Subscribe (Free) to
Daily or Weekly Newsletters
Post a Job

Featured Jobs

Census Coordinator

BPAS
(Utica NY / Hybrid)

BPAS logo

Senior Plan Administrator

Merkley Retirement Consultants
(Remote)

Merkley Retirement Consultants logo

Plan Installation Manager

July Business Services
(Remote / Waco TX)

July Business Services logo

Client Service Specialist

EPIC RPS
(Remote / Norwich NY)

EPIC RPS logo

Retirement Plan Administrator

Compensation Strategies Group, Ltd.
(Remote)

Compensation Strategies Group, Ltd. logo

Regional Sales Consultant

The Pension Source
(AL / AR / GA / KY / MS / TN / TX)

The Pension Source logo

Plan Administrator

DWC ERISA Consultants LLC
(Remote)

DWC ERISA Consultants LLC logo

Distributions Processor - Qualified Retirement Plans

Anchor 3(16) Fiduciary Solutions, LLC
(Remote / Wexford PA)

Anchor 3(16) Fiduciary Solutions, LLC logo

Defined Benefit Specialist II or III

Nova 401(k) Associates
(Remote)

Nova 401(k) Associates logo

Implementation Specialist

Nova 401(k) Associates
(Remote)

Nova 401(k) Associates logo

Retirement Combo Plan Administrator

Heritage Pension Advisors, Inc.
(Remote / Commack NY)

Heritage Pension Advisors, Inc. logo

Omni Operator

BPAS
(Utica NY)

BPAS logo

View More Employee Benefits Jobs

Free Newsletters

“BenefitsLink continues to be the most valuable resource we have at the firm.”

-- An attorney subscriber

Mobile app icon
LinkedIn icon     Twitter icon     Facebook icon

Observations on the Supplementary Briefings in Zubik v. Burwell
Prof. Michael McConnell in The Washington Post; subscription may be required Link to more items from this source
Apr. 14, 2016
"The government's position in [Zubik v. Burwell] just got weirder. It is increasingly difficult to understand why the government has been litigating so long and so hard to force the Little Sisters and other religious organizations to perform acts they regard as contrary to their faith, when it now admits (however grudgingly) that it all was unnecessary.... What did the government do in its supplemental brief? It hemmed and it hawed. It complained about the question, then it said no, then it said yes, then it spent pages asking the Court to do certain things if it lost. Meanwhile, the petitioners responded in their first paragraph: 'The answer to that question is clear and simple: Yes.' "

MORE >>

Please click here to report this link if it is broken (for example, if you see a "404 File Not Found" error message after you click on the linked news item's title).
An important word about authorship: BenefitsLink® created this link to the news item, but we are not the news item's author (unless expressly shown above).