the machinery of the state to compel the
believing employer to put up the money to pay for them.
Blessings,
Derek
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 10:22 AM
To: re
M
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
Well, if the claim of a religious burden is -- as the plaintiffs in virtually
all of these cases has alleged -- based upon the notion
aw
Yeshiva University
55 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
(212) 790-0215
hamilto...@aol.com
-Original Message-
From: Douglas Laycock
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics ;
hamilton02
Sent: Thu, Oct 4, 2012 12:09 pm
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To
Cathy Kaveny asked me to send along this reaction to some of the issues
we've been discussing:
Hi all,
This is a fascinating discussion. I'm sorry I can't participate more
because I have to get ready for a couple of talks.
So I'll limit myself to three quick points.
1. Is the cooperation permis
Marci, you are arbitarily singling out different steps in a parallel sequence
of events.
Thomas was asked to help assemble tank turrets. Others would put the turrets
into tanks. Still others, maybe, would use the tanks to kill people. Or maybe
not.
The bishops' view is that they are being as
12) 790-0215
hamilto...@aol.com
-Original Message-
From: Marty Lederman
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Sent: Thu, Oct 4, 2012 11:25 am
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
Marci: As this th
>
>
>
> Marci A. Hamilton
> Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
> Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
> Yeshiva University
> 55 Fifth Avenue
> New York, NY 10003
> (212) 790-0215
> hamilto...@aol.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Gaubatz, De
10003
(212) 790-0215
hamilto...@aol.com
-Original Message-
From: Gaubatz, Derek
To: religionlaw
Sent: Wed, Oct 3, 2012 2:47 pm
Subject: RE: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
Dear Marci,
The substantial burden theory here is
k [mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 4:44 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: 'M Cathleen Kaveny'
Subject: RE: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
A “following orders” d
edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 3:26 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: M Cathleen Kaveny
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial bu
or Law Academics'
Cc: 'M Cathleen Kaveny'
Subject: RE: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
Well, Marty's response at least seems to agree that saving money doesn't take
away the claim.
Does following
34-243-8546
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 03, 2012 4:57 PM
>
> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> *Cc
t includes it.
Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
From: b...@jmcenter.org [mailto:b...@jmcenter.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 1:23 PM
To: Dougla
22903
>
> 434-243-8546
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 03, 2012 3:26 PM
>
> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academi
mp; Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: M Cathleen Kaveny
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
If I understand the Catholic doctrine, Doug, in your hypothetical the church
will have chosen to save the $200,000 by
w-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Christopher Lund
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 9:41 AM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substanti
e, VA 22903****
>
> 434-243-8546****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* b...@jmcenter.org [mailto:b...@jmcenter.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 03, 2012 1:23 PM
> *To:* Douglas Laycock
> *Subject:* RE: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
> Mandate--interpreting &q
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
From: b...@jmcenter.org [mailto:b...@jmcenter.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 1:23 PM
To: Douglas Laycock
Subject: RE: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
Doug, tha
ilto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 10:22 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
The "burden" in these cases
w-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 10:22 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
The "burden" in these cases is a newly conf
w-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
hamilto...@aol.com<mailto:hamilto...@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 10:22 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial b
sts.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
The "burden" in these cases is a newly configured theory of burden, wherein the
believer is attempting to alter a n
w-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>]
On Behalf Of b...@jmcenter.org<mailto:b...@jmcenter.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 11:36 PM
To: Law & Reli
rd, there are special
problems with them being forced to provide it.
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 11:17 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religio
h we’re on.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 11:10 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Ac
ourt unanimously finds that to be a
burden.
Of course, none of this speaks to the sincerity or the compelling-interest
parts of it.
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 10:59 AM
To: Law
Marty Lederman
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 7:49 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
That's the point, Mark. The employer freely, and without objection, enters
la.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 03, 2012 7:49 AM
>
> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> *Subject:* Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
> Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
>
> ** **
Chris: You and Marc raise absolutely valid points about doctrine during
the Sherbert/Yoder era: The argument I'm suggesting (I'm not advocating it
yet -- merely thinking it through) is in at least some tension with the
sheet-metal/turrets portion of *Thomas*, and perhaps the burden discussion
in
gion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
That's the point, Mark. The employer freely, and without objection, enters
into an employment contract with the employee to pay wages in exchange
f Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 10:03 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
Well, if the claim of a religious burden is -- as the plaintiffs in
virt
ionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 7:49 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial
On Oct 3, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Scarberry, Mark wrote:
> But it simply is not the case that the alleged burden is use of the
> employer’s money mediated by independent decisions of others. It’s the
> requirement that the employer enter into a contract that subsidizes actions
> that the employer be
Re: Chris Lund's question about Lee -- The Amish take care of their own who
are disabled or no longer able to work. They didn't want to pay twice --
once for FICA contributions, and again in their own community. And the
FICA contributions were earmarked for just that use.
