To: Nachum; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ...
![](http://www.supremecourt.gov/images/banner_seal2.gif)
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.)
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
To: BuckeyeTexan
Thank you for the ping, Tex. Here’s hoping that Hobby Lobby does not give up.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson