Religion issues for Law Academics
SUBJECT: Hobby Lobby transcript
is here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-354_5436.pdf
[4]
Audio should be available later in the week.
Id be curious to hear what others who attended thought of the
argument.
Ill mention only
on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network.
From: Levinson, Sanford V
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 6:12 PM
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'
Reply To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby transcript
I stand thoroughly corrected! And, of course
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Hobby Lobby transcript
is here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-354_5436.pdf
Audio should be available later in the week.
I'd be curious to hear what others who attended thought
I think Mary is dead-on on this point and would love to see the court interpret
RFRA as inherently and unavoidably including some sort of balancing test that
takes into account not just whether the burden is substantial, but just how
substantial or intrusive it is, as well as recognizing that
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 7:44 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby transcript
Thanks very much to everyone for the responses. Some follow-ups:
1
: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 8:49 AM
To: Law Religion Law List
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby transcript
I think Mary is dead-on on this point and would love to see the court interpret
RFRA
] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 4:19 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Hobby Lobby transcript
is here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-354_5436.pdf
Audio should be available later in the week.
I'd be curious
In the context of discussing Marty's substantial burden argument, Justice Kagan
invoked Braunfeld. I made a similar comparison on the listserv back in
December:
Braunfeld might support Marty's argument. The government provides an option
to all employers: (1) pay a tax, or (2) provide
-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 4:19 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Hobby Lobby transcript
is here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13
-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Micah Schwartzman
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 4:30 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby transcript
In the context of discussing Marty's substantial burden argument, Justice Kagan
invoked Braunfeld. I made a similar comparison
, March 25, 2014 4:34 PM
To: Law Religion Law List
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby transcript
Where is the complicity burden? The financial burden can't be a burden. If
the alternative removes the complicity, and that alternative is available to
them, then where is the substantial burden on religion
...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Micah Schwartzman
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 4:30 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby transcript
In the context of discussing Marty's substantial burden argument, Justice
Kagan invoked Braunfeld. I made a similar comparison
an exam in
Chip's course :)
sandy
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 5:00 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby transcript
Braunfeld did not sell meat. From
But kosher clothes would have to avoid SHATNES.
- Original Message -
From: Levinson, Sanford V slevin...@law.utexas.edu
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 22:10:44 +
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby transcript
I stand thoroughly
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
on behalf of Ira Lupu [icl...@law.gwu.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:00 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby transcript
Braunfeld did not sell meat. From the opinion
. From: Levinson, Sanford VSent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 6:12 PMTo: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'Reply To: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Hobby Lobby transcript
I stand thoroughly corrected
, March 25, 2014 3:00 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: Hobby Lobby transcript
Braunfeld did not sell meat. From the opinion: Appellants are
merchants in Philadelphia who engage in the retail sale of clothing and
home furnishings within the proscription of the statute
'
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby transcript
One of the blue law cases did involve a kosher butcher - I think it was named
Crown Kosher
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network.
From: Levinson, Sanford V
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 6:12 PM
To: 'Law Religion issues
[religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
on behalf of Marty Lederman [lederman.ma...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 1:19 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Hobby Lobby transcript
is here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-354_5436.pdf
19 matches
Mail list logo
