I hope no one is seriously going to try to show that the Supreme Court
establishment clause decisions are consistent or even decided on the
basis of just one or a few principles consistently, even if the
results are inconsistent.
The Court has done worse in this area than ad hoc -- it has feigned
the use of principles and fidelity to precedent even as it does quite
the opposite.
I think many of the so-called tests used by the courts, or the
principles it brings to play in the cases, are not standard of review
friendly. They are either bright line or balancing of various factors
in their very nature. And the establishment caluse is, as the first
poster noted, largely structural as opposed to a grant of an
individual (or even group) right. This changes the calculus.
Steve
--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017
Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social
Justice http://iipsj.org
Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567
http://iipsj.com/SDJ/
"I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three
meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds,
and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits."
Martin Luther King, Jr., (1964, on accepting the Nobel Peace Prize)
_______________________________________________
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.
