Re: Is Discussion of Justices' Religion "Off Limits"?
Rich wrote: > If it is to any degree, is it because we're less concerned about > under-representation of Protestants than we are about > under-representation of women? Am I the only one who's noticed that the only religions even being discussed are Abrahamic? If under-representation is on the table, how about under-representation of the groups that are probably the most affected by City of Greece: atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Pagans/Neo-Pagans and other non-Judeo-Christians? - Renee Renee L. Cyr, Esq. Office of Steve S. Efron 237 West 35th Street, Suite 1502 New York, NY 10001 (212) 867-1067 -Original Message- From: Richard Friedman To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Cc: Patrick Wiseman ; conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Fri, Jul 11, 2014 3:04 pm Subject: Re: Is Discussion of Justices' Religion "Off Limits"? Well, certainly recent Presidents have made some appointments of women in large part because they were women. I don't think anybody is denying the appropriateness of doing so. Is religion different in this respect? I wonder. If it is to any degree, is it because we're less concerned about under-representation of Protestants than we are about under-representation of women? Is it because we think that religion is less likely than gender to shape attitudes on matters of significance for a Supreme Court justice? Rich On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Marty Lederman wrote: 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 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" 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" 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 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
Re: New Twist On Challenge to ACA Contraceptive Mandate
>Does anyone have a problem with a father, on religious freedom grounds, being >able to deny his 18 and 19 year old daughters >on his insurance policy coverage for contraception that the government has >mandated generally? Those are the facts in this >case. I think that's part of the point that Marci was making -- and not only for an 18 or 19 year old. The father wasn't just saying he didn't want his girls to practice contraception; he said he wanted them to not have access to contraception. The former would be a particular medication used for a particular purpose; the latter, as I see it, is access to the particular medication, period. I can't imagine an insurer writing a policy, today, that makes a distinction between birth control pills that are prescribed as birth control and those prescribed for another stated purpose (in which case the doctor would need to call the insurer to get the prescription approved in advance, as is the case today for some specialty drugs). Yet it would seem to me that writing a policy that fails to provide for a woman's reproductive health needs -- such as in the case of someone needing hormonal "birth control" to control cyst formation, excessive bleeding or whatever other symptom -- would violate the law. And unlike having the power to say "I choose not to use birth control," one can't demand that one's body function correctly. One can't say, "I choose not to have cysts" or "bleed excessively during menstruation." Those conditions arise on their own, without warning, and need to be treated when they occur -- whether or not the insured expected to ever need hormonal "birth control" for a non-contraceptive purpose. Waiving one's potential access to hormonal treatments for these conditions would be, at best, ill advised, though I suppose that's not a constitutional issue. The other issue I see in the previous post is perhaps more relevant (and it might be the only one he intended to address) -- how can someone demand that mandated health coverage *not* be provided for someone else? It would seem to me that he can't -- any such waiver would need to be signed by the daughters themselves. The father would, of course, have the right to not carry his daughters on his policy if they refused to sign the waiver. (I'm not going to address the issues regarding coercion that may be ethically compelling but not directly relevant to this discussion.) - Renee Renee L. Cyr, Esq. Office of Steve S. Efron 237 West 35th Street, Suite 1502 New York, NY 10001 (212) 867-1067 -Original Message- From: Friedman, Howard M. To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Thu, Aug 15, 2013 10:48 pm Subject: RE: New Twist On Challenge to ACA Contraceptive Mandate Does anyone have a problem with a father, on religious freedom grounds, being able to deny his 18 and 19 year old daughters on his insurance policy coverage for contraception that the government has mandated generally? Those are the facts in this case. From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Len [campquest...@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 6:59 PM To: Ed Darrell; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: New Twist On Challenge to ACA Contraceptive Mandate >> As far as I understand the situation, no one legally objects to the health >> (unrelated to reproduction) use of the pill.<< If an employer objects to coverage for contraceptives, how is he to tell the difference without prying into his employee's medical condition? Isn't there a potential HIPAA violation in there somewhere? From: "Ed Darrell" To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 3:16:01 PM Subject: Re: New Twist On Challenge to ACA Contraceptive Mandate A good, too-often, too-badly needed reality check, Marci. Thanks. I still wonder whether there is any controversy here to adjudicate. Why cannot the plaintiff simply refuse the coverage? Or refuse contraception? I'm partly reminded by my 7th-Day Adventist end of the family, and my Uncle Roland Christian. He was a bit up in the hierarchy of the church, and as some Adventists do, he and his wife abstained from coffee. So, we were surprised at one visit when, at a restaurant, he made a relatively big deal about ordering a "therapeutic" cup of coffee after dinner. Eventually he explained that both of them had been diagnosed with low blood pressure at Loma Linda Hospital. Their Adventist physician gave them a choice of a pill, at about $1 a day each, or taking a cup of coffee in the morning, and one in the evening. Back then you could still get a decent cup at most restaurants for less than 50 cents. They chose the cof
