Eugene reports, pursuant to a phone conversation with Davis's attorneys, that she will continue to press her RFRA claim, and insist that the licenses not be issued, because, even though her name is no longer on the licenses, the name of her *office *is!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/08/kim-davis-released-from-jail-plus-more-on-her-requested-accommodation/ It's just like the contraception cases -- whenever the government accommodates even the most implausible theories of complicity by eliminating the aspects of the scheme that the plaintiff asserted made her morally complicit, the plaintiff then unveils a new (and even more attenuated) theory of responsibility that is said not to be left unaddressed by the accommodation. In this way, the plaintiffs effectively exploit the fact that the governments in question (admirably) do not choose to challenge the sincerity of the ever-evolving theories of complicity. On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm pressed for time, so this is only a preliminary take, but thought it'd > be worth throwing it out there for reactions: > > > http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/09/further-strangeness-in-kim-davis-case.html >
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
