In a message dated 6/30/2005 5:04:01 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That it be recommended to the respective assemblies and conventions of
the United Colonies, where no government sufficient to the exigencies of their
affairs have been hitherto established, to
Here's a fuller version of the statement from Seamus Hasson of the Becket Fund
that Marty references below:
In recent times it has been fashionable for lawyers to debate whether we have a
“living Constitution.” This debate was settled. We have a living
Constitution. Her name is Sandra Day
Rick for question 2.
QUESTION TWO
According to the Washington Post, theBecket
Fund for Religious Liberty yesterday issued a statement "thank God she's
retiring." Presumably this sentiment is thefunction of theview that
Justice O'Connor's jurisprudence has harmed
Aha. Justice O'Connor has written two majority opinions dealing with
the Religion Clauses: Lyng (1988) and Agostini v. Felton (1997).
(Howard Freidman's blog forgets Agostini.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/02/05 8:50 AM
QUESTION ONE
Those of you who have already glanced over at Howard Friedman's
Seamus' statement talked about O'Connor's views under the Establishment Clause,
not under the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses. I think his criticism was
appropriate, because her Establishment Clause decisions were indeed
unpredictable and (at least) difficult to reconcile in a principled
It's also the case that after some hemming and hawing (along with others on
the Court), O'Connor came down firmly on the side of allowing religious
schools in school choice programs. She did still cast the key vote to limit
direct aid -- even when figured on a per-capita formula -- based on a
Dear Anthony,
You're right; I based my comment on the first statement posted, and the
second one, which you posted, does speak to the crucial categories of
religious liberty cases that were not mentioned in the first one. I am less
positive on government displays of creches and the 10
