I really don’t have much to say about the Hobby Lobby case and the PPACA’s regulation requiring that employers provide birth control as a “no extra charge” component of the insurance they provide to their employees . Just about all that I can add is that sexual relations is not an insurable risk and, consequently, requiring birth control be provided as part of the package seems like a stretch if you’re adhering to anything remotely resembling insurance which I gather that the administration is not. It’s just a word.
See also here:
Contrary to protestations from certain entities that subvert all issues for political gain, the Hobby Lobby case is not about birth control or women’s rights or even universal health care. It is, in Dershowitz’s summation, about “whether or not the statutes in the penumbra of the Constitution require a religious exemption.”
An entire school of red herrings has been produced in arguing about this case.
I’m not a lawyer so I have no authoritative basis on which to remark about the law. Based on my reading it’s my understanding such as it is that the law of closely-held private companies is pretty mature and that they are generally held to be alter egos of their owners.
My impression, too, is that, regardless of the vitriol being poured out in the opinion pages, the government’s case is quite weak. I hold the outrageous and naive belief that the members of the Supreme Court generally ground their opinions in the law and I suspect they will in this case, too. That’s not to say that the Court doesn’t take other considerations into account as well, e.g. the Court’s reputation or possible future implications of their decisions. I think that partisanship, which since the members of the Court are human is necessarily a factor in its members’ decision, is way down on the list of reasons for Court decisions.
The Obama Administration has not fared particularly well with the Supreme Court and that’s not just due to the partisan divide. The large number of unanimous Court decisions that found against the administration is adequate refutation of that belief. Unless you think that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a right-wing partisan hack.
Here’s my hypothetical question. What if you’re wrong? What if the Court finds unanimously in favor of the plaintiff, sending a rebuke to the administration?