>
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Steven Jamar wrote:
Jamar wrote:
>> Fun as this philosophical stuff is, I wonder how much it really matters
>> for the practical arena of the law. Leiter is making the case that it
>> matters a lot. And I'm becoming convinced that he might be right -
>> despite my gener
The ATT pledge did not require that people be able to work together. It required that they announce that they value each others' lifestyle-and it is hard to see why a company has an interest in its employees moral views. If this pledge were enforced evenhandedly, would it not require gays to value
the judge listed several things the company could
have done to avoid the situation, such as communicating better, getting
more details about Mr. Buonanno's concerns, clarifying what the company
intended by the language in question, accepting his pledge not to
discriminate, or even rewritin
gt; >
>> >Mr. Buonanno wasn't asking anything that would unduly burden the
>> company - such as granting him every Wednesday off for religious
>> purposes, Mr. Whitehead said.
>> >
>> >"All he was saying that he couldn't agree that he would value the
>> homosexual lifestyle ... which as a fundamentalist
My memory is vague on this, but didn't the Court pretty much say
in Webster that preambles and similar legislative recitals are
nonjusticiable? I think Stevens was the only one who wanted to consider
the Missouri legislature's statement about when life begins.
At 02:58 PM 4/7/2004 -050
My comment concerned Mr. Van Dyke, who, as a law student, ventured far
afield of his discipline, with predictable results. If I failed to make
that clear through the parenthetical reference below, I regret it; I
certainly was not commenting on Steve's post.
Michael R. Masinter
Many thanks to Jim for sending this along. Most of the constitutions on the list, of
course, are quite old. The youngest is Hawaii (1959). Two questions: Would there be
an Establishment Clause issue today if contemporary constitution drafters adopted such
language? (I put entirely to one si
In a message dated 4/7/2004 3:54:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BTW, it seems to me that having the state require an oath and having AT&T require an oath are different sorts of things. The state has more guns than AT&T does.
Of course, the State, at least since Barnette,
o avoid the situation, such as communicating better, getting
more details about Mr. Buonanno's concerns, clarifying what the company
intended by the language in question, accepting his pledge not to
discriminate, or even rewriting the language to make it less ambiguous.
at would unduly burden the
>> company such as granting him every Wednesday off for religious
>> purposes, Mr. Whitehead said.
>> >
>> >"All he was saying that he couldn't agree that he would value the
>> homosexual lifestyle ... which as a fundamental
.
>
>In the ruling, the judge listed several things the company could
>have done to avoid the situation, such as communicating better, getting
>more details about Mr. Buonanno's concerns, clarifying what the company
>intended by the language in question, accepting his pledge
make it less ambiguous.
---
This article was mailed from The Washington Times
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040407-124312-3261r.htm)
For more great articles, visit us at http://www.washingtontimes.com
Copyright (
ge listed several things the company could
have done to avoid the situation, such as communicating better, getting
more details about Mr. Buonanno's concerns, clarifying what the company
intended by the language in question, accepting his pledge not to
discriminate, or even rewriting the langua
Of course, to describe the policy at issue as progressive is to betray a certain bias about it. A bias contrary to the one I have revealed in responding thus. But discourse about the legal and constitutional issues at stake can so easily be clouded by the decision to characterize one side with
I hope that you did not mean to suggest that my colleague was being
arrogant, and not knowledgeable about the subject matter. I admit that
I don't know anything about it, but Steve does.
-Original Message-
From: Michael MASINTER [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 2
if they did.
>
>In the ruling, the judge listed several things the company could have done to
> avoid the situation, such as communicating better, getting more details about Mr.
> Buonanno's concerns, clarifying what the company intended by the language in
> question, accepting his pledge not to discriminate, or eve
I may have missed this in one of the other posts, but I received an email from outside this list that evidences the inclusion of such invocations of the Divine in constitutions of virtually every one of the fifty states. I can't tell from the source whether this reflects current, as well as hist
getting more details about Mr.
Buonanno's concerns, clarifying what the company intended by the language in question,
accepting his pledge not to discriminate, or even rewriting the language to make it
less ambiguous.
---
Actually, it was Mark Tushnet who coined the term "the lawyer as astrophysicist," I
think in an article he wrote in the late '70s.
I am pleased to join Jim Henderson in denouncing Supreme Court justices (and/or their
clerks) who pretend to be historians, though we might pick different cases as
I will be out of the office until April 14, 2004, and will not be checking email
regularly while I am away. If you need assistance prior to my return, please contact:
Kara Stein at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or (212) 891-6742.
___
To post, send message to [
in turn, perhaps Sandy will credit the late Mark DeWolf Howe for warning us about the dangers of trusting judges (particularly Supreme ones) who assume the role of historians.
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
___
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROT
Isn't this just one more example of what Sandy has called the law
professor as nuclear physicist -- the arrogance of assuming that because
we are lawyers (or in this case a law student), we are for that reason
masters of any discipline we find interesting at the moment? How likely
is it that Natur
It seems all in all that Leiter is mostly just giving Van Dyke too much credit on one point - that Van Dyke knows the difference between an "a priori" theory and a theory or perspective that does in fact underlie a field - for good and sufficient reasons - "a posteriori". Or perhaps Van Dyke was j
The Australian Constitution begins
"WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia,
Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God,
have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the
Crown of the United kingdom of Great Britain an
To All:
My colleague Brian Leiter asked that I share with the listserve his
comments on the philosophical mistakes in Lawrence VanDyke's posting to
this listserve regarding the debate about Intelligent Design and
methodological naturalism. You may find Leiter's comments here:
http://webapp.utexas.
To supplement Sandy's quotations from other nations' constitutions, here's the
preamble to the Irish Constitution of 1937:
"In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our
final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Michael McConnell has asked about the "first sentence" of Jefferson's Bill
Establishing Religious Liberty:
SECTION I.
Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but
follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath
created the
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/02-1624.pdf
- Original Message -
From: "Rick Duncan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: "under God"
28 matches
Mail list logo
