I don't have much of a dog in this fight, but let me add three things:
1) I appreciate Marci's response. It's clear the privilege has indeed been
interpreted in a confined manner in many jurisdictions, even where the statute
itself is fairly broad. Too confined, perhaps, in my view. But I
Again, I’m late—sorry about that. But honestly people, it’s shocking how
many posts are written between the hours of 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. Who can keep
up?
So this may backtrack, but I’ve been thinking about the earlier posts in
this thread. Say there are no secular analogies to the
The Court did not realign any of the parties (somewhat to my surprise), but
consolidated amici briefing. Therefore:
-- SG brief in HL, and CW brief in CW, are due Friday, Jan. 10
*-- All amici, supporting any side, due Tuesday, Jan. 28* [shades of green
on color of briefs TBD, perhaps sometime
With all due respect to this entire thread, how many people have actually read
the state cases involving the priest-penitent privilege? There is a level of
abstraction
to this discussion that indicates to me probably not. As someone who has
actively been involved in arguing the issue in
I will confess to not having read the state cases, or at least not most of
them. But isn't the question *whether* the privilege is constitutionally
required? (Perhaps the fact that it is referred to as a privilege muddies
the waters.) If free exercise of religion includes receiving a sacrament,
As I've said earlier, I'm sympathetic to Richard's argument inasmuch as
confession is in fact part of a complex (required) sacramental process. But
the point is that (I think) that's relatively unusual, certainly not present,
so far as I am aware, in Judaism, for example. Am I correct in
