Read the legislative history behind RFRA from beginning to end --the
administration of illegal drugs to children by religious groupsis not
there. It is awholesale reconstruction of history to
believethat Congress considered the issue in any way, shape, or
form. The vast majority, i.e.,
: Breaking news in
federal RFRA case
Read the legislative history behind RFRA
from beginning to end --the administration of illegal drugs to children
by religious groupsis not there. It is awholesale
reconstruction of history to believethat Congress considered the issue in
any way, shape
to think that courts will not be able to sensibly
apply RFRA to take account of that interest.
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006
10:48 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Breaking news in
federal RFRA case
Read
First, children's issues with religious entities are not
"tug-on-the-heart-strings." They are real, and you betray your preference
for religiousentities at all costsover children's welfare with such
verbiage.
Second, how do you propose the court on remandtake into account the
fact that
Doug--The nine-day trial for the preliminary
injunctioninvolved only the information generated by the parties.
Thoseinterests in the United States who could have expanded the inquiry
had no way to become part of the discourse, as they would have in the
legislature. Thus, I am certain
In a message dated 2/23/2006 2:04:12 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't
know anything about the dangers of hoasca,
If hoasca contains
DMT, it is an extremely dangerous drug, potentially more powerful than
LSD. The dissociation and hallucinations it causes
in the general
population.
Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341
512-471-6988 (fax)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on
behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thu 2/23/2006 5:43 AMTo:
religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: Breaking news in federal
policy perspective, one that, apparently, is not shared by Congress?
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006
7:58 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Breaking news in
federal RFRA case
I hope the paragraph belowwas in
jest
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006
9:31 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Breaking news in
federal RFRA case
The government spent a year preparing for
the preliminary injunction hearing. The hearing itself lasted nine
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 9:31 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Breaking news in federal RFRA case
The government spent a year preparing for the preliminary
Point of clarification. What are "rates of psychiatric
incidents"?
Brazilian havemembers emailed me to tell me that the drugs are good
for everyone, and especially adolescents. (Indeed, they go beyond and
claim marijuana is also great for children.) What was the record in this
supposed
ter.
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 12:49
PM
Subject: Re: Breaking news in federal
RFRA case
I am not going to belabor the point, Marty, but I strongly disagree with
your interpretation o
Subject: Re: Breaking news in
federal RFRA case
Can anything be read into the unanimous
nature of the opinion and Roberts being its author...Is this some indication
that Roberts is going to be a consensus builder on at least certain issues?
Donald C. Clark, Jr.
Counselor at Law
, then the answer is to elect a different Congress.
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006
12:49 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Breaking news in
federal RFRA case
I am not going to belabor the point,
Marty, but I strongly disagree
I hope the paragraph belowwas in jest. Schedule Idrugs
are drugs that are considered to have no beneficial use and to be
dangerous. If children are drinking the DMTin the tea, they are the
victims of child abuse. I cannot believe thatanyone on this
listis willing to give a group a pass in
.
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 2/22/2006 7:57 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Breaking news in federal RFRA case
I hope the paragraph below was in jest. Schedule I drugs are drugs that are
considered
Here's the opinion:
http://scotus.ap.org/scotus/04-1084p.zo.pdf
It's rather remarkable -- and, in my humble
opinion, almost completely correct in all its particulars, especially (i)
explaining that the peyote exemption fairly forecloses the government's theories
about potential harms here;
Can anything be read into the unanimous nature of the opinion and Roberts
being its author...Is this some indication that Roberts is going to be a
consensus builder on at least certain issues?
Donald C. Clark, Jr.Counselor at LawBannockburn Lake
Office Plaza I2333 Waukegan RoadSuite
Does this decision affect Employment Division Vs.
Smith? The quote below makes it sound like it is revisiting the same
issue. One can only hope!
Brad
Mark Tushnet wrote on 02/21/2006 09:12:53 AM:
the Court ruled unanimously that the government may not ban
a religious
from using a herbal tea
uires the Government to address the
particular practice at issue.
- Original Message -
From:
Brad
M Pardee
To: Law Religion issues for Law
Academics
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 11:25
AM
Subject: Re: Breaking news in federal
RFRA case
Does this decisi
of Texas Law
School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341
(phone)
512-471-6988
(fax)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad M
PardeeSent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 10:26 AMTo: Law
Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Breaking news
es for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Breaking news in
federal RFRA case
This is a RFRA case, not a free exercise case, so it does
not affect Smith. But it does show that the Court is willing to take RFRA
seriously and enforce it according to its terms. It may also have a
persuasive effect on state courts in
With all due respect, Mark, Congress did not "choose" any policy with RFRA,
because it sought only to overturn Smith and never considered the vast, vast
majority of instances where RFRA would apply. This is delegation to the
courts ---which are not competent to make such determinations --
] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 11:19
AMTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: Breaking news
in federal RFRA case
With all due respect, Mark, Congress did not "choose" any policy with RFRA,
because it sought only to overturn Smith and never considered the
--
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 12:19
PM
Subject: Re: Breaking news in federal
RFRA case
With all due respect, Mark, Congress did not "choose" any policy with
RFRA, because it sought only to over
, February 21, 2006 9:49 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Breaking news in federal RFRA case
I am not going to belabor the point, Marty, but I strongly disagree with
your interpretation of the application of standards of review. The
strict scrutiny standard puts the courts
26 matches
Mail list logo
