Aren't there independent state constitutional law grounds involved in the Mt. Soledad case? If so, won't those grounds undermine the likelihood of the Supreme Court ever deciding it on the merits?
On 25 Jul 2006 at 12:23, Volokh, Eugene wrote: > I was thinking about the Mt. Soledad case, but it may not be > optimal from the conservatives' viewpoint, since it's an overtly > Christian symbol. The line Scalia drew in the Ten Commandments cases > seemed to be between the Christian symbols and > Judeo-Christian-Muslim(?) symbols, with the former generally not > allowed and the latter allowed. The Mt. Soledad cross could still be > upheld on some specific grounds, for instance that it's in context > likely to be seen as a war memorial and not just a cross (I'm > skeptical of that on the facts, but that's one possible argument) -- > but these grounds may be too fact-specific to warrant full Court > review. So I'd think that the conservatives on the Court might prefer > a more Ten-Commandments-like case. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > Friedman, Howard M. > > Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 12:18 PM > > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > > Subject: RE: The Roberts Court > > > > I would think that the Mt. Soledad Cross case might get to the > > Court. Justice Kennedy has already granted a stay of the trial > > court's order pending disposition of the appeal to the 9th Circuit. > > So at least one Justice has a strong interest in it. > > See > > http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2006/07/justice-kennedy-sta > > ys-order-t > > o-remove.html > > ************************************* > > Howard M. Friedman > > Disting. Univ. Professor Emeritus > > University of Toledo College of Law > > Toledo, OH 43606-3390 > > Phone: (419) 530-2911, FAX (419) 530-4732 > > E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ************************************* > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lupu > > Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 12:32 PM > > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > > Subject: RE: The Roberts Court > > > > All of the suggestions that have been made in response to > > this question (religion clause issues likely to come to the > > Roberts Court) have been insightful..But does anyone know of > > any real and sharp conflicts among the federal courts of > > appeals or the state supreme courts on the issues that have > > been identified? > > > > On the issues that I know best (those involving the > > faith-based initiative), I don't see such conflicts, > > primarily because the government defendants have rarely > > appealed the cases they have lost in the lower courts. The > > Iowa prison case will be an exception to that, but I don't > > foresee any sharply defined circuit court conflict coming out > > of that appeal. Perhaps an affirmance of the restitution > > order against InnerChange would produce a cert petition and a > > grant, because of the novelty of the question. > > > > Chip Lupu > > > > On 25 Jul 2006 at 10:32, Berg, Thomas C. wrote: > > > > > Direct aid to religious schools and institutions in > > general: there may > > > be five votes now for the Thomas plurality opinion in Mitchell v. > > > Helms that (at least) direct aid on an equal per-capita basis is > > > permissible. The direct-aid vs. private-choice > > distinction has been > > > relevant in litigation in the last five years with respect both to > > > education programs (e.g. Columbia Union College, 4th CIr.) and to > > > social services programs (e.g. Faith Works case, 7th CIr.), > > suggesting > > > that a program that tested the contours or continuing > > validity of the > > > distinction may be litigated soon. > > > > > > Tom Berg > > > University of St. Thomas School of Law (MInnesota) > > > > > > _____ > > > > > > From: Marc Stern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Tue 7/25/2006 9:01 AM > > > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > > > Subject: RE: The Roberts Court > > > > > > > > > > > > I would add that an early Establishment Clause challenge to > > RLUIPA's > > > land use provisions seems likely, as does renewed litigation > > > about charitable choice-i.e., the Iowa prison litigation. Perhaps > > > too the Court will look at the growing split about the ministerial > > > > > exception > > > to Title VII. Marc Stern > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] On Behalf Of Volokh, > > > Eugene Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:45 AM To: Law & > > Religion issues > > > for Law Academics Subject: RE: The Roberts Court > > > > > > I'd think that the government religious speech cases might be > > > coming > > > back, because the last attempted resolution (in the Ten > > > Commandments cases) is likely to prove quite unadministrable, and > > because there's a > > > decent chance that now there are five votes to jettison the > > > endorsement test. > > > > > > Eugene > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] On Behalf Of Tepker, > > > Rick > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 5:38 AM > > > To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > > > Subject: The Roberts Court > > > > > > > > > What issues concerning the First > > Amendment's religion > > > clauses are likely to be the earliest to come before the Roberts > > > Court? I'd appreciate any predictions or guesses from the list. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > <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. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > <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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ira C. ("Chip") Lupu > > F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law The George > > Washington University Law School 2000 H St., NW Washington D.C 20052 > > > > (202) 994-7053 > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 archive Ira C. ("Chip") Lupu F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law The George Washington University Law School 2000 H St., NW Washington D.C 20052 (202) 994-7053 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ 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.
