pm
Subject: RE: courts and lawmaking
Probably worth noting that there is an entire literature in political
science,
both with respect to American courts and foreign tribunals, on the
political
construction of judicial review. The general thesis, drastically
oversimplified
(and articulated
)
SUBJECT: Re: courts and lawmaking
Eugene- I take it you would not have overturned the Lochner line of
cases?
Your defense of unaccountable, robust policy making by judges would
revive the federal court's role in those cases and reverse the
reasoning of, eg, Williamson v lee optical
SENT: Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:29 PM
TO: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
CC: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
(religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu)
SUBJECT: Re: courts and lawmaking
Eugene- I take it you would not have overturned the Lochner line of
cases?
Your defense
Of Marci Hamilton
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:29 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: Law Religion issues for Law Academics (religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu)
Subject: Re: courts and lawmaking
Eugene- I take it you would not have overturned the Lochner line of cases?
Your defense
@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: courts and lawmaking
[snip] the issue is not the individual workers suing (perhaps why the Court
shouldn't entertain the Gedicks and Van Tassel theory this time), but a
minority religious belief suing.
___
To post, send message
. Saying their
decisions can be overturned does not speak to their competence.
Your small number of examples of supposedly legitimate policy lawmaking arenas
by courts hardly makes the argument that federal courts have general or broad
competence to make policy. The generalization
]
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 1:27 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: courts and lawmaking
Eugene-- you say that courts are competent to make public policy decisions.
One of the strongest arguments against the Lochner cases
, December 30, 2013 2:04 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: courts and lawmaking
Mark--There are Supreme Court cases saying that novelty is a warning of
potential constitutional violation. I was referring to those cases.
Wouldn't
We are a common law country where courts have always made law.
We are a country where courts have always interpreted the statutory and
regulatory law and unavoidably in the process “made” law.
We are a country where legislatures (including Congress) have the power to
write the law contrary to
for Law Academics
religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: courts and lawmaking
[snip] the issue is not the individual workers suing (perhaps why the
Court shouldn't entertain the Gedicks and Van Tassel theory this time
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of mallamud
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 3:59 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: courts and lawmaking
While I am not sure that I can sustain this view in the marketplace of ideas, I
think that free exercise means practice one's
Subject: Re: courts and lawmaking
From: phorw...@hotmail.com
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 23:17:10 -0500
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
CC: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Although I don't share this orientation, this is certainly an interesting
discussion. I'm wondering how New York Times v. Sullivan
I also used to think that RFRA calls for improper judicial lawmaking (though
not unconstitutional lawmaking). But I then changed my views, for reasons I
described in more detail in my Common-Law Model for Religious Exemptions
piece, http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/relfree.pdf.
Here's the short
-reform.com
-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edu
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Sat, Dec 28, 2013 4:50 pm
Subject: Courts and lawmaking
I also used to think that RFRA calls for improper judicial lawmaking (though
, it can legislatively exclude that subject from the RFRA, and if
it generally doesn't like judicial decisionmaking under RFRAs, it can repeal
the RFRA. But there is no basis, I think, for courts to say that it's
unconstitutional for legislative to give courts such lawmaking powers,
especially
from the RFRA, and if it generally doesn’t like judicial decisionmaking under
RFRAs, it can repeal the RFRA. But there is no basis, I think, for courts to
say that it’s unconstitutional for legislative to give courts such lawmaking
powers, especially in light of how much of American law has
, 2013 5:29 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: Law Religion issues for Law Academics (religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu)
Subject: Re: courts and lawmaking
Eugene- I take it you would not have overturned the Lochner line of cases?
Your defense of unaccountable, robust policy making by judges
17 matches
Mail list logo
