Mark apparently wanted to recollect what it's like
to take a law-school exam: He just finished parrying 26 Questions
(many of them with mulitple subparts!) on Newdow in one hour, in a
public Q&A on the Washington Post website:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Tushnet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 2:20 PM
Subject: Kremlinology on Newdow
> historical) opinion upholding the Pledge to the "conservatives."
> O'Connor wasn't satisfied with it, and wrote her much more tortured (so
> to speak) opinion upholding the Pledge. Stevens told Kennedy that he
> (Stevens) didn't think that either of those opinions would get a vote
> from the liberals, which would lead to a 4-4 affirmance if Kennedy went
> with either Rehnquist or O'Connor. Better, Stevens said to Kennedy, to
> join me and the other liberals on a standing decision -- which I can
> write so that it has no implications for any other case. Kennedy went
> along with Stevens's suggestion. (That's why it took so long to get the
> standing opinion out -- for a while there was some chance that the
> decision would go on the merits. If I were Rehnquist, I'd be annoyed at
> Kennedy [if this scenario is right] and maybe Scalia for causing the
> possibility of a 4-4 split. But' he's a genial sort.)
>
>
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
