Decisions, Results and a Deep Breath

I never thought I would see the day when the name "Hobby Lobby" invoked such passion from the American public.  Yesterday, I read a few articles that praised Ruth Bader Ginsberg's rather snarky dissent of the 5-4 SCOTUS decision to uphold Hobby Lobby's challenge of the provision in the Affordable Care Act that requires employers to cover birth control as a part of their employee health coverage.  Ginsberg and other dissenting voices say this is a terrible assault on women's rights, that values the religious convictions of a corporation over and above the reproductive health and choice of their employees.
My personal thoughts on this whole issue drive me back to a rather growing conviction that our healthcare should never be left in the hands of those who have any other goal than well... our health.  In other words, our healthcare choices should not be made by those who want to turn a profit, who have an ideological ax to grind with the system, or in short by anyone who does not have to live in our body.  That being said the sweeping generalization that this rather narrow decision on one case is going to open a whole can of religious crusading worms, and provide precedent for massive discrimination based on selectively held beliefs, is spurious to say the least.
As was the case with the reaction to the PC(USA) decision regarding divestment from three companies doing business with Israeli security forces in the West Bank, a decision that is actually extremely focused in scope has mushroom clouded to a size that appears to be able to put our collective underwear in all sorts of bunches.  There's just enough there to make you mad, and give you the fear of some Orwellian future where the gubmint runs everything.
While I admit that the high court's consistent decisions to treat corporations as though they have individual rights is disturbing, I also think, because of the nature of the court, it is a reversible error.  With a few minor details moved around the Hobby Lobby decision could have easily gone the other way, even in the mind of uber-conservative Justice Scalia.  The nature of case law, as I understand it, is that it is a shifting sea of precedents and rulings, and the reason we need judges, juries, appellate courts and a judicial review process is because it's never "done."
Which means, somewhere down the road, a corporation is going to abuse these rights they have been given, and somebody is going to sue them.  There will be a decision, there will be an appeal and a protracted journey through the system, and eventually our dear SCOTUS, which will probably be comprised of a slightly different mix of folks by then, will make a decision that further defines what is legal and what is not.
It takes a long time, seriously glaciers move faster, but it does move.
People complain about "activist" judges whenever the judges make a decision that they don't like.
I learned this week, thanks to futbol, about a strange nuance of the game, if the two teams play to a draw for 90 minutes and then through extra time and the game has to be decided by penalty shots, it's not technically considered a result.  It's still a draw.  Now, a team can advance or be eliminated based on penalty shots, but it's a different thing that flat out winning or losing.
It means that the actual contest on the pitch was too close to call, and so they have to determine the way forward some other way.  Many of our communal decisions, legal, ecclesial and otherwise are decided by penalty shots: a very specific set of circumstances that does not necessarily test the overall ability of the team or the merit of the argument, but could really go either way based on luck or how the wind is blowing or what Justice Roberts had for breakfast.
Can these decisions be hard to swallow?
For sure, like two Belgian goals in extra time, or even worse a penalty shot given for an obvious flop (I feel you Mexico).
But we're human, and we ain't perfect, let's take a deep breath, qualifying for 2018 is just around the corner.