christine brennan, how about you? >> yes, there is always a toledo or two in

alito says many of the justices send her notes after the visits, telling her how humbled they are.t experience do you want them to have? how do you want them to remember that, both the justices and the wounded warriors and their families? >> the biggest plus is that indeed their country and the justices value their service. >> the wounded warriors' next visit to the court is in november. a special thanks to the marines, army, and the supreme court for allowing us to share the story with you. and that's it for today. have a great week. we'll see you next "fox news sunday." . discover the champion in you! . . (applause) well, god bless you. it's always a joy to come into your homes. if you're ever in our area please stop by and be a part of one of our services. i promise you we'll make you feel right at home. but thanks so much for tuning in. thank you again for coming out. i like to start with something funny. i heard about this church service. one sunday everything was going great until a bolt of lightning hit the sanctuary. when the smoke cleared satan himself was standing behind

ultimately, landing in our nation's capitol when her husband, samuel alito, was nominated to the u.s. supreme court. not long after, she started putting down d.c. roots, a friend invited her to friday appreciation day at the pentagon. >> you walked through the pentagon, all of the members of the service who had been in whatever capacity wounded, were walking through the corridors of the pentagon and everyone came out and applauded. it was so moving. at that point, it occurred to me, well, the military, they're fighting for the rule of law. let's bring them to the courts. >> savvy, connected and determined, alito worked to arrange visits which now happen twice a year. most recently in eerily june. >> what's it mean to you when you see them getting off the bus and you know they're about to have something very special? >> my heart just swells. i cannot tell you how much i love this country. i believe fully in american exceptionalism and the fact that these young people understand the concept of what our country is about that it is for all of us that they are willing to sacrifice themselv

because as justice alito wrote, it is not for the court to say the plaintiff's religious beliefs areistaken or unreasonable. for more we go to jessica williams at the supreme court. jessica, thanks for joining us. [cheering and applause] you know, i have read this case. this seems crazy to me. >> oh, yeah, you know what, relax, jon. it's a much more narrow ruling than it seems. you know, hobby lobby was only objecting to four types of birth control, so this will hardly affect anyone. >> jon: wow. >> unless there's some religion out there that's opposed to all contraceptions. >> jon: like catholicism. >> oh, right. i knew i forgot one. >> jon: yeah. >> but still, the ruling only applies to small, closely held companies. >> jon: we've heard that term "closely held." what does that mean? >> you know what, jon, think of it as a hug, a hug that squeezes all the sluts off the health plan. >> jon: okay. but then this decision is only limited to small prierveghts businesses. >> yeah, although, technically no because if there's nothing in the actual court decision to stab large public compani

>> this was the second case where alito offered a critique. in this case with the other four conservative justices s is to put labor's he in the gill low teen but wait to drop the blade. they've been trying to weaponize the first amendment around this issue of public employees. there's all of this dicta about why it is wrong the public sector case and why it's -- if you extends the logic all the way through, it would be like saying i live in a blue state under president george bush and don't want to pay my taxes because i don't agree with his political ideology, therefore my first amendment should be -- i shouldn't have to pay taxes for the public good or benefit that the federal government provides. >> these are benefitting from the unions. tell us more how that whole system works. >> these workers, some of the lowest paid workers, $6 an hour starting about ten years ago by the end of this year they'll make $13 an hour. basically have doubled -- the union doubled their salary. they've gone from roughly $11,500 a year to about $26,000 a year.

justice alito, do you want to lead off? >> when i think about summers when i was young, they seem to have lasted forever. that is what my friends and i would do all summer. we played baseball. we collected baseball cards. unfortunately, my strategy then was not to collect a lot of mickey mantle cards or willie mays cars, -- cards, which would now be valuable. i would trade my extra all-star cards for the card of some guy who played one game. [laughter] so i would have a complete series. and i remember going to games with my family. in those days, we would go to a doubleheader on sunday, i think, for under $15. we could drive to philadelphia park on the street, i tend to -- attend two games, bring our own lunch. we had a special spot where he was almost an obstructed view seats, but not quite, so it was a good bargain. and we tried to get into the two games before the sunday curfew in philadelphia. you could not in those days start an inning after 6:00 on sunday. >> i'll be darned. >> christine brennan, how about you? the ti

