Thursday, March 27, 2014

Emotion aside, the legal case for Hobby Lobby

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Prof. Michael McConnell of Stanford explains the legal reasoning behind the plaintiff's arguments in Hobby Lobby vs. Sebelius.

It's hard to nutshell but one point is that the government must show a compelling justification to shift health care expenses from an employee to employer without violating First Amendment rights of a corporation, established under various precedents (see the article).

And then there's this - For contrast: "Jeffrey Toobin's embarrassingly bad write up of the Hobby Lobby oral argument."

No comments: