Replies

If the previous “news coverage” of previous SCOTUS arguments give us a hint, then we should not be counting out chickens just yet for a Hobby Lobby victory. Remember when conservative commentators on Fox News were gushing over the grilling 6 SCOTUS justices gave the Obama SG when hearing arguments for the repeal of Obamacare? Ends up being turned on its head in the decision.

My observation is when a justice asks these piercing questions to put an attorney off guard or grill them, they usually have their minds up in favor for the side getting grilled and just do it to clear out the little remaining doubt they have in their minds.

At least the past few years that has been the norm.

Here’s why Hobby Lobby will win:

The left is arguing that as individuals everyone has first amendment religious rights, but once a group forms a corporation, those rights are lost and become subject to government regulation.

If this is the case, then it must also be true that individual journalists have a right to freedom of the press, but once those journalists come together to form a corporation aka New York Times, CNN, FoxNews, then they would also lose their First Amendment rights and be subject to government regulation. If one situation it true, then the other situation must also be true as there is no differentiation between any of our First Amendment rights. They cannot make a case that one right is less or more than the others.

The next argument has to do with leftists claiming that since women have the right to use contraception, employers must bear the expense. That’s like saying because we have the right to bear arms, our employers must purchase our guns for us if the government tells them too.

But the best argument is statutory and Hobby Lobby will win the case on these grounds alone. The Religious Freedom and Restoration Act passed in 1993 (under Clinton) already makes it illegal for the government to pass any law that substantially burdens the free exercise of religion. In this case we have a department of the executive branch attempting to reinterpret statutory law by issuing regulations. Sebelius clearly does not have the authority to do this, it belongs to the legislative branch alone.