22 Jul 2014 4:38 pm
Except that the issue over the constitutionaliity of mandatory employer coverage was never in contention during the Hobby Lobby ruling. Her dissenting opinion had to do with the religious rights of employers superseding the rights of women. As mandatory employer coverage was not at issue, she had no basis for dissent or support and voiced none in her opinion, though the basis for all SCOTUS opinions were predicated on the fact that mandatory employer coverage is currently law.RichClem » 22 Jul 2014 4:24 pm » wrote: Except that Ginsberg supported mandatory employer coverage, so she's less thoughtful than you claim.