Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

eppur_se_muova

(41,932 posts)

39. Easy out -- SCOTUS will rule that women are not persons with the scope of the law. nt

Reply to kpete (Original post)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 12:20 PM

Jul 2014

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Gitmo detainees' lawyers invoke Hobby Lobby decision in court filing [View all] kpete Jul 2014 OP

I tip my hat to them. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2014 #1

Agreed. Let SC ruling meet unintended consequences. nt avebury Jul 2014 #3

But but but avebury Jul 2014 #2

And only certain Christians at that! nt LiberalElite Jul 2014 #12

Yup. Only the ones who worship that Republican Jesus. You know, the white Jesus who hates Dark n Stormy Knight Jul 2014 #26

Heading over now to our local Jewish Deli for some pulled pork BBQ. 24601 Jul 2014 #13

I'd be willing to bet good money that those who were so thrilled Arkansas Granny Jul 2014 #4

Can the court reverse a decision within a short period? rickford66 Jul 2014 #5

Reverse what? former9thward Jul 2014 #27

That's sorta what I asked. rickford66 Jul 2014 #31

The court will not reverse HL. former9thward Jul 2014 #33

I'll try again. rickford66 Jul 2014 #34

In theory, the Court could grant a timely filed motion for rehearing. onenote Jul 2014 #40

But the Court can pick up another case on the same subject and reverse itself..... happyslug Jul 2014 #43

Can be just few years, the 1894 decision on Income taxes was "Reversed" in just two years. happyslug Jul 2014 #42

I Like This, Ma'am The Magistrate Jul 2014 #6

woops. /nt Ash_F Jul 2014 #7

This should be interesting. Are the detainees people who should be allowed their religious rights? herding cats Jul 2014 #8

and Pandora's box... dhill926 Jul 2014 #9

The worms are crawling out of the can. ;-0 n/t ReRe Jul 2014 #11

Awesome. Ruby the Liberal Jul 2014 #10

That is very interesting thought mazzarro Jul 2014 #23

Theocracy at its finest Ruby the Liberal Jul 2014 #30

As predicted..... pfitz59 Jul 2014 #14

Sorry, only old, rich, white, Conservative, Christian, Republican men can invoke "religious freedom" blkmusclmachine Jul 2014 #15

Ooooo boy This is going to get richer and richer. KauaiK Jul 2014 #16

Wait WHAT littlemissmartypants Jul 2014 #17

But does it apply to female detainees? AllyCat Jul 2014 #18

Maybe I had this wrong but I thought mackerel Jul 2014 #19

Well, the special "Do Not Cite" may mean mazzarro Jul 2014 #25

There is no language like that in the case. former9thward Jul 2014 #29

+1 onenote Jul 2014 #41

Nonsense. former9thward Jul 2014 #28

Agree....On Tuesday...... cynzke Jul 2014 #37

Holy....cow. nt Hekate Jul 2014 #20

This appears to be some good lawyering Gothmog Jul 2014 #21

Wonderful!!!! Let the legal pretzel-bending begin! nt GliderGuider Jul 2014 #22

The Court in Hobby Lobby (my husband called it Rabbit Habbit this morning -- he couldn't JDPriestly Jul 2014 #24

I will admit that of all the potential ripple effects of the HL ruling... DeadLetterOffice Jul 2014 #32

It seems that the utter idiocy.. sendero Jul 2014 #35

Well Now...... cynzke Jul 2014 #36

Well, first they'll need to incorporate... malthaussen Jul 2014 #38

Easy out -- SCOTUS will rule that women are not persons with the scope of the law. nt eppur_se_muova Jul 2014 #39