Employers objecting to
gion issues for Law Academics
> *Subject:* Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
> Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
>
> ** **
>
> Well, if the claim of a religious burden is -- as the plaintiffs in
> virtually all of these cases has alleged -- b
12 7:03 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
Well, if the claim of a religious burden is -- as the plaintiffs in virtually
all of these cases has alleged -- based
Can I ask a quick question for people like Marci, Marty, and others who
doubt the existence of a “substantial burden”?
What about United States v. Lee? The Amish object to paying Social Security
taxes. The government makes them. The decision to use the taxes for Social
Security is the gove
niversity
55 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
(212) 790-0215
hamilto...@aol.com
-Original Message-
From: Marty Lederman
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Sent: Wed, Oct 3, 2012 10:04 am
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting &qu
boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *b...@jmcenter.org
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 02, 2012 11:36 PM
>
> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> *Subject:* Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
> Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
&
: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
Doug,
Would your view -- expressed in the third paragraph of your post -- be
different if the HHS mandated contraceptive covera
Doug,
Would your view -- expressed in the third paragraph of your post -- be different
if the HHS mandated contraceptive coverage, preventive care, etc. actually saved
the employer money rather than cost the employer money? Would saving money
(i.e., reduced insurance premium) be a substantial burd
: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 2:32 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
Dear Marci,
If you look back at what I stated below, I was not using the definition of
“religious exercise” to alter what “substantial burden” means. Instead, the
point is that the Act provides a broad definition of what religious exercise
may not be substantially burdened. Therefore, the s
eGirolami
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 8:44 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
Chip raises a problem I've been having a hard time understanding too. A
"b
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 12:12 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
Doug--The government in Bowen require
15
> hamilto...@aol.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ira Lupu
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Sent: Tue, Oct 2, 2012 1:02 pm
> Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
> Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden&qu
atz, Derek
To: Religionlaw
Sent: Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:42 pm
Subject: RE: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
Dear Chip,
Thomas is not mentioned in the findings of RFRA, but it’s holding is certainly
incorporated into the definit
Avenue
New York, NY 10003
(212) 790-0215
hamilto...@aol.com
-Original Message-
From: Ira Lupu
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Sent: Tue, Oct 2, 2012 1:02 pm
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden
f Of Ira Lupu
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 11:10 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
The formal "findings" in RFRA reference Sherbert and Yoder, but
;
> Chip
>
>
>
>
>
> Marci A. Hamilton
> Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
> Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
> Yeshiva University
> 55 Fifth Avenue
> New York, NY 10003
> (212) 790-0215
> hamilto...@aol.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
&g
esus Christ.
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 11:10 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religiou
f an honest conviction that such work was forbidden by his religion."
Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
-----Original Message-
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lis
eligionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 5:28 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
Thanks for the clarification,
Academics'
Sent: Tue, Oct 2, 2012 10:43 am
Subject: RE: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
One does not have to believe that early abortions kill human beings to
recognize the profound significance of performing, a
55 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
(212) 790-0215
hamilto...@aol.com
-Original Message-
From: Douglas Laycock
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Sent: Tue, Oct 2, 2012 10:42 am
Subject: RE: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--int
5 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
(212) 790-0215
hamilto...@aol.com
-Original Message-
From: Marc DeGirolami
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Sent: Tue, Oct 2, 2012 11:45 am
Subject: RE: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantia
rden other than the degree to which the claimant is
willing to suffer for his or her beliefs?
Marc
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 11:10 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academ
Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
I think Lyng (which explicitly relies on Bowen) is indeed relevan to a
substantial burden analysis, because it states that even a potentially
disastrous burden is not the sort of burden
urt in this context is to determine
> whether there was an appropriate finding that petitioner terminated his
> work because of an honest conviction that such work was forbidden by his
> religion."
