1. There were several litigants. The ruling wouldn't have changed in any meaningful way. Hobby Lobby would have simply lost standing* or whatever. MotherJones would have then been crying about how Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation's owner's step-brother's uncle's cousin's Jewish nephew's dogsitter's sister's best friend once bought Plan B.

*I say they'd lose standing because there were other plaintiffs alongside Hobby Lobby, hence "Hobby Lobby, et al.," and since the court was still compelled to rule on Conestoga, it would likely include the other plaintiffs alongside Hobby Lobby while simply excluding Hobby Lobby. I believe one way to do this is to deny standing to Hobby Lobby.



2. As I understand it, it was a finding of fact that Hobby Lobby's owners were sincere in their convictions, which would mean that the onus would then be on HHS to challenge their sincerity, which they did not do (apart from challenging sincerity of Hobby Lobby's religious convictions on the grounds that for-profit corporations cannot hold religious beliefs, let alone sincere ones).

From the syllabus:

    It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable. In fact, this Court considered and rejected a nearly identical argument in Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707. The Court’s “narrow function . . . is to determine” whether the plaintiffs’ asserted religious belief reflects “an honest conviction,” id., at 716, and there is no dispute here that it does. Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 672, 689; and Board of Ed. of Central School Dist. No. 1 v. Allen, 392 U. S. 236, 248–249, distinguished. Pp. 35–38.

Held:

    The companies in the cases before us are closely held corporations, each owned and controlled by members of a single family, and no one has disputed the sincerity of their religious beliefs.



3. Denying a person their religious rights because of some perceived hypocrisy is ... probably not constitutional.

As noted in Ginsburg's dissenting opinion:

    I agree with the Court that the Green and Hahn families’ religious convictions regarding contraception are sincerely held. See Thomas, 450 U. S., at 715 (courts are not to question where an individual “dr[aws] the line” in defining which practices run afoul of her religious beliefs).

401k is the employees money, not the company's investments. Honestly this is evidence the company is reasonable and isnt trying to force the employees to follow the company's rules on investments.


Good luck picking a group of index funds/etfs without a pharmaceutical company ...

Forget the numbers then.  F... the numbers.   Tell us what you're telling your Republican congressman to do.
Nothing informs the electorate about how sick and diseased the right wing has become than letting conservatives speak for themselves.

No I do not think that  3 year old knows why and what they are doing.  But their parents did.  Can you imagine the anguish the parents must feel when the only way for their kids to have a life is to be separated from them.  It must be hell in those countries if a parent would let them come without them.

He stated clearly that the priority was going to be deporting those with criminal records, or known to be a threat to public health and safety, anjy.   Also, the ones "caught" would seem to me to be a good place to start, n'est pas?

Where would you have preferred he start?  With the toddlers?

Really, whether political flaks are fudging the numbers with technicalities in order to bump them for public consumption is the kind of thing that conservatives obsess over; not me.   I know as I write this that the president and this administration are sincerely doing all they can, despite these batshit conspiracies you people seem to live to immerse yourselves in.

Which of you  can claim one single person who does NOT think that the flood of illegal immigrants, refugees, whatever label you want to give them, pouring across the border is NOT a problem?   That's the accusation, either said or implied, that I keep reading here. 

The president sure as hell knows it's a problem....he has deported more than any previous modern president, including George W. Bush ...est. nearly 2 million.  He HAS "tightened security"...again, beyond anything any previous president did.    The sitting on their thumbs Congress sure as hell knows it's a problem.  They just won't do anything except squirm on their thumbs and blame it on the president.

Enough with the Dream Act blaming.  It was a common sense, compassionate, humane solution to path to citizenship for those under-30s who have been here since childhood and know nothing else except for all intents they ARE Americans.  That it started a false rumor mill in Central America is no one's fault except the rumor-spreaders.   

The president is doing all he can within the constraints of the executive.  HE CAN'T ALLOCATE THE MONEY to "militarize the border" by phone or pen, HE CAN'T PASS THE LAWS - some of these are international law -  HE CAN ONLY FOLLOW THEM, AND HE CAN ONLY SIGN THEM after they are passed by the congress.   Nothing has been passed, and word is nothing will be.   HELLO???

If he takes further exec order action, you'll howl.  If he doesn't, you'll howl.   Either shut the fuck up or get down to the border and start shooting...men, women, teens and kids.    You first.

So sick of this useless carping, just to carp.

Yeah, I get all that.  But in the present, there are real kids being dumped here, not to mention real diseases and riff raff slipping in behind them. 

Someone in DC has to be grown up leader for once, which the Prez could actually try and perhaps have something other than a list of disasters  on his record.  He could start by getting off the golf course and actually working with Boehner and Reid to amend this bill now.  That much at least could be done. 

Enough with him whining and casting insults on minions he expects to deliver his druthers up to him on a silver platter.    He is an incompetent pompous ass who will do nothing to solve the problems he creates. 

And I agree with you (I think) in that making fun of wives and children, particularly their physical features or in low class demeaning ways regarding their personhood...no.  Women politicians or public figures, however, are open game for political humor.  There's no whining in baseball or politics so put on your big girl panties and take it like a woman.   

I have a wonderful sense of humor, and this was no simple unexpected response.  (boy, is that marine ever dumb, ha. ha.)

Was it about a marine's stupidity  No...that's a false claim as well.   

What it was, was a lame attempt to equate Michelle Obama and Nancy Pelosi to pigs.  Something less than pigs; the pigs were a step up.

The 'joke' is offensive as hell.

I have a wonderful sense of humor

My question is - why doesn't Israel treat these murders as a crime, instead of an act of war?  I don't understand that mentality.