>> there is, justice alito. of course, there's also title x, which provides for contraception coverage, which is another least restrictive alternative. but i do want to get on the table that it is not true, that we have not suggested that the accommodation provided to religious employers, like nonprofit hospitals, that's not something i invented at the podium. if you look at page 58 of our brief, the red brief, we specifically say that one of the least restrictive alternatives would be the most obvious least restrictive alternative is for the government to pay for their favorite contraception methods themselves. later in that paragraph, the only full paragraph on the page, we say, "and indeed, the government has attempted something like that with respect to certain objective employers objective employees employers," and we cite the federal register provision where there is the accommodation provision. >> will your clients claim that filling out the form, if you're saying they would claim an exemption like the ch

justice alito's opinion was excellent on all the major points. you know, he said not only do the family owned businesses have religious freedom rights, but this is a substantial burden that the government placed on them by assessing them these huge fines if they with the mandate. so he said they have a substantial burden. and then he went on to say, you know, but government probably has a compelling governmental interest here. but they could have achieved this in such different ways than going about trying to force these religious objectors to pay for this mandate. so they said there was a less restrictive means of accomplishing this goal and because there was a less restrictive means, this mandate just simply cannot stand. >> you know, if you look at the three decisions, jay, if we go back to the recess appointment

jous tis thomas and alito joined 1, 2a and 2b and 1 others joined. justice breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in port and ginsberg, sotomayor and kagan joined and justice alito concurring in part and dissenting and justice thomas joined. so how do you even figure out -- >> your editor's on the phone moments saying 5-2 or 7-2? >> so what's the -- >> correct answer, 7-2. but -- but -- >> look at what really matters going into it and the interesting thing about the epa and recess opinion case and harris v. quinn on monday, we have certain expectations of how far the court might go, the union one, we knew what was at risk here. the idea that maybe public employees weren't going to have to pay union dues, the whole free rider question that we thought the court was going to challenge. they didn't end up reversing aed in intobood but a set back anyway and you have to figure out what to do and adam was saying that you kind of have to figure out what vote really matters here in the recess appointments, the unanimity of the setback to pr

people are say mark prior woul wouldn't have put samd alito oni the supreme court.the supreme court is more mor politicized and polarized than ever. it's as a reflection of what's happening in a broader electorate. i don't think that's a good thing, because i think the religious freedom restoration em act itself is a token of an r earlier more bipartisan time ba when congress was capable of ape getting together and attempting to strike a balance that time, 20 years ago, that's over. >> we heard not only -- we heart from the white house eventually- later in the day, they said the constitutional lawyer in the oval office does not approve.cos not surprising, but again putting that emphasis on what hn understands the constitution and how this all works, although, u you know, he's taken a lot of r heat for not necessarily aril adhering to it at all times. >> it wasn't a constitutional rg ruling, by the way. it was a statutory ruling. >> his constitutional int interpretation has left a lot te be desired in many instances in this administration. i think the fact he opposes

justice alito clearly called out birth control as somehow different. and i suppose more controversial. and this is despite the fact that, you know, almost every woman in america uses birth control at some point in their lifetime. so for women, the only controversial thing about birth control, the only controversy surrounding birth control, is why we can't get it covered by our insurance plans. i think this is on the wrong side of history, this decision. and women are paying attention. we heard from women all over the country today who are outraged at this decision by the court. >> hillary clinton was at the aspen institute today. let's listen to what she said about this decision. >> one of the concuring opinions basically said, if the government wants to provide contraceptive insurance or free contraceptives to women, the government can do it. that -- you know, that's a kind of odd conclusion. does this mean whoever wrote that concurrence is in favor of a single-payer system for contraception? i think there are a lot of interesting questions. >> cecile

well the thing with blagojevich was more that this was the argument by alito they were obligated to getting elected got a lot of money from unions and what he did is he would he came into office he signed a law that said these types of workers who are working in the home getting paid by the state caring for a family member we're going to call them under our state law employees and as employees they therefore have to pay the fair share. i think we have a clip don't we have a leader on this i know and i was sent over to say we don't know but anyway so she did that and then that then the state went ahead and passed a law that they didn't enact it is an executive decision but alito is are you know was well isn't this isn't this you know your democratic politics getting along with unions and you know patting each other on the back and i'm going to figure out a way to make this you know unaccustomed yeah that was what did it and absolutely astounding remark from alito from the average and and you know when during oral arguments when he you know he said is basically isn't this about rod bl

