But the resolution was non-binding and unenforceable; how then, on your view of standing are they harmed?
Marc D. Stern Associate General Counsel for Legal Advocacy ste...@ajc.org 212.891.1480 646.287.2606 (cell) <http://www.ajc.org/> NOTICE This email may contain confidential and/or privileged material and is intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, disclosure, copying, distribution or other transmission is prohibited, improper and may be unlawful. If you have received this email in error, you must destroy this email and kindly notify the sender by reply email. If this email contains the word CONFIDENTIAL in its Subject line, then even a valid recipient must hold it in confidence and not distribute or disclose it. In such case ONLY the author of the email has permission to forward or otherwise distribute it or disclose its contents to others. _____ From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 3:20 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: FW: TRO against Oklahoma "no use of Sharia Law" Well, the Catholic League minority reasoned that "the parties who are personally the subjects of the resolution, such as Cardinal Levada, Archbishop Niederauer, and Catholic Charities, could demonstrate cognizable harm," because they were singled out by name in the resolution; but that people who are simply offended by the condemnation of Catholicism do not have standing. I would think that the plaintiff in the Oklahoma case falls more in the latter category than in the former. From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marc Stern Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 11:36 AM To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: TRO against Oklahoma "no use of Sharia Law" The five judges who dissented on the standing issue stated explicitly that while the Catholic League did not have standing, the Catholic Church would have. Why isn't that caveat controlling here? Marc D. Stern Associate General Counsel for Legal Advocacy
<<image001.jpg>>
_______________________________________________ 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.
