Skip to comments.Supreme Court expands time for oral arguments in Hobby Lobby case
Posted on 03/23/2014 3:47:32 PM PDT by shepardspie33
NORMAN, Okla. -- On Thursday, in a clear indicator of the importance of the case Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., the Supreme Court issued an order expanding the time allotted for oral argument in front of the Court to 90 minutes instead of the previously appropriated 60 minutes.
Representing Hobby Lobby will be who Business Insider has termed the LeBron James of Lawyers, Paul D. Clement. He is a veteran of the Supreme Court with recent appearances in the challenge to the individual mandate portion of the ACA,as well as representing the Republican House of Representatives in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) case past March. He has also recently represented the National Football League (NFL) against players suing the league over concussion linked injuries.
Arguing on behalf of Sebelius, the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, will be Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.
If you have ever heard these two spar before it is a clear mismatch. Clement is a silver tongued wordsmith while Verrilli tends to deliver his message more methodically with less precision and limited flare.
However, the truth is the oral arguments do not factor into the decision of the case all that much. It is a time for the justices to quiz the lawyers on both sides about any ambiguous areas of their briefs and clarifications of their arguments. What is written in the briefs filed by both the official counsel and any amicus briefs accepted by the court is what usually weighs greatest on the outcome of the case.
In reviewing these two cases the Court will interpret the provisions in the Affordable Care Act which mandate that employers of for-profit companies constituting a particular size to provide access to insurance which covers reproductive health services with no co-pay.
(Excerpt) Read more at reddirtreport.com ...
My first question would be “Why should contraception devices be mandated in an insurance policy by the government since they are readily available to everyone.”
Here’s an analogy that supports your statement:
“The federal government should mandate that all auto insurance policies provide coverage to compensate car owners for engine damage repair costs which result from car owner failure to follow scheduled oil change interval.”
In other words, not an accident, but a choice that results in a normal expected consequence which has no relationship to the basic purposes of auto insurance. No auto insurance carrier would stand for this stupidity any more than an employer would reject providing contraception on moral grounds.
Contraception is not a remedy for a “health problem”. It is intended to disrupt a perfectly normal “health function”. However, in the insane world of Barack Obama, fertility is considered a dangerous medical condition.
My first question to oppoing counsel, “do you attend church” which I know their attorney would object to but just the mere objection by him to the judge in front of jurors would give the intended effect...: )
BFD. Clement is a three time loser in this arena:
Hobby Lobby: Waiting to Lose
I doubt it’s his fault though.
60 minutes or 90 minutes. as Hillary says, “What difference does it make?” If you have a good, compelling argument you can make it in a couple of sentences. Who is going to keep the jurists awake?
It’s a political problem. The crooked lawyer in a black robe already defined the problem.
"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own."
Oral arguments don’t matter, the Constitution doesn’t matter. All that matters is the political desires of the liberals on the court, and perhaps the skeletons in the closets of the others.
Every one of them already has their mind made up
Tenth Ammendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
My first question of Scotus would be “what part of the words above do you clowns NOT understand?”
On what constitutional grounds can the federal government mandate the purchase of a consumer product by a citizen or corporation?
That is the one and only question that needs to be answered.
Health insurance (any insurance) is a consumer product - the feds have no business mandating such.
This isn’t a trial. The “jury” is composed only of the 9 Justices of the Supreme Court.
he should have won ACA, DOMA was definitely going to lose, I did not follow the NFL case. I think its going to be hard to grant personhood to corporations for campaigns and not for religion.
We know how Judas Roberts will vote.