Rich wrote:
> If it is to any degree, is it because we're less concerned about > under-representation of Protestants than we are about > under-representation of women? Am I the only one who's noticed that the only religions even being discussed are Abrahamic? If under-representation is on the table, how about under-representation of the groups that are probably the most affected by City of Greece: atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Pagans/Neo-Pagans and other non-Judeo-Christians? - Renee Renee L. Cyr, Esq. Office of Steve S. Efron 237 West 35th Street, Suite 1502 New York, NY 10001 (212) 867-1067 -----Original Message----- From: Richard Friedman <rdfrd...@umich.edu> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Cc: Patrick Wiseman <pwise...@gsu.edu>; conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu <conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu> Sent: Fri, Jul 11, 2014 3:04 pm Subject: Re: Is Discussion of Justices' Religion "Off Limits"? Well, certainly recent Presidents have made some appointments of women in large part because they were women. I don't think anybody is denying the appropriateness of doing so. Is religion different in this respect? I wonder. If it is to any degree, is it because we're less concerned about under-representation of Protestants than we are about under-representation of women? Is it because we think that religion is less likely than gender to shape attitudes on matters of significance for a Supreme Court justice? Rich On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: Sandy's very provocative post is here: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-elephant-in-room.html As to which I would ask Sandy this: As I read your post, the "elephant in the middle of the room" is that there is an elephant in the middle of the room, and that the elephant makes decisions on how to act, in part, based upon its history and perspective as an elephant. OK, but what follows from that? Surely not that Presidents should appoint fewer elephants. If it's that Presidents should be indifferent as to nominees' religion, I wholly concur. (Indeed, Article VI virtually requires such indifference.) But that's not much of an issue these days, is it? Bush 43 did not appoint Roberts and Alito, for instance, because they were Catholic. He appointed them because he approved of their foreseeable legal views -- views that were in part shaped by their Catholicism, to be sure, but surely Bush was indifferent to the question of what the various sources of their jurisprudence might be. On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Levinson, Sanford V <slevin...@law.utexas.edu> wrote: For what it is worth, I have an extended posting on this on Balkinization, balkin.blogspot.com I strongly disagree with Larry Tribe on this issue. Sandy Sent from my iPhone On Jul 11, 2014, at 1:10 PM, "Patrick Wiseman" <pwise...@gsu.edu> wrote: It's my guess that it is exactly that kind of reductionism to which Prof. Tribe was originally objecting. Cheers Patrick What might follow is a serious discussion of whether, given life tenure and no appellate review of their decisions, ever, the relationship between values and law at SCOTUS is and always has been so egregiously out of whack that we should recognize as Posner says the Court is a unique "political court," or as I have written, it is not really a court at all. Best, Eric Sent from my iPhone On Jul 11, 2014, at 1:31 PM, "Marty Lederman" <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: If I might be so presumptuous as to shift the question somewhat: Of course Justices' religion, and their experiences and learnings as adherents of particular religions, affects their perspectives when they decide cases, especially (but not limited to) cases involving religion (e.g., Town of Greece; Hobby Lobby). If a religion had no such effect on its adherents, it would hardly be worthy of the name, right? So I don't think discussions of this question are or should be "off limits," yet I wonder . . . to what end? If we were all to agree that the Catholic and Jewish Justices on the Court have very different perspectives on these questions, in part (but not entirely) owing to their experiences and understandings as Catholics and Jews, what, exactly, follows from that? On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 1:17 PM, John Bickers <bicker...@nku.edu> wrote: When a Justice notes in oral argument (Salazar v. Buono) that the Cross is not limited to Christianity but is simply the default memorial because it is "the most common symbol" of the dead, how can it not be the case that the justices' life experiences--jobs, schools, politics, faith--are playing a role in how they decide cases? John Bickers Salmon P. Chase College of Law Northern Kentucky University From: conlawprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [conlawprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Myron Moskovitz [mmoskov...@ggu.edu] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 1:04 PM To: CONLAWPROF Subject: Is Discussion of Justices' Religion "Off Limits"? .... I replied that a judge's life experiences form at least part of his or her approach to resolving cases, and it is naïve to ignore this. Some Justices expressly pepper their opinions and speeches and books with this fact. Thomas does, Sotomayer does, and so do many others. A Justice of a minority religion (whether Judaism, Muslim, Hinduism, or any other) might have had life experiences that make him or her more likely to identify with citizens faced with government-sponsored explicitly-Christian prayers. Tribe apparently believes that such a discussion is "off limits." I don't. Who is right? Myron Myron Moskovitz Professor of Law Emeritus Golden Gate University School of Law Phone: (510) 384-0354; e-mail: myronmoskov...@gmail.com website:myronmoskovitz.com _______________________________________________ To post, send message to conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof 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 conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof 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 conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof 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 conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof 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 conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
