I'm under no illusion that such things could possibly have any influence on
the Court at this late date (majority opinions having been in circulation
for at least two weeks now), but thought it might be worth posting two
further entries on Hobby Lobby, in anticipation of the decision:
]
on behalf of Marty Lederman [lederman.ma...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2014 2:04 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Two more Hobby Lobby posts
I'm under no illusion that such things could possibly have any influence on the
Court at this late date (majority opinions having been
issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Two more Hobby Lobby posts
I'm under no illusion that such things could possibly have any
influence on the Court at this late date (majority opinions having been in
circulation for at least two weeks now), but thought it might be worth
posting two further
...@lists.ucla.edu]
on behalf of Marty Lederman
[lederman.ma...@gmail.commailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2014 2:04 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Two more Hobby Lobby posts
I'm under no illusion that such things could possibly have any influence on the
Court
/
Twitter: @RickGarnetthttps://twitter.com/RickGarnett
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Brownstein
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 1:22 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: recommended Hobby Lobby posts
and worshipping our Lord Jesus Christ.
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 8:27 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: recommended Hobby Lobby posts
Mark Scarberry writes We
-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:33 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: recommended Hobby Lobby posts
I have some further posts up on Balkinization. More importantly, both Chip
Lupu/Bob Tuttle and Doug Laycock have
-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:33 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: recommended Hobby Lobby posts
I have some further posts up on Balkinization. More importantly, both Chip
Lupu/Bob Tuttle and Doug Laycock have
:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:33 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* recommended Hobby Lobby posts
I have some further posts up on Balkinization. More
...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:33 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* recommended Hobby Lobby posts
I have some further posts up on Balkinization. More importantly
for Law Academics
*Subject:* recommended Hobby Lobby posts
I have some further posts up on Balkinization. More importantly, both
Chip Lupu/Bob Tuttle and Doug Laycock have excellent posts up as part of
the SCOTUSblog symposium, which I commend to all of you:
Chip/Bob:
http
:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:33 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* recommended Hobby Lobby posts
I have some further posts up on Balkinization. More
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: recommended Hobby Lobby posts
I have some further posts up on Balkinization. More importantly, both Chip
Lupu/Bob Tuttle and Doug Laycock have excellent posts up as part of the
SCOTUSblog symposium, which I commend to all of you
issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* recommended Hobby Lobby posts
I have some further posts up on Balkinization. More importantly, both
Chip Lupu/Bob Tuttle and Doug Laycock have excellent posts up as part of
the SCOTUSblog symposium, which I commend to all of you:
Chip/Bob:
http
With regard to Jim's post (and Chip and Bob's piece), I appreciate the argument
that in employment cases RFRA should be interpreted the same way that Title VII
has been interpreted --- essentially denying all RFRA claims that would impose
more than de minimis costs on third parties or the
Alan: I'll let Chip speak for himself, but I don't think the relevant
distinction is so much between employment cases and all others as it is
between cases *in the commercial sector *(especially claims brought by
for-profit enterprises) and all others. In *Piggie Park*, for example, the
harm was
Very good questions, Alan. Three replies (in reverse order of your
questions):
1. Other rights contexts (like free speech) where third party costs are
present -- Religion is different. The Establishment Clause is a limit on
the government's power to authorize one party to act on religious
Subject: Re: recommended Hobby Lobby posts
Very good questions, Alan. Three replies (in reverse order of your questions):
1. Other rights contexts (like free speech) where third party costs are
present -- Religion is different. The Establishment Clause is a limit on the
government's power
...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 3:44 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: recommended Hobby Lobby posts
Very good questions, Alan. Three replies (in reverse order of your questions):
1. Other rights
: recommended Hobby Lobby posts
Very good questions, Alan. Three replies (in reverse order of your
questions):
1. Other rights contexts (like free speech) where third party costs are
present -- Religion is different. The Establishment Clause is a limit on
the government's power to authorize one
, February 20, 2014 3:44 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: recommended Hobby Lobby posts
Very good questions, Alan. Three replies (in reverse order of your questions):
1. Other rights contexts (like free speech) where third party costs are
present -- Religion is different
I have some further posts up on Balkinization. More importantly, both Chip
Lupu/Bob Tuttle and Doug Laycock have excellent posts up as part of the
SCOTUSblog symposium, which I commend to all of you:
Chip/Bob:
] *On Behalf Of *Alan Brownstein
*Sent:* Monday, December 16, 2013 2:15 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* RE: Hobby Lobby posts
I also thought that Marty’s argument that there is actually no employer
mandate for RFRA purposes was extremely thoughtful and interesting
With respect to the first issue discussed by Eugene and Marty, here are the
average per-policy employer contributions in the United States reported by
the Kaiser Family Foundation:
Family policy - $11,237
Employee plus one policy - $7,797
Single employee policy - $4,266
Since no one else has mentioned it, I will:
Eugene recently published a remarkable series of posts on the case -- so
much there that virtually everyone on this listserv is sure to agree with
some arguments and disagree with others. It's an amazing public service,
whatever one thinks of the
In the interest of collecting arguments related to Hobby Lobby, here are links
to some posts that Nelson Tebbe, Richard Schragger, and I have written on
Establishment Clause arguments related to the case:
The Establishment Clause and the Contraception Mandate
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Hobby Lobby posts
Since no one else has mentioned it, I will:
Eugene recently published a remarkable series of posts on the case -- so much
there that virtually everyone on this listserv is sure to agree with some
arguments and disagree with others. It's
: Hobby Lobby posts
I much appreciate Marty's kind words about my posts, and I'm
very interested in his posts. The argument that there's actually no employer
mandate for RFRA purposes (the Part III post) strikes me as especially
interesting, though I'm somewhat skeptical about
28 matches
Mail list logo
