Difference between revisions of "2014/02/23/How to understand Hobby Lobby"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(new page from form at http://issuepedia.org/Issuepedia:Forms/v3/news/entry) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | {{#set:page type|link}} | |
| − | {{page | + | * '''when''': [[when posted::2014/02/23]] ([[date posted::2014/02/23]]) |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | * '''when''': [[when posted::2014/02/23]] | ||
* '''author''': [[author::Marty Lederman]] | * '''author''': [[author::Marty Lederman]] | ||
| − | * '''source''': [[ | + | * '''source''': [[source::SCOTUSblog]] |
| − | * '''topics''': [[topic::Hobby Lobby]] [[topic::Hobby Lobby/Obamacare]] [[topic::Religious Freedom Restoration Act]] [[topic::Obamacare]] | + | * '''topics''': [[topic::Hobby Lobby]] [[topic::Hobby Lobby/Obamacare]] [[topic::US/law|Religious Freedom Restoration Act]] [[topic::Obamacare]] |
| − | |||
* '''link''': [[URL::http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/02/symposium-how-to-understand-hobby-lobby/#more-205491]] | * '''link''': [[URL::http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/02/symposium-how-to-understand-hobby-lobby/#more-205491]] | ||
* '''title''': [[title::Symposium: How to understand Hobby Lobby]] | * '''title''': [[title::Symposium: How to understand Hobby Lobby]] | ||
| − | * '''summary''': | + | * '''summary''': [[Summary::{{fmt/quote|It is hard to recall a Supreme Court case that has been so commonly misunderstood, in so many respects, as the "contraception coverage" cases that the Court will consider on {{date|2014/03/25|March 25}}, [[2014/03/25/Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.|Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.]] and [[Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius.]].}}]] |
| + | ==Excerpt== | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
In [http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/02/compendium-of-posts-on-hobby-lobby-and.html a series of posts on Balkinization], I have tried to untangle many of these and other mischaracterizations and misunderstandings. My focus here, however, is on two critical, and related, aspects of the cases that have largely been obscured or misrepresented. | In [http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/02/compendium-of-posts-on-hobby-lobby-and.html a series of posts on Balkinization], I have tried to untangle many of these and other mischaracterizations and misunderstandings. My focus here, however, is on two critical, and related, aspects of the cases that have largely been obscured or misrepresented. | ||
| − | # The plaintiffs in these cases are seeking a type of religious exemption that has virtually no precedent in the history of free exercise and [[Religious Freedom Restoration Act|RFRA]] adjudication. | + | # The plaintiffs in these cases are seeking a type of religious exemption that has virtually no precedent in the history of free exercise and [[US/law/Religious Freedom Restoration Act|RFRA]] adjudication. |
| − | # This ties into my second principal point about how the law has been widely mischaracterized: There is no | + | # This ties into my second principal point about how the law has been widely mischaracterized: There is no "[[contraception mandate]]." |
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
| − | |||
Latest revision as of 00:37, 7 February 2025
- when: 2014/02/23 (2014/02/23)
- author: Marty Lederman
- source: SCOTUSblog
- topics: Hobby Lobby Hobby Lobby/Obamacare Religious Freedom Restoration Act Obamacare
- link: http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/02/symposium-how-to-understand-hobby-lobby/#more-205491
- title: Symposium: How to understand Hobby Lobby
- summary: «It is hard to recall a Supreme Court case that has been so commonly misunderstood, in so many respects, as the "contraception coverage" cases that the Court will consider on March 25, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius..»
Excerpt
In a series of posts on Balkinization, I have tried to untangle many of these and other mischaracterizations and misunderstandings. My focus here, however, is on two critical, and related, aspects of the cases that have largely been obscured or misrepresented.
- The plaintiffs in these cases are seeking a type of religious exemption that has virtually no precedent in the history of free exercise and RFRA adjudication.
- This ties into my second principal point about how the law has been widely mischaracterized: There is no "contraception mandate."