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.

Reply via email to