We live in “gotcha” times! Two comments made by prominent Republicans—one a Senator, and the other a judge—prompted my focus, although in any other week—or with several others during this week—the “gotcha” moments could have featured others.

Senator Mitch McConnell from Kentucky, the Senate Minority Leader whose party may take back the Senate this fall, while he finds himself involuntarily retired, said “that is not my job,” when asked what he would do bring jobs to a struggling county in Kentucky. Outrage, of course, ensued, with the editor who ran the story asserting that “he said that, and I swear those were his words,” and Senator McConnell offering a load of pablum about everyone’s responsibility for jobs, economic development, blah,

On Thursdays, Mark Rubin Writes usually focuses on general legal issues. Because I think Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. matters greatly, however, you’re getting a follow-up, after oral argument on Tuesday before the United States Supreme Court.

Here are some random thoughts. I have not read or listened to the transcript. I work—and was in trial for two days—and simply haven’t had the time. That said, I have heard and read several reports.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Employers Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith in 1990. The case involved the religious use of peyote. There, he wrote:

If the “compelling interest” test is to be applied at all, then, it must

On Tuesday—today, unless you’re reading this blog post on Monday evening—the United State Supreme Court will hear arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., No. 13-354. This case involves a corporation’s right to ignore certain parts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act aka the ACA and Ombamacare. Basically, David Green and his family—owners of the Hobby Lobby chain of craft stores—want to avoid the obligation in the ACA to include contraceptive coverage in all qualifying health insurance plans. More precisely, the issue before the Court is:

Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., which provides that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless

Trusts. Lots of varieties, and lots of mystery. Here’s some basic information.

Trusts exist for many reasons, most of them bound up in estate planning. Trusts vary in terms of their purposes and terms, but they all have about them a core concept:  they are tri-party agreements that involve fiduciary duties.

A tri-party agreement involves three parties. A trust always has at least one settler/trust, at least one trustee, and at least one beneficiary. The settlor—trustor is a synonymous term here—creates a trust by depositing now, or promising to deposit sometime in the future, often at death—money or other assets. The settlor is also almost always the person who has the trust agreement drafted.

Every trust has at least

Here’s NPR’s March 10, 2014 report on Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. U.S., titled Family Trust Wins Supreme Court Fight against Bike Trail. The case is all about railroads and easements, but it’s also about consistency.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for an eight Justice majority, with no concurring opinions. He describes the effort to build a transcontinental railroad, the giveaways from the federal government to the railroads, to allow the railroads to fund the construction of the rail beds and tracks (and make very wealthy the likes of Crocker, Gould, Harriman, Stanford, etc.)

The case focuses on an 1875 law that limited the railroad giveaways, due to public unhappiness with the robber baron wealth. Basically, the