Apologies for the shameless self-promotion --
My contribution to the SCOTUSblog symposium is here:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/02/symposium-how-to-understand-hobby-lobby/
I also have a couple of recent new posts up on Balkinization, concerning
various matters in Hobby Lobby's brief; links to
titude from every language, people, tribe and nation knowing
and worshipping our Lord Jesus Christ.
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 8:27 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
;
>
> To download my scholarly papers, please visit my SSRN
> page<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=342235>
>
>
>
> Blogs:
>
>
>
> Prawfsblawg <http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/>
>
> Mirror of Justice <http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com
onlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Brownstein
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 1:22 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: recommended Hobby Lobby posts
These are very helpful responses, Chip. Let me try to use them to identify and
clarify where I think we agr
s.ucla.edu]
on behalf of Ira Lupu [icl...@law.gwu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 3:44 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: recommended Hobby Lobby posts
Very good questions, Alan. Three replies (in reverse order of your questions):
1. Other rights conte
. School of Law
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 20, 2014 3:44 PM
>
> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 3:44 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: recommended Hobby Lobby posts
Very good questions, Alan. Three replies (in reverse order of your questions):
1. Other rights contexts (
issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: recommended Hobby Lobby posts
Very good questions, Alan. Three replies (in reverse order of your questions):
1. Other rights contexts (like free speech) where third party costs are
present -- Religion is different. The Establishment Clause is a limit on the
gove
Very good questions, Alan. Three replies (in reverse order of your
questions):
1. Other rights contexts (like free speech) where third party costs are
present -- Religion is different. The Establishment Clause is a limit on
the government's power to authorize one party to act on religious belief
Alan: I'll let Chip speak for himself, but I don't think the relevant
distinction is so much between employment cases and all others as it is
between cases *in the commercial sector *(especially claims brought by
for-profit enterprises) and all others. In *Piggie Park*, for example, the
harm was
With regard to Jim's post (and Chip and Bob's piece), I appreciate the argument
that in employment cases RFRA should be interpreted the same way that Title VII
has been interpreted --- essentially denying all RFRA claims that would impose
more than de minimis costs on third parties or the publ
: Thursday, February 20, 2014 1:49 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: recommended Hobby Lobby posts
As someone who was involved in RLPA in Congress from day one through many
hearings, only a tortured reading of history supp
oyees and present as normal the option of killing
>> innocent human beings. That's not my view of emergency contraception and
>> IUDs, but it is theirs.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would not want a decision in *Hobby Lobby* limited to those facts, and
>> I'm not
view of emergency contraception and IUDs, but it
>> is theirs.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would not want a decision in Hobby Lobby limited to those facts, and I’m
>> not sure where I would draw the line. But no one in 1998 and 1999 was
>> thinking about, or predicting
;m not sure where I would draw the line. But no one in 1998 and 1999 was
> thinking about, or predicting judicial reaction to, a case like this.
>
>
>
> Douglas Laycock
>
> Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
>
> University of Virginia Law School
>
> 580 Massie Ro
us exercise. As in
>> *Sherbert
>> v. Verner*, that economic damage is a burden on the underlying
>> religious exercise.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Third* is the testimony supporting RLPA in 98 and 99. I'll put that in
>> a separate post.
>>
>>
>>
&
Third* is the testimony supporting RLPA in 98 and 99. I'll put that in a
> separate post.
>
>
>
> Douglas Laycock
>
> Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
>
> University of Virginia Law School
>
> 580 Massie Road
>
> Charlottesville, VA 22903
>
>
t sure where I would draw the line. But no one in 1998 and 1999 was
> thinking about, or predicting judicial reaction to, a case like this.
>
>
>
> Douglas Laycock
>
> Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
>
> University of Virginia Law School
>
> 580 Massie Road
&g
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:33 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: recommended Hobby Lobby posts
I have some further posts up on Balkinization. More importantly, bot
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:33 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: recommended Hobby Lobby posts
I have some further posts up on Balkinization. More importantly
I have some further posts up on Balkinization. More importantly, both Chip
Lupu/Bob Tuttle and Doug Laycock have excellent posts up as part of the
SCOTUSblog symposium, which I commend to all of you:
Chip/Bob:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/02/symposium-religious-questions-and-saving-construction
21 matches
Mail list logo
