FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
I think it will be 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby.
1. IIRC, the contraception provision is NOT part of the law but is a regulation added to the law by the administration.
2. There are a huge number of exemptions already handed out.
3. The court will narrowly rule that Hobby Lobby also can have an exemption.
This will leave it open to change once the administration ends all its other exemptions. But, by then, this administration will be gone.
This enables the court to avoid actually ruling on the law or the regulation.
Predicting what this SC will do is ridiculous. After Roberts cave, there is absolutely no way to know, and it’s not worth the effort to try.
After the decision, it may or may not be clear as to the real factors behind it.
They are well on the way to destroying this country. I only hope there are enough patriots left to rebuild after the trogs take over. The elites are going to be surprised when those who they have enabled come after them out of lust for what the elites have.
The ruling will be against Hobby Lobby. Why? Because the State is all about accumulating power. The State cannot tolerate that there is anything beyond its control, which is why the State despises religion.
I think Justice Roberts will protect Obama once again.
I believe the Supreme Court will rule that unbridled freedom to kill children will trump religious freedom.
BECAUSE anyone in that company is free to go to Planned Parenthood and get those same free services. OR they can go to the store and spring for "o" rings.
No. Roberts rolls over again.
And the answer should be, why not? The court has already ruled that corporations have a Constitutional right to free speech when they ruled that campaign funding restrictions were unconstitutional. If corporations have constitutional protections in one area of the First Amendment then why not in all areas? Why can't a corporation have a religious foundation and be entitled to religious beliefs that reflect those of the owners or the shareholders? I have a hard time understanding how the court can possibly hold that they don't. If they do rule against Hobby Lobby then it's a slippery slope because if the entire First Amendment doesn't apply to corporations then can it selectively apply to people too?
This is the same Supreme Court that discovered a Constitutional right to homosexual marriage. Who knew that was in the Constitution all these years?
I am not optimistic.
The theory was since the only religious freedom cases before the court this term was "Hobby Lobby" and the already decided case that expanded the right to prayer at public meetings, that Scalia would not not have said "case(S) that expand religious freedom" if Hobby Lobby hadn't already been decided on those grounds....
My prediction is that until the $1 TRILLION HHS is nuked, we’re constantly in jeopardy. It’s not about just winning this skirmish. It’s about winning the war by dismantling these huge, bloated, threatening, unconstitutional bureaucracies.
Of late the Supreme Court decision is based on the highest bidder it’s how we received ObamaCare.
Because corporations are legal entities, the fascist/socialist/statists will ultimately determine that all corporations are owned by the state and thus subject to it’s every edict.
From a different ruling, made today:
“In what was a relatively narrow case concerning a challenge by industry groups and Republican-leaning states the court, divided in several different ways, held that a small proportion of industrial facilities are exempted from the single regulation in question. Most major facilities, including power plants and refineries, will still be covered.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3171207/posts
My guess is they do the same to Hobby Lobby.
Against Hobby Lobby. Roberts will fold again.
Kennedy has gone off his rocker, and he is now “caucusing” with the radical Left. I think he will formally invalidate the 1st Amendment with this case.
The court will rule against Hobby Lobby. They’ll say something along the lines of “Providing insurance coverage that is not in line with their religious beliefs is no different from selling their product to people who don’t believe as they do.”
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
But who knows what "other" factors will come into play- It's a toss up.