OMG. That's a legal argument from the Department of Justice?
Excuse us. But, when an objection is raised, it only becomes an accommodation or a compromise when both parties agree to them.
“Apparently, the administration has decided that the mandate, as written and finalized, is constitutionally indefensible,” said Hannah Smith, senior counsel at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty “Its only hope is to ask the court to look the other way based on an empty promise to possibly change the rules in the future.”
The administration’s legal filing relies on an announcement by President Obama at a February 10 press conference, in which he stated that the rules may be changed in the future. But that announcement is not legally binding and does nothing to change the law on the books, which is already harming religious organizations like Belmont Abbey College, Smith explains.
Is it me, or is this a no-brainer?
A judge can't dismiss a lawsuit when one of the parties in the alleged compromise is still raising objections because there hasn't been a compromise or accommodation.
These are the legal braniacs of the President of the United States?
I'd expect better arguments from a high school debate team.