Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Nachum; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

20 posted on 12/27/2012 7:52:28 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: BuckeyeTexan; Nachum
Hobby Lobby might eventually win on that point, Sotomayor said, but the company didn't meet the standard for an injunction blocking the mandate from taking effect...applicants allege they will face irreparable harm...[however] they cannot show that an injunction is necessary or appropriate to aid our jurisdiction, Sotomayor wrote.

Not proving irreparable harm seems to be the crux of the issue according to SCOTUS (Sotomeyer) in not granting the injunction. Wonder what it would take for Hobby Lobby to show irreparable harm? It's possible, I suppose, to construe contraception as not irreparable harm.

21 posted on 12/27/2012 8:14:17 AM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Thank you for the ping, Tex. Here’s hoping that Hobby Lobby does not give up.


22 posted on 12/27/2012 1:31:17 PM PST by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson