Judge Posner gives 1L lesson on oral advocacy to Notre Dame's lawyer on oral in
freedom of religion case. Pretty basic 1L stuff. Embarrassing for the
attorney — and his firm and school.
It is true that the oral argument (available online) is striking and revealing.
And, it is true that at least one person involved should be embarrassed.
Rick
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 14, 2014, at 5:49 AM, Steven Jamar
stevenja...@gmail.commailto:stevenja...@gmail.com wrote:
Judge Posner
I haven't listened to the tape and don't intend to. From the short written
story, probably they should both be embarrassed. The lawyer behaved badly,
and Posner over reacted.
Big firm lawyers sometimes expect special deference from lower court judges.
Sometimes they get it. Maybe he thought
A circuit judge being arrogant? Condescending? In control of his courtroom?
Interrupting counsel?
A judge trying to pin down a lawyer with a loaded question?
Seems pretty normal to me. If a judge asks a question with a hidden premise,
you can attack that premise, and the judge will
Yes, Scott, that is one part of ND's claim -- that the form not only
notifies the government and Aetna/Meritain of ND's objection, but also
sets in motion, or triggers or enables Aetna and Meritain to offer
independent coverage. As I've discussed at greater length here --
Who's talking about a deprivation of liberty, and why should that matter?
If you didn't receive social security benefits because your employer had a
religious reason for refusing to pay into the system, would you not be
injured, since social security is now something to which *everyone *is
I think women do have a right here, which is the right not to be discriminated
against on the basis of gender. We are way outside the bounds of
Hosanna-Tabor, so
the right not to be discriminated against based on gender stands. Marty's
point is correct that there is global equal treatment
While I am sympathetic to several of the arguments raised on Hobby Lobby's (and
Notre Dame's) behalf in these various cases, the argument that people are not
burdened in a legally cognizable way if they lose benefits to which they would
otherwise be entitled is not persuasive to me. As a
Obviously you can move from one state to another and still be within your
country (except maybe for Texans). Exile shouldn't be the price of religious
liberty, as of course Malla would agree.
Mark Scarberry
Pepperdine
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
Original message
I meant to say interested list lurker.
Bill Kelley, Chicago
On 2/14/2014 9:10 AM, Douglas Laycock wrote:
I haven't listened to the tape and don't intend to. From the short
written story, probably they should both be embarrassed. The lawyer
behaved badly, and Posner over reacted.
Big
Pardon the bad send.
Bill Kelley, Chicago
On 2/14/2014 7:57 PM, William B. Kelley wrote:
I meant to say interested list lurker.
Bill Kelley, Chicago
On 2/14/2014 9:10 AM, Douglas Laycock wrote:
I haven't listened to the tape and don't intend to. From the short
written story, probably
11 matches
Mail list logo
