In a message dated 6/22/2009 11:24:41 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, artspit...@aol.com writes:
was puzzled by the Judge's complaint about RFRA. It may have its problems, but the fact that it "imposes upon the courts of the United States the duty of 'striking sensible balances between ... competing ... interests,'” is hardly a legitimate ground for complaint. Judges strike (hopefully) sensible balances between competing interests every time they sit in equity. Federal courts don't sit in equity that often, do they? What the judge meant is that RFRA expands their policy making role radically from what he sees in his other cases. Why is that puzzling? Marci **************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000006)
_______________________________________________ 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.
