I trust there will be a brief submitted by noted birth control specialist Foster āJust hold an aspirin between your kneesā Friess.
Did the female justices sit down the male justices and explain the facts of life about insurance coverage? I guess Kennedy really doesnāt want to make employers take the arduous task of filling out a paper stating that actually believe something, because what they really want is for contraceptive coverage to be removed from ALL insurance policies.
Iām guessing thatās exactly what happened. The Justices sit for an initial āconferenceā after the oral argument. Justice Sotomayor must have elaborated on the āfalsehoodā comment in oral argument and the others (4 conservatives) had a time to have their clerks confirm that they were suggesting an illegal alternative.
From personal experience, I know that method can be easily defeated . . .
This will be interesting! I was very surprised by the argument and Kennedyās questions since he had seemed to indicated during Hobby Lobby heād be fine with the current accomodation. (For the record, I still think he may be leaning towards upholding this or something similar but wants to look into this more). I think this is a good order because the petitioners now have to affirmatively come up with something reasonable they wouldnāt object to. If they go too far and suggest something that requires congress acting or requires two health plans it might tip Kennedy to finally agreeing that the accommodation is indeed the most narrow way. Iām perfectly fine with the example that the order suggested but I would assume theyāll complain that even mentioning their aversion to birth control in the plan up front is too much for them. Looking forward to reading these briefs.
āWell, you see there is no acceptable alternative mechanism, because our client believes that any process that results in women successfully obtaining birth control is a burden on their faith.ā
As I predicted in an earlier post on this cases, the Court will ultimately issue a 5 to 3 opinion with CJ Roberts writing for the majority.
Roberts knows they really need a decision because of a split in the circuits creates an untenable situation. Since it is no longer possible to simply rule for objectors 5/4, he will side with āthe other sideā so he can write the majority opinion and limit it as much as possible.
This is an old Rehnquist trick.
You read it here first 
I think the plaintiffs arguments will indeed indicate no flexibility in even acknowledging the existence of contraceptives coverage or non-coverage and their outrage that one way or another they canāt impede an employee accessing no-cost coverage. Their obstinance is that strong. I think they really want to erode all access to contraception by my employees universally. An impossible goal but their aspiration nonetheless.
Show us better alternatives
Golly, couldnāt that be the rallying cry of what is left of the America we used to know?
Their lawyer admitted that was a possibility during oral arguments.
Isnāt it an imposition on their notion of āreligious freedomā to even propose a plan to not have their religious freedom imposed upon? The notion of religious freedom from these folks seems to be āwhatever the heck we want it to beā.
I think that it may be time to call on conservative car thief and arsonist Darrell Issaās expert committee on womenās health again to draw up this brief to the Supreme Court. Also forced transvaginal ultrasound probing without consent Felon Bob McConnell might yield options the court could consider.
I am sure that the Little Sisters of Mother Mary and Baby Jesus, which brought the lawsuit could work with Hobby Lobby and Chick-Fil-A, to come up with conservative and biblical religious answers and special rights for themselves.
Of course if all else fails prayer and abstinence therapy have worked as well as medical contraception for the Little Sisters of Mother Mary and Baby Jesus.
Wow oh wow! Scaliaās plan to push up daisies rather than ever wear the black robe again is working wondersā¦for us liberals!
I like what they did, not only trying to cut the proverbial Gordian knot but in effect making the plantiffs do something to effect coverage. See, that is exactly what they donāt want to do. This edict will lay bare their real agenda: itās that they do not want anyone, anywhere to provide coverage! Their idea is that any sexual intercourse MUST, if everything is right, directly lead to a pregnancy and birth.
They are really now in a bind here as one way or another it sounds like the court will demand coverage, by hook or by crook, and they aināt gonna be happy when this ends !
Woo-Hoo I say!
Better light a candle for the notorious RBG. The Grim Leveler comes for us all, and a death on the liberal side will upset a bunch of apple carts.
But the women will have to buy their own aspirin over the counter, because the religious non-profits wonāt provide it. I wonder if they would approve of their insurance policys offering free thermometers so the women employees could track their ovulation cycles?
Like the Fight Club?
āThe parties may address other proposals along similar lines, avoiding repetition of discussion in prior briefing,ā
Thus, jumping up and down and screaming, āno, no, NOā is disallowed.
BTW, legal experts, is it usual for SCOTUS to ask for more information after oral argument? I would have thought all the relevant material would be prepared for them.
Itās a āburden to their faithā to fill out the freakinā PAPERWORK? Iāve had it. These are unserious people who want us to buy into their BS for some other nefarious garbage.
I so wish that Justice Ginsberg had stepped down early in 2014 so that President Obama could have appointed a much younger, like-minded replacement!