Here is a potential source of
endless pointless debate. Two professors are working on a mathematical
model to rank the importance of Supreme Court decisions. They want to test
their model against the subjective assessments of con law professors. So
they asked me and I assume many others to
A fine list, to be sure, Doug. But there are a couple of very conspicuous omissions that I'm sure were intentional and as to which I'd love to know your reasoning.
The most important category, of course, is the "direct funding" cases, from Lemon (or even Allen) through Mitchell v. Helms,
There are more than twenty
important cases. I don't doubt the importance of anything onMarty's
list. But for the most part, I don't see what to displace to add
them.
Probably I thought too much about
theLemontest and neglected the one clear rule that
Lemon does still stand for: no
Would anyone add Pierce v. SOciety of Sisters or Meyer v. Neb. to this list?
Paul Finkelman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Douglas Laycock [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There are more than twenty important cases. I don't doubt the
importance of anything on Marty's list. But for the most
part, I don't see
I'ma little curious as to why Trans World Airlines v. Hardison hasn't made anyone's list...
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 14:01:07 -0500From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu; religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduCC: Subject: RE: Trivial PursuitThere are more than twenty
With respect to Pierce, Meyer, and Hardison -- I didn't even think about them.
Just flat forgot. Pierce is a very important case. And there's an argument to
be made for Hardison.
Douglas Laycock
Alice McKean Young Regents Chair in Law
The University of Texas at Austin
Mailing Address:
