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

Licensed Fiduciaries—I’m one—are individuals and business entities who hold a license, issued by a division of the Arizona Supreme Court. (My law firm is also a Licensed Fiduciary, and I am the responsible party under its license.) We provide services to people in need of assistance with personal and financial matters, and administer estates.

Courts appoint guardians, conservators, and personal representatives. A court will appoint as a guardian a person named in a will, and will also appoint as a personal representative someone named in a will. These individuals can charge a fee for their services, so long as they have been identified in the will. So, nothing about having Licensed Fiduciaries interferes with an individual’s wishes, most of the

The 150^th anniversary of the Civil War passed three years ago. It brought to mind another “Attic-Moment” involving Abraham Lincoln. Notes for a Law Lecture, written by Abraham Lincoln, are dated July 1, 1850, making them, now, more than 160 years old.

Age aside, the Notes are worthy of attention for attorneys and non-attorneys, for Mr. Lincoln focuses on four major, timeless themes:  Diligence; Litigiousness; Fees; and Honesty. He also offers a quick digression on the limited value of the silver tongue.

Mr. Lincoln calls diligence “the leading rule” for lawyers. Arizona attorney discipline reports bear out this opinion, as many modern-day discipline problems relate to a lack of diligence.[1] Mr. Lincoln offers several

Erwin Chemerinsky. Founding dean at the University of California, Irvine School of Law. Taught at Duke and USC. Wrote The Conservative Assault on the Constitution, which offers non-constitutional scholars lucid lessons about federal court actions over the past several years, and how they have further the Right Wing agenda. (Has also written many law books for law students.) Spoke at the Tucson Festival of Books in 2011 or 2012. (Losing track of years means nothing more than “losing track of years.”)

Yesterday, the Los Angeles Times published an op-ed by Dean Chemerinsky titled Much Depends on Ginsburg. In the piece, he argues strongly that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg needs to resign at the end of the Supreme