s.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>]
On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 4:11 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Scalia's views
n...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 22, 2016 4:11 PM
>
>
> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> *Subject:* Re: Scalia's views of RFRA?
>
>
>
> There was no compelling interest test
> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu <
> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> on behalf of Ira Lupu <
> icl...@law.gwu.edu>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 22, 2016 1:37:05 PM
>
> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> *Subject:* Re: Scali
: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 4:11 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Scalia's views of RFRA?
There was no compelling interest test at the time of Reynolds, so being a law
unto yourself would be the beginning and end of the game. RFRA adds a step to
the game. And with
t;
> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
>
> *Subject:* Re: Scalia's views of RFRA?
>
>
>
> The Scalia opinion in Smith of course did not anticipate a law like RFRA;
> instead, he was referencing practice-specific accommodations (like a peyote
> prohibition that
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu <religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
on behalf of Ira Lupu <icl...@law.gwu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 1:37:05 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Scalia's views of RFRA?
Th
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 3:37 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Scalia's views of RFRA?
The Scalia opinion in Smith of course did not anticipate a law
unless it is read instead to
> “make each conscience a law unto itself.”
>
>
>
> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-bounces@
> lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Steven Jamar
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 22, 2016 3:20 PM
> *To:* Law Religion & Law List
>
t;mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
> <mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 3:20 PM
> To: Law Religion & Law List
> Subject: Re: Scalia's views o
: Re: Scalia's views of RFRA?
I never read Smith that way — it was a straight up carte blanche to the
legislative and executive branches provided the law was neutral and generally
applicable — no weighing of competing interests involved.
Steve
--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar
Assoc. Dir. of Internati
...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of James Oleske
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 4:23 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Scalia's views of RFRA?
During the Holt v. Hobbs oral argument, in discussing the strict scrutiny
standard in RLUIP
During the Holt v. Hobbs oral argument, in discussing the strict scrutiny
standard in RLUIPA, Justice Scalia said the following:
"We’re talking here about a compelling State interest. *Bear in mind
I would not have enacted this statute*, but there it is. It says there has
to be a compelling State
I never read Smith that way — it was a straight up carte blanche to the
legislative and executive branches provided the law was neutral and generally
applicable — no weighing of competing interests involved.
Steve
--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar
Assoc. Dir. of International
13 matches
Mail list logo
