The animating question was that
prisoners file frivolous lawsuits on every possible issue. Many
examples were discussed, but no single example was the animating
question.
Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law
School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341
(phone)
512-471-6988
(fax)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Newsom Michael Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 9:52 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Nullifying RLUIPA That’s wrong. Communion wine was the animating question. Form can’t trump substance.
-----Original
Message-----
I think he is referring to the vote on the Reid Amendment, to exclude prisons from RFRA. That went down decisively but far from unanimously; 2:1 is a reasonable estimate. There might have been some discussion of communion wine; supporters of RFRA were pointing to an unreported Colorado case where a guy on work release was let out to attend church but forbidden to take communion. But I am as certain as it is possible to be 12 years after an event that there was no vote on communion wine.
Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax)
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm always learning something new. The Senate voted separately on communion wine in the context of debating RFRA? I thought I had read it all, but maybe not.
Marci
In a message dated 6/2/2005 4:55:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
_______________________________________________ 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.