( CNN ) -- Elections have consequences . That 's the message of Monday 's rulings from the Supreme Court -- and , indeed , all decisions by nine justices whose ideologies reflect , with considerable precision , the views of the presidents who appointed them . Both the Hobby Lobby case -- which concerned the intersection of women 's rights , religious freedom , and Obamacare -- and the Harris case , about the future of labor unions , were 5-4 decisions . Five Republican appointees for the owners of Hobby Lobby ( and against the unions ) . Four Democratic appointees for the Obama administration ( and for the unions ) . Notably , too , three of those four Democratic appointees are women . ( Of 112 people who have served on the Supreme Court , four have been women . ) As in so many cases before the justices , the legal issues in these cases were as much political as legal . Indeed , just like politicians , the justices try to frame the questions before them in as politically appealing ways as they can . In Hobby Lobby , the issue was whether a privately held company , whose owners have strong religious convictions against abortion , can refuse to pay for certain forms of birth control which they regard as immoral . `` The owners of many closely held corporations could not in good conscience provide such coverage , '' Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority , and to force them to do so would violate federal law . Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , for the dissenters , framed the issue in an entirely different way . She and her colleagues saw Hobby Lobby as asking for -- and receiving -- a license from the court to discriminate against women . What , she asked , about companies that have religious objections to treating African-Americans equally -- or gay people ? And , she asks , `` how does the Court divine which religious beliefs are worthy of accommodation , and which are not ? '' The same kind of conflict undergirds the union case . In that case , home care workers who are covered by a union contract demanded the freedom to refuse to pay dues -- which the conservative majority granted them . Is this , as Alito ( again ) held , simply a matter of preserving the freedom of speech rights of these employees ? Or is it , as the dissenters , led by Justice Elena Kagan , said , a vehicle to starve unions of the dollars they need to survive -- and negotiate precisely these kinds of contracts ? Toward the end of this year 's term , there were more unanimous opinions than usual -- including rulings about the right of police officers to search the personal electronic devices of persons under arrest , and about the legitimacy of the use of recess appointments by the Obama administration . But no one should be misled . When it comes to the most fundamental issues before the court , the most important factor is not the legal arguments but the identity of the judges -- and the presidents who appointed them . Republicans vote one way , Democrats another . It 's true in Congress , and it 's true on the other side of First Street as well -- in the marble temple of the United States Supreme Court .
Toobin : Court rulings reflect ideology of presidents who appointed each justice . Toobin : 5 Congress appointees for Hobby Lobby , 5 Democratic appointees against it . Jeffrey Toobin : All 3 women on court ruled against Hobby Lobby ; union ruling fell along same lines . Toobin : Jeffrey Toobin said Hobby Lobby got a license to discriminate . What 's next ?