Assume that Cohen v. California had gone the other way, with Justice Harlan in dissent. For Eugene and others who defend the city in this thread: Could I constitutionally stand in front of the courthouse with a copy of the opinion plus a) a jacket saying "Fuck the Draft" or 2) a highly enlarged page of the first page of Justice Harlan's opinion that indicates the facts of the case?
sandy -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 5:15 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Government criticism of the Supreme Court onreligion-relatedmaterials I should think one answer would be clear: "Impeach Justice Souter" is hardly a cogent argument, or even much of a step towards a cogent argument. It would lead people to mock the city, rather than leading them to agree with it. If a city displays the documents that Justice Scalia cited, together with a plaque explaining the importance of our national tradition of recognizing God, and the city's view that this tradition shows the error of the Supreme Court's decision, that would at least be something of a cogent argument (though for many not a complete one). Justice Scalia's dissent is powerful precisely because it includes so much governmental religious speech from the Framing era and since. Seems to me that other dissenters should be free to make similarly powerful arguments. Eugene > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Tushnet > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 2:52 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: Government criticism of the Supreme Court on > religion-relatedmaterials > > > I haven't commented on this thread, mostly because I thought the > answer was pretty straight-forward from Justice Souter's invocation of > "common sense" as a legal technique in addressing this kind of > problem. > > I could get fancier about this (in the initial version, what does > common sense tell you about the purpose of presenting the protest in > this particular form? in the revised version, what does common sense > tell you about the choice of this particular form of "vivid" display > when other "vivid" displays of protest are clearly possible, like > displaying an "Impeach Justice Souter" banner?), but in some sensse > that would be inconsistent with the technique. > _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
