Maybe no one has had that influence in the in the religion area of con
law. Frank Michelman's early article on the Takings Clause is generally
regarded as having steered the Court and everyone else in the direction of
disappointed expectations (Michelman's term is "demoralization costs") as a
key factor in any analysis of regulatory takings claims. The details remain
ad hoc (and in my view always will) but there's one clear counterexample.
Marc R. Poirier
Professor of Law
Seton Hall University School of Law
One Newark Center
Newark, NJ 07102
973-642-8478
Steven Jamar
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Law & Religion issues for
Law Academics <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: cc:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Choper's Synthesis of
Religion Clauses Tests?
ts.ucla.edu
07/08/04 03:18 PM
Please respond to Law &
Religion issues for Law
Academics
I've not studied the effect of anyone's scholarship on the
jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, so my comments are merely
impressionistic.
I think very few of us ever have an effect that can be seen directly.
Even if we write something that is persuasive to some members of the
Court, it may well have the opposite effect on others.
I suspect attorneys sometimes read what we write and make arguments
inspired by it.
I know many of the attorneys on this list represent clients and write
briefs and cite to each other in briefs from time to time.
But I don't know of an instance when the Court has adopted any
particular paradigm proposed by a scholar and followed it in any formal
sense. Or at least not completely.
I've not seen Choper's paradigm followed explicitly. Since his work is
based in part on describing previous court decisions, one can certainly
see these principles being applied in varying degrees in opinions.
Steve
--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8428
2900 Van Ness Street NW
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar
"God, give us grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be
changed, courage to change the things which should be changed, and the
wisdom to distinguish the one from the other."
Reinhold Neibuhr 1943
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
