Sandy's very provocative post is here: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-elephant-in-room.html
As to which I would ask Sandy this: As I read your post, the "elephant in the middle of the room" is that there is an elephant in the middle of the room, and that the elephant makes decisions on how to act, in part, based upon its history and perspective as an elephant. OK, but what follows from that? Surely not that Presidents should appoint fewer elephants. If it's that Presidents should be indifferent as to nominees' religion, I wholly concur. (Indeed, Article VI virtually requires such indifference.) But that's not much of an issue these days, is it? Bush 43 did not appoint Roberts and Alito, for instance, *because *they were Catholic. He appointed them because he approved of their foreseeable legal views -- views that were in part shaped by their Catholicism, to be sure, but surely Bush was indifferent to the question of what the various sources of their jurisprudence might be. On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Levinson, Sanford V < slevin...@law.utexas.edu> wrote: > For what it is worth, I have an extended posting on this on > Balkinization, balkin.blogspot.com > > I strongly disagree with Larry Tribe on this issue. > > Sandy > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 11, 2014, at 1:10 PM, "Patrick Wiseman" <pwise...@gsu.edu> wrote: > > It's my guess that it is exactly that kind of reductionism to which > Prof. Tribe was originally objecting. > > Cheers > Patrick > What might follow is a serious discussion of whether, given life tenure > and no appellate review of their decisions, ever, the relationship between > values and law at SCOTUS is and always has been so egregiously out of whack > that we should recognize as Posner says the Court is a unique "political > court," or as I have written, it is not really a court at all. > > Best, > > Eric > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 11, 2014, at 1:31 PM, "Marty Lederman" <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > If I might be so presumptuous as to shift the question somewhat: > > *Of course* Justices' religion, and their experiences and learnings as > adherents of particular religions, affects their perspectives when they > decide cases, especially (but not limited to) cases involving religion > (e.g., Town of Greece; Hobby Lobby). If a religion had no such effect on > its adherents, it would hardly be worthy of the name, right? > > So I don't think discussions of this question are or should be "off > limits," yet I wonder . . . to what end? If we were all to agree that the > Catholic and Jewish Justices on the Court have very different perspectives > on these questions, in part (but not entirely) owing to their experiences > and understandings as Catholics and Jews, what, exactly, follows from that? > > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 1:17 PM, John Bickers <bicker...@nku.edu> wrote: > >> When a Justice notes in oral argument (Salazar v. Buono) that the Cross >> is not limited to Christianity but is simply the default memorial because >> it is "the most common symbol" of the dead, how can it not be the case that >> the justices' life experiences--jobs, schools, politics, faith--are playing >> a role in how they decide cases? >> >> John Bickers >> Salmon P. Chase College of Law >> Northern Kentucky University >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* conlawprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [ >> conlawprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Myron Moskovitz [ >> mmoskov...@ggu.edu] >> *Sent:* Friday, July 11, 2014 1:04 PM >> *To:* CONLAWPROF >> *Subject:* Is Discussion of Justices' Religion "Off Limits"? >> >> .... >> >> >> >> I replied that a judge's life experiences form at least part of his or >> her approach to resolving cases, and it is naïve to ignore this. Some >> Justices expressly pepper their opinions and speeches and books with this >> fact. Thomas does, Sotomayer does, and so do many others. A Justice of >> a minority religion (whether Judaism, Muslim, Hinduism, or any other) might >> have had life experiences that make him or her more likely to identify with >> citizens faced with government-sponsored explicitly-Christian prayers. >> >> >> >> Tribe apparently believes that such a discussion is "off limits." I >> don't. Who is right? >> >> >> Myron >> >> >> Myron Moskovitz >> >> *Professor of Law Emeritus* >> >> *Golden Gate University School of Law* >> >> Phone: (510) 384-0354; *e-mail*: myronmoskov...@gmail.com >> *website*: myronmoskovitz.com <http://www.myronmoskovitz.com/> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> To post, send message to conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see >> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof >> >> 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 conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof > > 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 conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof > > 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 conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof > > 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 conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof > > 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.