>
> Mark S. Scarberry
> Professor of Law
> Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
&g
quot;
Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
-Original Message-
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 5:43 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Sub
Law
Yeshiva University
55 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
(212) 790-0215
hamilto...@aol.com
-Original Message-
From: Douglas Laycock
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Sent: Mon, Oct 1, 2012 12:38 pm
Subject: RE: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challen
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
A characterization of abortion as "a killing," is a religious assessment, not a
medical or constitutional category.
A fetus i
Original Message-
From: Douglas Laycock
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Sent: Mon, Oct 1, 2012 12:38 pm
Subject: RE: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
Oops. Writing too fast.
What I
Rick,
I understand the first part -- on which much of the disagreement has centered.
(One can make the distinctions some are advocating, but should one is the hard
part (for some). Drawing the line elsewhere makes more sense to others of us.)
But I'm not sure how the second part works. If a
shiva University
55 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
(212) 790-0215
hamilto...@aol.com
-Original Message-
From: Rick Garnett
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Sent: Tue, Oct 2, 2012 8:19 am
Subject: RE: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--int
ogs:
Prawfsblawg
Mirror of Justice
-Original Message-
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 8:01 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Court Re
School of Law
Yeshiva University
55 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
(212) 790-0215
hamilto...@aol.com
-Original Message-
From: Douglas Laycock
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Sent: Mon, Oct 1, 2012 7:30 pm
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Ma
On the law we have, the employer buys the insurance policy. Different policies
cover different packages of benefits. These employers feel morally responsible
for the package they buy.
Of course they are generally entitled to define their own religious beliefs.
But in any event, that sense of
So it is just a question of line drawing after all.
A. Is it at taxation with taxes paying for things you don't like?
B. Or is it paying a salary or wages that will be used by some for things
you don't like?
C. Or is it providing mandated benefits for things you don't like?
D.
Thanks for the clarification, Doug. I had missed that particular part of
the exchange.
On the distinction you suggest, I think that the characterization of the
requirement as "purchasing a package of services" does not fairly describe
what's going on here. Or at the very least, this is nothing l
My post on the analogy between exemption from military service and exemption
from abortion was addressed to Marci's claim that there should be nothing
special about objection to abortion. That is a much broader claim than just the
ACA issue. And there are people in the pro-choice movement pushi
rotection.
> >
> >
> >
> >Marci A. Hamilton
> >Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
> >Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
> >Yeshiva University
> >55 Fifth Avenue
> >New York, NY 10003
> >(212) 790-0215
> >hamilto...@aol.com
> >
NY 10003
>(212) 790-0215
>hamilto...@aol.com
>
>
>
>
>-Original Message-----
>From: Marty Lederman
>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
>Sent: Mon, Oct 1, 2012 1:49 pm
>Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
>Mandate--in
ligionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 4:28 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
Chris-- I take it you are arguing that for
aw & Religion issues for Law Academics
Sent: Mon, Oct 1, 2012 1:49 pm
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
Rob's thoughts are well worth reading -- he puts his finger on a bunch of
questions that are
is a better
way to deal with the issue.
Alan
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 11:52 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challe
u
> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 8:34 AM
> To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
> Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
: Monday, October 01, 2012 4:28 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
Chris-- I take it you are arguing that for every religious prisoner with a
dietary restriction, all of them
..@aol.com
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Lund
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Sent: Mon, Oct 1, 2012 3:39 pm
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
Imagine an observant Jew wants a kosher mea
Best,
Chris
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 2:52 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpre
that's the church's position, why isn't that a substantial
burden?
Best,
Chris
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 2:52 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
t;
> ** **
>
> Blogs:
>
> ** **
>
> Prawfsblawg <http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/>
>
> Mirror of Justice <http://www.mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/> ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
> religionlaw-boun...@lists
..@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
hamilto...@aol.com<mailto:hamilto...@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 8:34 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Chal
aycock
>
> Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
>
> University of Virginia Law School
>
> 580 Massie Road****
>
> Charlottesville, VA 22903****
>
> 434-243-8546
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
amilto...@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 8:34 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting "substantial burden"
Religious groups and their supporters have been try
oad
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 8:34 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To AC
Religious groups and their supporters have been trying to water down
"substantial"
for years. The Alabama rfra doesn't include "substantial" and neither did the
failed North Dakota or Colorado
initiatives. One of the reasons the latter failed is overreaching, though it
is also attributable to
87 matches
Mail list logo
