They will -- the government realizes that its plan is undermined and is reassessing
Sent from my iPhone On Jan 3, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Ira Lupu <icl...@law.gwu.edu> wrote: > Why don't all these religious nonprofits choose Christian Brothers Services > as their health insurer? That way, certification or not, the employees will > not receive the services to which the employer objects? Something is missing > from this narrative. > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jan 3, 2014, at 10:56 AM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The government's brief in Little Sisters: >> >> http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/01/government-bref-in-little-sisters.html >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> Another post, this one about the nonprofit cases that have now wound their >>> way to the Court . . . >>> >>> http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/01/not-quite-hobby-lobby-nonprofit-cases.html >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> >>> 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
