RE: Breaking news in federal RFRA case

[marty . lederman]

Not sure I understand, Marc.  In O Centro, Roberts wrote that in Smith, "we 
rejected the interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause announced in Sherbert 
v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963), and, in accord 
with earlier cases, see Smith, 494 U.S., at 879-880, 884-885, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 
held that the Constitution does not require judges to engage in a case-by-case 
assessment of the religious burdens imposed by facially constitutional laws."

What's surprising about that statement?  Roberts didn't say that Smith had 
overturned Sherbert -- in fact, Smith expressly declined to do so -- but only 
that in Smith, the Court rejected the FEC "interpretation" announced in 
Sherbert.  Of course, Smith *did* reject Sherbert's "compelling interest" 
interpretation as a general test for the FEC, right?


 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Marc Stern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Did anybody else notice that the Chief Justice in Gonzales acknowledged
> that Smith overturned Sherbert, notwithstanding Justice Scalia's' claim
> in Smith that the court had never held that burdens on religious
> practice need compelling justification?
> Marc Stern
> 
>  
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 9:31 AM
> To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: RE: Breaking news in federal RFRA case
> 
>  
> 
> The government spent a year preparing for the preliminary injunction
> hearing.  The hearing itself lasted nine days.  The judge spent a year
> digesting the evidence and writing the opinion.  This was, in all but
> name, a full trial.  If there any evidence that religious use of this
> drug is dangerous in the quantities and the settings used by UDV, the
> government had every opportunity to provide that evidence.
> 
>  
> 
> There was in fact no evidence of the kinds of effects Bobby associates
> with LSD, in part because of the quantity of DMT naturally occurring in
> the leaves used to brew the tea is apparently very small, in part
> because the effects of the drug are responsive to setting, mood, and
> expectations, and religious use is not the same as party use.  There
> were studies in Brazil on thousands of worshipers; rates of psychiatric
> incidents were not significantly different from rates in the general
> population.  
> 
>  
> 
> Douglas Laycock
> 
> University of Texas Law School
> 
> 727 E. Dean Keeton St.
> 
> Austin, TX  78705
> 
> 512-232-1341
> 
> 512-471-6988 (fax)
> 
>  
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thu 2/23/2006 5:43 AM
> To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: Re: Breaking news in federal RFRA case
> 
> In a message dated 2/23/2006 2:04:12 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
>       I don't know anything about the dangers of hoasca, 
> 
>         If hoasca contains DMT, it is an extremely dangerous drug,
> potentially more powerful than LSD.  The dissociation and hallucinations
> it causes cannot only be acutely terrifying but lingering effects might
> continue some hours after the "trip" is over. I shudder to think the
> effects it might have on children. The effects of a sip or two of wine
> isn't in the same ball park as the effects of psychotropic drugs.
> 
>  
> 
> Bobby
> 
> Robert Justin Lipkin
> Professor of Law
> Widener University School of Law
> Delaware
> 
> 

--- Begin Message ---

Did anybody else notice that the Chief Justice in Gonzales acknowledged that Smith overturned Sherbert, notwithstanding Justice Scalia’s’ claim in Smith that the court had never held that burdens on religious practice need compelling justification? Marc Stern   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 9:31 AM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: RE: Breaking news in federal RFRA case   The government spent a year preparing for the preliminary injunction hearing.  The hearing itself lasted nine days.  The judge spent a year digesting the evidence and writing the opinion.  This was, in all but name, a full trial.  If there any evidence that religious use of this drug is dangerous in the quantities and the settings used by UDV, the government had every opportunity to provide that evidence.   There was in fact no evidence of the kinds of effects Bobby associates with LSD, in part because of the quantity of DMT naturally occurring in the leaves used to brew the tea is apparently very small, in part because the effects of the drug are responsive to setting, mood, and expectations, and religious use is not the same as party use.  There were studies in Brazil on thousands of worshipers; rates of psychiatric incidents were not significantly different from rates in the general population.    Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX  78705 512-232-1341 512-471-6988 (fax)   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu 2/23/2006 5:43 AM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Breaking news in federal RFRA case In a message dated 2/23/2006 2:04:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't know anything about the dangers of hoasca,         If hoasca contains DMT, it is an extremely dangerous drug, potentially more powerful than LSD.  The dissociation and hallucinations it causes cannot only be acutely terrifying but lingering effects might continue some hours after the "trip" is over. I shudder to think the effects it might have on children. The effects of a sip or two of wine isn't in the same ball park as the effects of psychotropic drugs.   Bobby Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware

_______________________________________________
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.

--- End Message ---

_______________________________________________
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.