Yes, but . . .
What are the odds that SOC would recognize the Free
Exercise claim in FOP v. Newark?
And what are the odds that Alito will embrace the
O'Connor opinion rather than the Thomas opinion in Mitchell v.
Helms?
Very, very low on both accounts, I think --
especially the latter. Chip's correct -- no direct evidence; but I know
where I'd place my wager.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lupu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics"
<religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 10:40
AM
Subject: RE: Alito and Religion
have two observations:
1. None of them are about funding issues, so we don't know where
he stands on those (i.e., where would he have been in, for example,
Mitchell v. Helms?). (I think it is very difficult to extrapolate from any
other issues to funding issues.)
2. I have found no opinion of Alito's on Religion Clause questions in
which it is apparent that Justice O'Connor would have disagreed
with him. Does anyone on the list have a different take on that
comparison?
Chip
On 31 Oct 2005 at 9:48, Anthony Picarello wrote:
>
> There are even more to choose from:
> -ACLU v Schundler (rejecting EC challenge to holiday display under
> endorsement test) -ACLU v Wall Twp (rejecting EC challenge to holiday
> display for lack of standing) -Blackhawk v PA (upholding FEC challenge
> by Native American bear owner against PA
> policy forbidding keeping animals in captivity)
> -CH v Oliva (dissent in 6-6 split of 3d Cir en banc involving
> viewpoint discrimination
> challenge to prohibition on 1st graderTs choice to read BeginnerTs
> Bible story (containing no reference to God) in response to
> classroom assignment to pick favorite story).
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty
> Lederman Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 9:29 AM To: Law & Religion
> issues for Law Academics Subject: Alito and Religion
>
> As most of you probably already know, Judge Alito has written
> several very interesting opinions on the religion clauses,
> including, most notably, FOP v. Newark (1999), perhaps the
> strongest post-Lukumireading of the Free Exercise Clause in the
> courts of appeals, and Christian Evangelism Fellowship(2004),
> involving whether a religious organization was constitutionally
> entitled to hand out literature to elementary school students (and
> whether the school district would violate the Establishment Clause
> by permitting such activity).
>
>
Ira C. ("Chip") Lupu
F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law
The George Washington University Law School
2000 H St., NW
Washington D.C 20052
(202) 994-7053
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
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.
