From: Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 10:44 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Strict scrutiny, from Sherbert/Yoder to RFRA
I disagree on very much with Marci, and I’m not sure that the
Sherbert/Yoder test would have been inapplicable to
test, if
we agree that “compelling interest” can’t mean here what it might mean in
other places?
Best,
Chris
From: Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 10:44 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Strict scrutiny, from Sherbert/Yoder to RFRA
214 P.3d 1004, 1008-09 (Ariz. 2009)). No confusion, as far as I
> can tell. So what then is wrong with RFRA’s compelling-interest test, if we
> agree that “compelling interest” can’t mean here what it might mean in other
> places?
>
> Best,
> Chris
>
> From: Vo
ics'
Subject: RE: Strict scrutiny, from Sherbert/Yoder to RFRA
I wanted to send out a thought relating to earlier posts by Mark Graber and
Eugene Volokh. They suggest an intermediate standard of review, somewhere
between strict scrutiny and Smith. I think they are right on the key point.
Alan is too modest for shameless plugs, but he has written very thoughtfully
about the need for more fine-grained analysis of free exercise questions, with
multiple tests depending on context, in an article in 2006 or so. I think it's
called Taking Free Exercise Seriously.
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 2
quishier standards that can easily be overcome by inevitable government
invocations of "security."
Eric
___
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
On Behalf Of Christopher Lund [l...@wayne.edu]
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 4:36 PM
To: &#
reaching, but object
to the linguistics of the test. That's what I'm not understanding.
Best,
Chris
-Original Message-
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Eric Rassbach
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 6:02 PM
To: Law &am
>
>
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
> [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Christopher Lund
> [l...@wayne.edu]
> Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 1:36 PM
>
> To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
> Subj
