became his view in Smith.
Eugene
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas
Laycock
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 7:24 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Scalia and Motive
century Anglican chapel, and such
chapels would not have included a cross. So the cross in that chapel is, as we
say in the piece, glaringly anachronistic.
Original message
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:56:24 -0500
From: Douglas Laycock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Scalia and Motive
Maybe Scalia thought the law in Kiryas Joel was facially neutral,
and that the law in Lukumi was facially discriminatory. His Kiryas
Joel comments begin with In order to invalidate a facially neutral
law . . . Then in Kiryas Joel, he might have been importing the
equal protection rule, from
.
Alan Brownstein
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 7:43 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: A Theory RE: Scalia and Motive
Maybe Scalia thought the law in Kiryas Joel was facially neutral, and
that the law
Scalia would say about the default placement
of
that cross on the altar table in the chapel at Willima Mary?
Original message
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:21:31 -0800
From: Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Scalia and Motive
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
) Lupu
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 9:29 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Scalia and Motive
So what do you expect Scalia would say about the default
placement of that cross on the altar table in the chapel at
Willima Mary?
Original message
Date
Chip Lupu writes:
I think we have to go back to Prof. Finkelman's realist
question: Justice Scalia has (both before and after Smith)
voted to uphold Free Exercise claims (Frazee, Lukumi, Locke
v. Davey), but I don't believe he has EVER voted against the
government in an Establishment
(Chip) Lupu
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 9:29 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Scalia and Motive
So what do you expect Scalia would say about the default placement of
that cross on the altar table in the chapel at Willima Mary?
Original message
Date
PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Scalia and Motive
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Not having read your article, I can't say much on the subject.
For everyone on the Court (except Justice Thomas) context -- especially
the historical meaning -- seems to matter
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ira
(Chip) Lupu
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 9:29 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Scalia and Motive
So what do you expect Scalia would say about the default
placement of that cross on the altar
Maybe his Kiryas Joel dissent accepts current EC doctrine arguendo,
though his preferred view (as revealed in his Lukumi and Edwards v.
Aguillard opinions) would render legislative motivation irrelevant in
cases of facially neutral laws?
David B. Cruz
Professor of Law
University of Southern
The very first line of his dissent in Edwards, as Douglas alludes to, seems
to deny the validity of considering motive:
Even if I agreed with the questionable premise that legislation can be
invalidated under the Establishment Clause on the basis of its motivation
alone, without regard to its
rights language in Smith as well.
Alan Brownstein
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of David Cruz
Sent: Mon 2/18/2008 6:37 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Scalia and Motive
Maybe his Kiryas Joel dissent accepts current EC doctrine
was inconsistent with the hybrid rights language in Smith as well.
Alan Brownstein
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of David Cruz
Sent: Mon 2/18/2008 6:37 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Scalia and Motive
Maybe his Kiryas Joel
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 7:24 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Scalia and Motive
I certainly agree that Smith is inconsistent with his Texas
15 matches
Mail list logo
