Agreeing with Sandy, I would just add that none (I believe) have even been in
a courtroom prosecuting an ordinary person. Have any been involved in a plea
bargain? interviewed a witness in a holding cell? or a police station?
Except Ginsberg have have they dealt the day-to-day legal issues that most
Americans face?
________________________________
From: "Levinson, Sanford V" <slevin...@law.utexas.edu>
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Cc: CONLAWPROF <conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: Is Discussion of Justices' Religion "Off Limits"?
Paul is correct on all counts. I'd be even stronger in emphasizing that none of
the current justices has ever seen the inside of a courtroom while representing
an " ordinary" criminal defendant. Presidents disproportionately appoint
prosecutors and disdain
defense lawyers. To engage in zealous representation of a non-white-collar
defendant can put a serious crimp in one's hope to be appointed to the federal
judiciary.
Sandy
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 11, 2014, at 1:33 PM, "Finkelman, Paul" <paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu>
wrote:
Religion is not the only aspect of the Justices that should be considered. I
would argue that this Court is dramatically odd in many ways.
>
>
>Except for Thomas all of the Justices come from the northeast or California
>(or in Breyer's case both). There is no one from the midwest (although
>Roberts lived there a bit); One southerner (Thomas) even though the South has
>more than twice the population of the Northeast. There no Protestants even
>though they are the plurality of the nation.
>
>
>Moreover, I am pretty sure that no one on this court has ever run for office
>or held any elective office. I do not believe any have actually been involved
>in electoral politics at all. None (I believe) ever attended a public
>university of college; they are all graduates of private elite northeastern
>ivy league law schools. There is nothing wrong with those schools, but it has
>created a court that is in-bred.
>
>
>The justices are elite not only in education but in their distance from the
>average American (Ginsberg is the major exception, Sotomayor a bit) in their
>careers and professional backgrounds. There is no one like Warren or Black
>who dealt with law and the individual level as a local prosecutor or judge.
>No one like Powell or Blackmun who had local clients and were involved in
>business. No one like White who did something before law school. None have
>even served on a state court or been involved in state law.
>
>
>Historically the Court was "representative" body even if the justices were not
>elected. Today that is no longer the case. This is not ideological, but more
>about a culture that has separated the Court from the nation and its people in
>rather profound ways
>
>The position of the Court in Town of Greece illustrates this disconnect.
>Clearly, no one in the majority has ever represented someone before a city
>council, town council, or local government board.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>*************************************************
>Paul Finkelman, Ph.D.
>President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
>Albany Law School
>80 New Scotland Avenue
>Albany, NY 12208
>
>518-445-3386 (p)
>518-445-3363 (f)
>
>paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu
>www.paulfinkelman.com
>*************************************************
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>From: conlawprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [conlawprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on
>behalf of Richard Friedman [rdfrd...@umich.edu]
>Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 1:52 PM
>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
>Cc: CONLAWPROF
>Subject: Re: Is Discussion of Justices' Religion "Off Limits"?
>
>
>Well, one thing that might follow is a discussion of the extent to which we
>want the Supreme Court to be demographically representative of the nation. In
>the early years of the Republic, there was a clear understanding that it would
>be geographically representative -- one member from each Circuit. That
>eventually washed away, as geography became less salient. There are clearly
>some other demographic expectations now, concerning gender and ethnicity. I
>suppose the biggest group not represented on the Court now is Protestants.
>I'm not advocating religion being a criterion for selection, but I do think
>that's an interesting issue.
>
>
Rich Friedman
>
>
>
>
>On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 1:28 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: myronmoskovitz@gmail.comwebsite:
>>>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 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 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.
