: Re: Hobby Lobby Question
Mark may well be right, but why would a clearly constitutional single payer
system elicit such disobedience (and arguments about complicity) but the
funding of deeply immoral wars and complicity with a number of terrible regimes
do not? This is meant as a serious
, July 7, 2014 5:12 AM
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby Question
Sandy,
Many people think millions of innocent babies have been intentionally killed.
It is nearly intolerable that a government would allow private persons to do
this (putting the child outside the protection of the law
] ON BEHALF OF Levinson,
Sanford V
SENT: Sunday, July 06, 2014 7:45 PM
TO: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
SUBJECT: Re: Hobby Lobby Question
Mark may well be right, but why would a clearly constitutional single
payer system elicit such disobedience (and arguments about
complicity)
but the funding
I suppose that Jon's is the 64 billion dollar question. I think the answer
would depend on the degree to which the single payer system was exclusive. If
one could still purchase supplemental coverage (for heart transplants, say),
then I assume the US could treat abortion as special. But if
: Hobby Lobby Question
I suppose that Jon's is the 64 billion dollar question. I think the answer
would depend on the degree to which the single payer system was exclusive. If
one could still purchase supplemental coverage (for heart transplants, say),
then I assume the US could treat abortion
I assume that the use of quotes around constitutional fact is meant to
highlight that the phrase is used as an analogy in this situation, which is
governed by a statute and not the Constitution. But partly for that reason,
I think the danger of a jury's refusal to follow a proper instruction on
for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
*Sent:* Monday, June 30, 2014 8:03 PM
*Subject:* RE: Hobby Lobby Question
With regard to Sandy’s comment that there isn’t a chance in hell of
getting funding from Congress to cover these methods of contraception:
Do we agree that a less
: Monday, June 30, 2014 7:20 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby Question
Art raises an interesting point. For better and worse, Brown in 1954 did
absolutely nothing, and Brown II settled for the (in)famous “all deliberate
speed.” It was the Civil Rights Movement
I have (perhaps incorrectly) assumed that when the Court says *it* should
not get involved in judging the sincerity of a religious belief, it is
expressing the proper division of labor between a court and the finder of
fact. It should be up to the jury (or the court wearing a fact-finder hat)
to
No. I do not reject the legitimacy nor the religiousity of the plaintiff’s
beliefs. Quite the contrary; I accept them and undertstand them. But I do not
accept that we should accept a complicity with evil claim when it becomes too
attenuated as it is here. The inquiry is attenuation, not
-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 9:32 AM
To: Law Religion Law List
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby Question
No. I do not reject the legitimacy nor the religiousity of the plaintiff's
beliefs. Quite the contrary; I accept them and undertstand them. But I do
Maybe this is a constitutional fact, like NY Times actual malice. We need to
be careful that a trier of fact does not conclude that a party isn't sincere
just because the trier of fact thinks the belief is so obviously wrong that a
reasonable person couldn't believe it.
Mark
Mark S. Scarberry
law,
consumer protection, environmental and safety law, human rights law, etc.
DG
From: Alan Brownstein [mailto:aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu]
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 5:08 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby Question
I think the least restrictive means analysis
@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby Question
1. Rhetorically, it was probably overdetermined that the Court grant the
rights to the corporation and not its “owners”.
By claiming that it was protecting the corporation, the Court avoided the
curious problem of why the FA
That is, of course, a deep problem. People can sincerely believe absolutely
crazy things.
Sandy
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 1, 2014, at 12:29 PM, Scarberry, Mark
mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edumailto:mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu wrote:
Maybe this is a constitutional fact, like NY Times actual
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby Question
With regard to Sandy’s comment that there isn’t a chance in hell of getting
funding from Congress to cover these methods of contraception:
Do we agree that a less restrictive means is available for purposes of RFRA and
(where applicable) constitutional analysis
to reform --Dick Gaughan (from the song,
Thomas Muir of Huntershill)
From: Arthur Spitzer artspit...@gmail.com
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2014 1:04 AM
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby Question
I appreciate
I do not understand why the complicity with evil rationale doesn't apply to
taxpayers ( like Thoreau). The argument against is either that it would unduly
burden the state to set up a c.o. system for tax protesters or that it would
invite strategic misrepresentation. Are these sufficiently
?
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Duncan
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 5:04 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby Question
The Court assumed that there is a compelling interest
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
on behalf of Volokh, Eugene [vol...@law.ucla.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 8:09 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby Question
The Court also said that there’s
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Friedman
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 4:36 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby Question
Hi, Doug. Congrats on the result! I haven't focused enough
...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Richard Friedman
*Sent:* Monday, June 30, 2014 4:36 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: Hobby Lobby Question
Hi, Doug. Congrats on the result! I haven't focused enough on it to have
any clear sense of the merits, but the outcome does
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* RE: Hobby Lobby Question
The majority opinion gives ammunition to the plaintiffs in the
nonprofit cases by reemphasizing that when the plaintiffs determine that a
certain complicity violates their beliefs, the courts shouldn't find
issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby Question
The entire solution for the non-profits was done by regulation. So I assume
that extending it to for-profits could also be done by regulation. Of course
there could be some hidden obstacle that I don’t know about.
The Court found the win
*Sent:* Monday, June 30, 2014 12:29 PM
*To:* 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'
*Subject:* RE: Hobby Lobby Question
The entire solution for the non-profits was done by regulation. So I
assume that extending it to for-profits could also be done by regulation.
Of course there could
...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Levinson, Sanford V
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 12:28 PM
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby Question
This is a good question. AS I read the opinion it tends to rely on the fact
that the insurance providers will be required
...@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Levinson, Sanford V
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 12:28 PM
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby Question
This is a good question. AS I read the opinion it tends to rely
. School of Law
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [
mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Levinson, Sanford V
*Sent:* Monday, June 30, 2014 12:28 PM
*To:* 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'
*Subject:* RE: Hobby Lobby
The court accepts without inquiry the assertion that the complicity with evil
theory is the problem that leads to the substantial burden. It merely accepts
the claim that the adherents cannot comply because of the complicity theory.
It then bootstraps that there would be costs of
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Arthur Spitzer
*Sent:* Monday, June 30, 2014 8:51 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: Hobby Lobby Question
With respect, I think Sandy's response (I think
Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby Question
Art raises an interesting point. For better and worse, Brown in 1954 did
absolutely nothing, and Brown II settled for the (in)famous “all deliberate
speed.” It was the Civil Rights Movement, Lyndon Johnson, and Congress that
fundamentally changed things
31 matches
Mail list logo
