On Monday, March 14, 2005, at 04:53 PM, Anthony Picarello wrote:
Then, with the sole exception of federal constitutional amendments, religious groups can expect Establishment Clause challenges to their hard-won legislative accommodations: as "blind giveaways" if they are too broad (Cutter), as "denominational preferences" if too tailored (Kiryas Joel). They may also face separation of powers challenges on the (ironic) theory that in providing accommodations, the legislature is usurping the role of judiciary.
In other words, the unifying theme in this position is not deference to legislative acts, but hostility to legislative acts and judicial rules alike if they help religious litigants.
Hostility by whom toward whom? The ACLU and other groups defend religious people's rights as well as the rights of others, including in schools when teachers, principals or school boards utterly ban religious expression
--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8428
2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar
"Nothing that is worth anything can be achieved in a lifetime; therefore we must be saved by hope."
Reinhold Neibuhr
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
