Ruh-roe.
Remember the leak of the Roe reversal? Remember how outraged the right was, how the leaker MUST be removed from the court and prosecuted to the fullest extent?
Turns out it’s almost certainly Alito, who has leaked other decisions like the Hobby Lobby case according to The NY Times.
I’m willing to bet any amount that you no longer think the leaker should be removed from the court…because you aren’t a serious or adult person and don’t think the rules you would apply to others apply should to you and yours.

Can you explain why so many Republican led legislatures have failed to pass, even blocked so many Democrat sponsored laws requiring priests, clergy, and pastors to report child sexual abuse? Of course you can’t.

The idea that Trump will change anything in Washington, because he's an outsider, is so far beyond absurd that I have to wonder how people come to the idea. Let's ignore for the fact that the President doesn't have much power, certainly not as much as Trump seems to think it does (and it's clear from the last debate he doesn't understand the power one Senator has) and that he'd have to deal with a Congress that is mostly insiders... let's look at the idea that the next President is likely to appoint up to 3 Supreme Court justices, and keep in mind cases like Hobby Lobby and especially Citizens United, both of which give big corporations, the rich, and powerful elite, huge advantages over regular people. Those cases were decided by a court that was fairly to the right already, now imagine losing two of the three liberal voices in the court to very far right justices, moving the court very far to the right for decades to come. Cases like Citizens United would just be the start of the move to give the powerful elite even more control of Washington and moving it further from the people. In the end a vote for Trump isn't a vote for an outsider, but a vote to put even more power into the hands of insiders and disenfranchise the American public even more...

Hobby Lobby has no objection of 16 forms birth control methods and gladly provides for its employees under the ACA act. They only object to 4, which these cause the demise of the fertilized egg.

To say this a serious blow to woman's right is bunk.

To say once again Men ( 5 to 4 men ) deciding women rights is bunk.
( men decided Roe V Wade)

If you want to prevent getting pregnant, Hobby Lobby has no issue with that.

If you want to murder, don't expect Hobby Lobby to pay for it.

I seem to recall awhile back that Muslim cab drivers were told they couldn't refuse a fare at the airport here in Minnesota just because someone had alcohol in their luggage. I'm not sure how that is much different than what Hobby Lobby is trying to do. I can't wait until some company comes along and claims that all medical procedures are against their religious beliefs and therefore are not required to offer any medical insurance at all.

Your video, Last Week Tonight: Hobby Lobby, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 4 Badge!

Saw in the news the Supreme Court upheld the right to restrict cover (5:4), for "closely-held" corporations based on a 1993 law that limited the ability to restrict religious freedoms.

I kind of see the logic of saying that if non-profits corporations can already avoid providing it (which seems to be the case), then for profit corporations should have the same rights. But then I don't see why non-profits should have had the right to deny it either.

Either way though, I agree with John Oliver's bit. Plenty of people would have liked to veto funding for the Iraq war but obviously never had the option. To say that religious objections are specifically excluded is highly arbitrary. No employees who receive a salary should be excluded.

The "closely-held" provision is also highly arbitrary, almost implying that the court doesn't like the law and are trying to limit it's impact. Maybe it was some kind of compromise to get a majority. Either way, I imagine the notion of "closely-held" will be stretched as loosely as possible in practice.

http://time.com/2940577/supreme-court-hobby-lobby-contraception-obamacare/