Prof. Nancy Leong asked me to forward this query:
What is the best work on atheists are treated under the Establishment Clause,
state constitutions, and/or Title VII? I have been surprised by how little I've
found in law reviews, and wondered whether there is a legal scholar
Jonathan Rauch has a piece
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/07/the-great-secession/372288/
up
at the Atlantic advising conservative Christians to drop their push for
special accommodations from anti-discrimination. Two interesting things
leapt out at me. First, this comment from Ed
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/06/hobby-lobby-part-xvi-half-dozen.html
* Hobby Lobby Part XVI -- A half-dozen possibilities that shouldn't
surprise you in today's decision *
Marty Lederman
The Supreme Court will almost certainly issue its decision in *Burwell v.
Hobby Lobby* this morning (at
As we are all digesting the Hobby Lobby decision, let me ask a question.
The court suggests that a less restrictive means would be that the gov't
provides the contraceptives directly (similar to how it handles non-profit
objectors). What kind of government action would it take to institute such
a
Will do. I think overblown rhetoric from both sides was to be expected.
It was not my case; I just filed an amicus brief.
Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
I know. But it's not as if you were uninvolved, either in the legislation
or in the case. Congratulations are certainly in order!
Rich
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Douglas Laycock dlayc...@virginia.edu
wrote:
Will do. I think overblown rhetoric from both sides was to be expected.
As have I:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/06/hobby-lobby-part-xvii-upshot-of.html
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Friedman, Howard M.
howard.fried...@utoledo.edu wrote:
I have just posted some (probably controversial) preliminary thoughts on
Hobby Lobby on Religion Clause--
I think the least restrictive means analysis maximizes the possibility of a
win/win solution – at least it would if we did not have a dysfunctional
political system.
I had a couple of questions and thoughts. First, I read Alito to say that
corporations are a fiction, but we will treat them as
Alan Brownstein wrote:
I had a couple of questions and thoughts. First, I read Alito to say that
corporations are a fiction, but we will treat them as persons in order to
protect the rights of real persons – here the owners of the corporation. I
think it would have been clearer and more
With regard to Sandy’s comment that there isn’t a chance in hell of getting
funding from Congress to cover these methods of contraception:
Do we agree that a less restrictive means is available for purposes of RFRA and
(where applicable) constitutional analysis, even if the government
I think that it's utter cynicism to suggest possibilities that are politically
impossible. The life of the law should be experience and not arid logical
possibility.
Sandy
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 30, 2014, at 8:05 PM, Scarberry, Mark
With respect, I think Sandy's response (I think that it's utter cynicism
to suggest possibilities that are politically impossible. The life of the
law should be experience and not arid logical possibility) is
unacceptable. It was politically impossible to get southern states to
integrate their
The court accepts without inquiry the assertion that the complicity with evil
theory is the problem that leads to the substantial burden. It merely accepts
the claim that the adherents cannot comply because of the complicity theory.
It then bootstraps that there would be costs of
Sandy Levinson says, Same-sex marriage is quite unlike these,
incidentally, in that the Court can, should it wish to, make it a
possibility nation-wide simply by the 'performative utterance' of declaring
that such marriages can’t be barred by states. There will, even in
Oklahoma and North Dakota,
Sandy's idea that Brown did nothing is simply wrong. Brown altered American
culture in profound ways and set the stage for massive civil rights
demonstrations, since it signaled the end to legal segregation, and was
followed in two years by overturning Plessy. It led to litigation and
15 matches
Mail list logo
