I think Turner requires satisfying some religious dietary requests, and I
think RLUIPA as interpreted by the Court in Cutter requires no more than
Turner. The opinion makes it clear that problems between inmates, budget,
and security are all important reasons a prison can turn down any
AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Nullifying RLUIPA
I think Turner requires satisfying some religious dietary requests, and I think
RLUIPA as interpreted by the Court in Cutter requires no more than Turner. The
opinion makes it clear that problems between inmates, budget
With all due respect, Doug, the degree to which the Court requires
deference in Cutter pushes RLUIPA a far distance from strict scrutiny as it is
used in constitutional law, as the list has discussed. The result is
intermediate scrutiny.
The phrase "compelling interest" generally means one
nothing,
which is why this thread is headed Nullifying RLUIPA.
Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341
512-471-6988 (fax)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sun 6/5/2005 2:24 PM
Therein lies the irony of Cutter.
Marci
In a message dated 6/5/2005 4:32:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If
RLUIPA enacted the Turner standard, it would accomplish exactly nothing, which
is why this thread is headed "Nullifying
R
There is no irony, only astonishingly aggressive spin and self-contradiction.
--Original Message--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
ReplyTo: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Sent: Jun 5, 2005 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: Nullifying RLUIPA
Therein lies the irony
to a tougher test on matters of this
sort, a vote was taken and the Danforth view prevailed.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 6:09
PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Nullifying RLUIPA
I'm
always learning
-6988
(fax)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Newsom
MichaelSent: Friday, June 03, 2005 9:52 AMTo: Law
Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Nullifying
RLUIPA
Thats wrong.
Communion wine was the animating question. Form cant trump
substance
)
512-471-6988 (fax)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Newsom Michael
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 9:52
AM
To: Law Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: RE: Nullifying RLUIPA
Thats wrong.
Communion wine was the animating question. Form cant trump
: Nullifying
RLUIPA
Doug is correct that many different hypos, and
actual denials of accommodations,were invoked. The communion-wine
hypo (and one apparent instance of denial of communion wine in a Colorado
prison) was mentioned by, e.g., Senators Hatch (139 CR S14363, S14368),
Lieberman
@lists.ucla.eduSubject: RE: Nullifying
RLUIPA
Question. In the mainstream
branches of Christianity, is there any holiday where persons have a religious
obligation to get drunk. I'm fairly, though not 100% confident that many
Jews believe there is a religious obligation to drink to excess on Purim
At 12:11 PM 6/3/05 -0400, you wrote:
Question. In the mainstream branches of Christianity, is there any
holiday where persons have a religious obligation to get drunk. I'm
fairly, though not 100% confident that many Jews believe there is a
religious obligation to drink to excess on Purim.
is overwhelming.
-Original Message-
From: Jamar Steve
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005
5:22 PM
To: Law Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: Re: Nullifying RLUIPA
I do think an inmate's dietary demands based on
religion could be denied. I just can't imagine a situation where they
would
I'm always learning something new. The Senate voted separately on
communion wine in the context of debating RFRA? I thought I had read it
all, but maybe not.
Marci
In a message dated 6/2/2005 4:55:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If there is any one
dietary
-1341 (phone)
512-471-6988 (fax)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 5:09
PMTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: Nullifying
RLUIPA
I'm always learning something new. The Senate voted separately on
communion
In response to Marci's query whethere there is some
limit on what prisons must do, of course there is. No one says the prisoners win every
case; that is herstraw man. Some diet claims are
insincere; some demand that the religious requirements be met in a different
way, although the prison
.
Marc Stern
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005
2:28 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Nullifying RLUIPA
In response to Marci's query whethere
there is some limit on what prisons must do
My observation was not intended to raise a straw man and is quite
sincere.Where is the limit for the prisons under RLUIPA when it
comes to diet? Here's the problem -- in this day and age, a prison could
easily have a mix of Buddhists, Hindus, Orthodox Jews, Nation of Islam members,
and
I'm just curious if anyone in the ivory tower believes that an inmate's
dietary demands, based on religion, can ever be denied under RLUIPA? (And
set aside the games-playing CONS and their steak and sherry-- I am talking about
sincere religious believers making a variety of dietary
approach is political, but
not legal, would you?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005
4:36 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Nullifying RLUIPA
My
observation was not intended to raise a straw man
, 2005 5:22 PMTo: Law
Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Nullifying
RLUIPA
I do think an inmate's dietary demands based on religion could be
denied. I just can't imagine a situation where they would indeed need to
be -- where the religious dietary demands
21 matches
Mail list logo
