In the interest of collecting arguments related to Hobby Lobby, here are links to some posts that Nelson Tebbe, Richard Schragger, and I have written on Establishment Clause arguments related to the case:
The Establishment Clause and the Contraception Mandate http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-establishment-clause-and.html Hobby Lobby and the Establishment Clause, Part II: What Counts as a Burden on Employees? http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-and-establishment-clause.html Hobby Lobby and the Establishment Clause, Part III: Reconciling Amos and Cutter http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-and-establishment-clause_9.html And Nelson Tebbe and I had this article in Slate: Obamacare and Religion and Arguing off the Wall: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/11/obamacare_birth_control_mandate_lawsuit_how_a_radical_argument_went_mainstream.htm On Dec 16, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Marty Lederman wrote: > Since no one else has mentioned it, I will: > > Eugene recently published a remarkable series of posts on the case -- so much > there that virtually everyone on this listserv is sure to agree with some > arguments and disagree with others. It's an amazing public service, whatever > one thinks of the merits. He and I turned the posts into a single, 53-page > (single-spaced!) Word document for your convenience: > > www.volokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/hobbylobby.docx > > I've just started my own series of posts on the case on Balkinization -- > links to the first three below. The second is about the thorny > contraception/"abortifacient" issue (nominally) in play in the two cases the > Court granted. In the third post, I endeavor to explain that the case is > fundamentally different from what all the courts and plaintiffs (and press) > have assumed, because there is in fact no "employer mandate" to provide > contraception coverage. > > http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-i-framing-issues.html > > http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-ii-whats-it-all-about.html > > http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-iiitheres-no-employer.html > > Thanks to those of you who have already offered very useful provocations and > arguments on-list; I'd welcome further reactions, of course. > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; > people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) > forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
