Ms Tree said:
How can you compare a single person presidential candidate to a 9 person court? The argument that Ginsburg made is a legal one that carries substantial weight and importance.
The way Hobby was written with the wording Closely held opens the door as Ginsburg pointed out. In Wheaton they contradicted what they said in Hobby. Just read the damn cases already and you can see it.
wow you cant even see the comparison isnt the people but the fact that you seem to think its relevent IF they got the votes.... they didnt thats why their opinion isnt relevent
just like my comparison to romney... he doesnt get power because he had less votes neither do the justices
i have read the case... yes single case... wheaton hasnt been heard yet, its not a case yet. the injunction is a routine thing prior to a case being heard... DO NOT READ INTO IT
if you had read hobby then you would understand why it different than wheaton will be.
because HOBBY concerns
for profit companies. i dont know why i have to repeat this... you telling me to read something i have obviuosly read doesnt make your case, tell me how i am wrong...
but anyway hobby was also ruled on the basis that
for profit companies were not given the least restrictive alternative, because
not for profit companies like wheaton, were. that using RFRA, that HHS when writing the rules for ACA and the differences between
profit and
not for profit, that hobby was wronged by not being given the lesser restrictive alternative...
and for that reason is why wheaton is different than hobby. because they already have the less restrictive alternative. that they are asking for something different...