especially since alito was kind of cagey in the original decision about whether or not this could be expanded. he basically said, sure, this -- paraphrasing, sure, this decision only addresses contraception and we're not talking about the rest of things, but it wasn't like he completely excluded the option either. >> right. and that's the other thing, tom. even in alito's defense of this as a narrow decision, he said that it basically does not cover things outside of these particular types of contraception, but is there anything in the law that actually limits the decision's applicability? >> probably so. it's not surprising. the justices often like to say, look, we're not deciding a question that's not in front of us. but the key to this decision under the law that the supreme court was applying was that there was another way out, that the administration did have a way of providing this contraception care. and it's very likely in a later case the court will say, well, when it comes to discriminating against homosexual customers or employees, for example, there is no other way out, a

>> it was incredibly -- alito said this does not apply to everything and it's a narrow decision and we are making clear here the real issue is that religious freedom shouldn't be determined by a company's tax status. he writes that the administration had already made clear that it's going to do a carve out for nonprofits and for other religious organizations and the fact that a group like hobby lobby decides to organize as a for profit organization doesn't mean they have to check that at the door. >> and alito said this does not apply to all fortune 500 companies or large companies, only to closely held companies, which means they have a small number of share holders who can demonstrate very clear religious convictions. >> as a practical matter, if you think about it, a publicly held company with thousands or more share holders, it's almost impossible for awful those share holders to be of the same mind, so the fact that this would be extended to those companies is extremely far fetched. >> this is an important distinction. the government argued hobby lobby's connection in their words

justice alito dismissed that notion but justice ginsburg and many women around the country feel that this ruling could limit women's access to affordable contraceptive healthcare, but the court did propose a solution to that. instead of asking employers with religious objections to pay, the taxpayer could pick up the tab. david? >> terry, thanks. >>> to another breaking headline involving women and their health tonight. this involves a visit to the doctor many make every year. it's about one exam in particular tonight, the pelvic exam. we have reported here before on "world news" on another big change, that was for pap smears. instead of every year, the new recommendation every three years. tonight a major change now for pelvic exams and abc's medical contributor dr. jenn ashton is with us, an ob/gyn herself is here to break it down. you were telling me this afternoon this is significant. >> it is, david, and here's why. this is coming from the american college of physicians. they're now recommending no annual pelvic exams for the average woman. this is for women who are average risk

just as samuel alito wrote for the majority in the decision, he said, protecting the free exercise rights of closely held corporations thus protection the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them. hobby lobby was one of 5 major cases that weren't 5-4 with the conservative majority. another ruling: mccutchin versus the if he hfederal elect commission blew apart limits of campaign contributions made by individuals. the court ruled certain donation caps violate donors' freedom of speech. conservative justices agreed. liberal justices did not. in his dissentence steven briar concluded that the opinion eviscrates our nation's campaign finance laws and where money calls the tune, the voices of the people will not be heard. a cynical public can lose interest in political participation all together. argues sat with the plaintiff, sean mccutcheon the day he argued his case. >> what do you think the impact will be if the supreme court does rule in your favor? >> i think it would be a positive impact because, again, we could donate to more candidates and committees, especially challe

and justice alito wrote this p not in a way that lays that out. he put abood out in what he called an anomaly and very questionable foundation that is not at all consistent with the court's general first amendment juris prudence. i think he made clear that that could happen in the future. but again, paul, this case is notable like many this term for justice roberts seeming to find a narrower route. rather than reaching a larger question. >> the chief justice john roberts went that is sort of the watch word this term and chief justice which is he preferred unanimity. so if he can get nine justices, including the four liberals on board, four narrower decisions, he will take it. or a right decision on the law. even if it doesn't have larger legal implications. or this is really interesting, good as far as justice scalia would like to go, who ended up this term writing concur ens that sound often like defense. >> right. three cases this term he concurred with the majority but in a very angry way. i agree with the result you've reached but i'm furious

>> it's certainly asserted in the majority opinion that is penned by samuel alito. he says all this other bad stuff that ruth bader ginsburg in her dissent unspooled the horribles, jehovah's witnesses, blood transfusions, scientologists, mental health air. he said none of that is going to happen because it's not going to happen. it's a little bit strange reading the opinion. you wait for him to explain some legal principle or rule that both cabins this to closely held corporations, you know, small family corporations like the greens. and that cabins is to contraception and it's not there. it's just kind of we really feel good about this one. that's a little worrisome to the dissent. >> and to that point, i guess they're saying it doesn't apply to blood transfusions or mental health care or vaccines or any other thing. there's also the issue about whether it applies more widely to contraception. i mean, if you've got a family held corporation with devoutly roman catholic family members running it and they are opposed to not just contraception they believe is abortion

>> well, even before wheaten i believe this was much more broad than alito wrote in his brief. not write a decision narrow enough it only would pertain to contraception, that once you gave a person the right to infer their values, religious or otherwise, on to a separate corporation there would be no end to that and we saw it within the coming days just after that, you know, that truth bore out. what happens i'm going to wonder, when someone who is a nonchristian, a muslim, for instance, decides that they want to impart their closely held religious values on a company that they own that is not, you know, widely held by shareholders. what will christians do then. by the way, i'm an evan ga lickcle, i believe we sometimes take this religious liberty a bit too far when we take it outside our household and impose our values on other people. that's where the court got this wrong. >> yeah. i mean you raise a great point and you mention the specific example of a different faith. this is not a hypothetical. in france they've dealt with this where you have muslim adherns who say our bel

i think the caller mischaracterizes justice alito's position.ognizes there may be regulatory available that do not require action. he relies heavily on the existence of this accommodation, which is an entirely regulatory accommodation. i have not looked at analysis on whether it is actually something the industry has the authority to do what it did, it is not something i've paid a lot of attention to. even if the only option were congressional action, that does not change what a justice's obligation is. misses the caller point of the comments. >> ok. we will go to charles next, independent caller. i would ask the lady and thee president democrats getting on tv and lying for two years straight to our face on tv about the affordable care act. host: what about it? caller: it was supposed to be so much better for everybody. they live straight to our face. women are leading the world in obesity and we killed more babies than anybody. host: i will just leave it there. guest: i am not sure i can really take on the mantle of the administration and defen

justice alito said i want to draw it only here.f this is how an empty is run, then it has these religious rights, why does that stop at closely held firms and why not stop at large firms? up until yesterday, in corporate law, we always said you do have these rights. as a nation we have great religious protections but they stop at the level of religious practice by human beings. we have never extended them into the board room. >> nicole, we should point out hobby lobby covers 16 of the 20 available contraceptions. four they say they object to on religious grounds and simply shouldn't be compelled to have to pay for them for their employees and that was upheld yesterday. >> right. the hostility with which this was greeted is stunning. this is about a company that controls 16 birth control pills and such. they were uncomfortable covering two. the court upheld their religious liberty. to the degree that people still value religious liberty in this country, it is completely blind in the media to understand how deeply held that value is.

alito said that is not allowed under the religious freedom restorationant.is the first time the court has found this religious freedom law applies to for-profit companies. alito said the decision covers only the contraceptive mandate, but ruth bader-ginsberg called the decision sweeping, and asked . . . >> at the white house, the president declined to comment. but his spokesman said mr. obama feels the decision puts women's health in jeopardy. >> we believe that the owners of for-profit companies should not be allowed to assert their personal religious views. >> democratic lawmakers denounced the decision as an attack on the rights of women. republican leaders called it a victory for religious freedom and a defeat for what they say is government overreach by the obama administration. those represents hobby lobby insists the decision is a narrow one. >> this opinion is very focused on closely held, family owned businesses that have a religious objection to the contraception mandate. it does not apply to ibm or others. >> still the president and others in cong

alito was very clear that they stopped short of doing that. how do you really know what is going to happen next? >> i thought that decision by justice scalia that you were talking about was a good example of what happens at least once or twice a year. i imagine it must present special challenges to the press. here is a summary from the lineup of the course syllabus. justice scalia announced the judgment of the court and delivered an opinion. chief justice roberts and justice kennedy joined the opinion in full. justices ginsburg, breyer, soto sotomayor and kagan joined as part 2-b-2. justice alito filed an opinion dissenting in part in which justice thomas joined. how do you even figure out -- >> and your editor is on the phone saying, should we call it 5-4 or 7-2? >> you look at what really matters going into it. the interesting thing about that epa case and the harris versus quinn one on monday, we all have certain expectations on how far the court might go. the union won, we knew what was at risk. the idea that maybe public employees weren't