Well, it's not my view of standing - it's the Catholic Charities
minority's. The five judges thought that San Franciscans didn't have standing
to challenge the resolution simply on the theory that it allegedly conveyed a
message of hostility to their religion, or made them feel like outsiders. That
strikes me as quite hard to distinguish from the message-of-hostility claim in
the Oklahoma litigation; likewise, that Oklahoma claim strikes me as hard to
support under any of the circuit cases on standing in such cases, other than
the Catholic Charities majority.
Now it's true that the Catholic Charities minority thought that
"the parties who are personally the subjects of the resolution, such as
Cardinal Levada, Archbishop Niederauer, and Catholic Charities, could
demonstrate cognizable harm," presumably because there was something
"particularized" as to them in the resolution. Maybe the minority was mistaken
on this - maybe under the logic of the opinion, the result should be the same
as to both rank-and-file Catholics and the Cardinal, Archbishop, and Catholic
Charities. But given the minority's distinction, it seems to me that
rank-and-file Muslims in Oklahoma are much closer to rank-and-file Catholics in
San Francisco than to the people and organization specifically named in the San
Francisco resolution.
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marc Stern
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 12:26 PM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: TRO against Oklahoma "no use of Sharia Law"
But the resolution was non-binding and unenforceable; how then, on your view
of standing are they harmed?
Marc D. Stern
Associate General Counsel
for Legal Advocacy
ste...@ajc.org
212.891.1480
646.287.2606 (cell)
_______________________________________________
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.
