Law.com - Religious Accommodation Dispute Over Mock Trial Schedule Resolved

[Joel Sogol]

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202430544846


___
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.

Re: ACLJ's Jay Sekulow Slams Judge Sonia Sotomayor on church stateseparation

[Don Byrd]

All I have found is her dissent in Hankins v Lyght. Not much for  
Sekulow to hang his hat on there. I would think he would be glad for  
her clear embrace of the ministerial exception, even if she doesn't  
sound thrilled about the scope of RFRA as the majority framed it.  
Hardly supports his claim, in my opinion.


http://www.bjconline.org/index.php? 
option=com_content&task=view&id=2398&Itemid=134


On May 7, 2009, at 3:12 PM, Marc Stern wrote:

The unanimous 10 commandments case Sekulow refers to is obviously  
Summum--and that case by its very terms decided no Establishment  
Clause issue. Nothing like honest reporting. As to her opinions,is  
he possibly referring the Bronx Household of Prayer case (in either  
the Court of Appeals or the District Court) ?.I don't think she sat  
in the 2nd Circuits foray into Christmas observances in the public  
schools.

Marc Stern
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw- 
boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of aa...@aol.com

Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 3:50 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: ACLJ's Jay Sekulow Slams Judge Sonia Sotomayor on church  
stateseparation


I thought members of this list might be interested in an interview  
of the ACLJ's Jay Sekulow that ran on Fox News last Friday  
discussing possible replacements for Justice Souter with much of  
the time spent discussing Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Although Sekulow  
never mentioned any specific opinion or statement from Judge  
Sotomayor, he claimed that she is "much further to the left than  
Justice Ginsburg or Justice Souter." Sekulow also referred to  
winning a recent ten commandments case before the US Supreme Court  
with a 9-0 vote and said he thinks the vote would have been 8-1 if  
Judge Sotomayor were on the Court because she has a "very, very  
strict view of church state separation."


You can find the full 7 minute interview on the Fox News website  
at: http://tinyurl/JudgeSlam


Or, if you forgive the self-promotion, you can see the relevant  
clips interspersed with critical commentary in my 4 minute 20  
second YouTube video titled "Fox News Slams Judge Sonia Sotomayor  
for Supreme Court?" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZXZAjtXJ5s


I thought it particularly appropriate to post my video to this list  
because I actually provide a link to one of my previous posts to  
this list in the video. See http://tinyurl.com/DishonestJay


My question for the members of this list:

Are there any specific opinions or statement from Judge Sotomayor  
that back up Jay Sekulow's characterization of her as "much further  
to the left than Justice Ginsburg or Justice Souter" or of her  
having a "very, very strict view of church state separation?"


Allen Asch

Big savings on Dell's most popular laptops. Now starting at $449!
___
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.

Re: Law.com - Religious Accommodation Dispute Over Mock Trial ScheduleResolved

[Brad Pardee]

In reading about this dispute, it seems that this entire situation exposes 
the fatal flaw in the thinking in Employment Division v. Smith.  It's clear 
that the rules regarding the mock trial schedule are generally applicable 
and neutral on their face.  However, the end result was discriminatory.  The 
Jewish students' choices were a) choose a different religion that wouldn't 
place the same requirements on them, b) violate the tenets of their faith, 
or c) forfeit the competition.  The National High School Mock Trial 
Championship's board could have chosen to accomodate their faith.  Their 
decision not to accomodate, although not intended to be discriminatory, had 
nonetheless an unmistakably discriminatory effect.


They were, however, using the same principles that undergird Smith.  Did the 
schedule cover all the competing teams?  Yes, it was generally applicable. 
Did they single out the Jewish faith (or any other faith) for differing 
treatment?  No, it was neutral on its face.  Prior to having their hand 
forced by the judge, were they a governing body who had the opportunity to 
choose to accomodate and chose not to?  Yes.


Now let's take what I wrote above and recast it according to Employment 
Division v. Smith.


Smith's choices were a) choose a different religion that wouldn't place the 
same requirements on him, b) violate the tenets of his faith, or c) forfeit 
his unemployment benefits.  The Oregon state legislature could have chosen 
to accomodate his faith.  Their decision not to accomodate, although not 
intended to be discriminatory, had nonetheless an unmistakably 
discriminatory effect.


This is what the First Amendment, as our guarantor of religious freedom, is 
suppose to prevent.  The fact that the logic of Employment Division v. Smith 
precludes it from offering the protection it is supposed to speaks volumes. 
The situation with the mock trial competition is helpful in exposing that 
weakness in the real world.


Brad Pardee 


___
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.