Re: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of Hostility to Religious Expression
Title: Re: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of Hostility to Religious Expression I dont want to be too picky here, but Alito is saying impression of hostility, not necessarily hostility. So, in a sense, he does not disagree with Marty. Alito says impression, and Marty says misperception. A misperception is in fact an impression, but an inaccurate one. I do think that Alito is correct that there is an impression of hostility. Now whether that impression is justified is ever or always justified is another question. But clearly Alito is justified in saying that many ordinary people in fact have that impression. Frank On 11/4/05 4:31 AM, Marty Lederman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/04/politics/politicsspecial1/04confirm.html Alito believes that the Court's doctrine really gives the impression of hostility to religious speech and religious _expression_ and that the court had erred by going too far in prohibiting government support for religion at the risk of hampering individual _expression_ of religion? Even after Widmar and Mergens and Lamb's Chapel and Good News Club and Rosenberger, etc.? To be perfectly honest, I find this a bit disturbing -- particularly because it plays into the all-too-common public misperception that the Court's modern doctrine has been hostile to private religious _expression_. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. (Indeed, I think it's fair to say that the Court has done more to protect private religious _expression_ over the last 25 years than just about any other form of private _expression_.) What Alito appears to be getting at, of course, is not private _expression_, but govenmental speech (or government preferences for religious speech). In particular, he appears to have sent Cornyn signals that he thinks Santa Fe was wrongly decided -- which, if true, is very unfortunate, IMHO. Further evidence, I think, that one of the very first and most dramatic shifts of doctrine in the move from SOC to Alito will be w/r/t the Religion Clauses. Nominee Is Said to Question Church-State Rulings By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylLamp;v1=DAVID%20D.%20KIRKPATRICKamp;fdq=19960101amp;td=sysdateamp;sort=newestamp;ac=DAVID%20D.%20KIRKPATRICKamp;inline=nyt-per WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 - Senators of both parties said Thursday that Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/samuel_a_alito_jr/index.html?inline=nyt-per , President Bush's choice for the Supreme Court, had told them he believed the court might have gone too far in separating church and state. Senator John Cornyn, a Texas http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/texas/index.html?inline=nyt-geo Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said that Thursday in a private meeting Judge Alito expressed empathy for the impression that the court's decisions were incoherent in this area of the law in a way that really gives the impression of hostility to religious speech and religious _expression_. Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/westvirginia/index.html?inline=nyt-geo , said after his own meeting with the judge that he, too, was very satisfied that Judge Alito had said he believed the court had erred by going too far in prohibiting government support for religion at the risk of hampering individual _expression_ of religion. He indicated that people have a right, a very distinct right, to express their religious views, Mr. Byrd said. Although the senators said Judge Alito had not told them how he would rule in specific cases, their comments were the first indication of his views concerning one of the most contentious issues before the court. Many liberals and religious minorities view the court's jurisprudence on separation of church and state over the last 50 years as a bedrock principle of American life. But anger over the court's rulings against school prayer, government displays of the Ten Commandments and other public forms of religious _expression_ also played a major role in the birth of a conservative Christian political movement. The selection of Judge Alito, a conservative federal appeals court judge, has ignited passions on both sides of the aisle, in part because he would succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/sandra_day_oconnor/index.html?inline=nyt-per , who provided the swing vote on abortion rights and other issues. The intensity is so high that some members of Congress and outside groups worry that the divide over Judge Alito could lead to a filibuster. The so-called Gang of 14 - seven Democrats and seven Republicans who banded together this year to avert such a shutdown of the nominations process - met Thursday and publicly proclaimed their agreement intact, at least for now. Judge Alito's
Re: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of Hostility to Religious Expression
For not wanting to be picky, that was picking nits.But in the same vein, if what the court has done (as opposed to what the media and interest groups have done with what the court has actually done) is create that impression, and that impression is wrong, then the solution is to do something different to create a different impression.But Alito is, it seems to me, more likely to be simply trying to avoid accusing the sitting justices of subjective hostility while conveying the message that he thinks their decisions have been wrong and have had a hostile effect. A position touted on this list with distressing (to me) regularity.SteveOn Nov 4, 2005, at 9:21 AM, Francis Beckwith wrote: I don’t want to be too picky here, but Alito is saying “impression of hostility,” not necessarily “hostility.” So, in a sense, he does not disagree with Marty. Alito says “impression,” and Marty says “misperception.” A misperception is in fact an impression, but an inaccurate one. I do think that Alito is correct that there is an impression of hostility. Now whether that impression is justified is ever or always justified is another question. But clearly Alito is justified in saying that many ordinary people in fact have that impression. Frank -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-85672900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/"I do not at all resent criticism, even when, for the sake of emphasis, it for a time parts company with reality."Winston Churchill, speech to the House of Commons, 1941 ___ 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.
Alito v. the Grinch: Was Hostility Thread
Whatever the constitutional cognoscenti believe about the Court's EC jurisprudenceand religious hostility, many ordinary citizens reasonably view this body of law (including O'C's endorsement test) as hostile toward religion. I don't think Alito's opponents want to fight a confirmation battle over passive displays of Nativity Scenes, Ten Commandments monuments, and the Pledge of Allegiance. On these issues, Alito is likely tobe directly in the center of themainstream of the American public.Even student-initiated, voluntary prayer at football gamesis not an issue that will cause the American public to rise up against Alito. This is a great time to be having this debate, because we are about to enter the season in whichlocal governmentsare pressuredby the ACLU and similar organizationsto ban Christmas celebrations--even quite modest ones--in the public schools and public parks. For many people, the beginning of the Christmas season is the Friday after Thanksgiving. Not for me. I know that Christmas is upon us when I hear of the first lawsuit filed against a Nativity display in a public park or to enjoin a Christmas celebration in a public school. That's when I and the rest of Clan Duncan break out the egg nog, throw another log on the fire, and sing Silent Night. Rick Duncan Francis Beckwith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I dont want to be too picky here, but Alito is saying impression of hostility, not necessarily hostility. So, in a sense, he does not disagree with Marty. Alito says impression, and Marty says misperception. A misperception is in fact an impression, but an inaccurate one.I do think that Alito is correct that there is an impression of hostility. Now whether that impression is justified is ever or always justified is another question. But clearly Alito is justified in saying that many ordinary people in fact have that impression. FrankOn 11/4/05 4:31 AM, "Marty Lederman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/04/politics/politicsspecial1/04confirm.htmlAlito believes that the Court's doctrine "really gives the impression of hostility to religious speech and religious _expression_" and that "the court had erred by going too far in prohibiting government support for religion at the risk of hampering individual _expression_ of religion"? Even after Widmar and Mergens and Lamb's Chapel and Good News Club and Rosenberger, etc.? To be perfectly honest, I find this a bit disturbing -- particularly because it plays into the all-too-common public misperception that the Court's modern doctrine has been hostile to private religious _expression_. Nothing, of course, could be further from the tru! th. (Indeed, I think it's fair to say that the Court has done more to protect private religious _expression_ over the last 25 years than just about any other form of private _expression_.)What Alito appears to be getting at, of course, is not private _expression_, but govenmental speech (or government preferences for religious speech). In particular, he appears to have sent Cornyn signals that he thinks Santa Fe was wrongly decided -- which, if true, is very unfortunate, IMHO.Further evidence, I think, that one of the very first and most dramatic shifts of doctrine in the move from SOC to Alito will be w/r/t the Religion Clauses.Nominee Is Said to Question Church-State Rulings By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylLamp;v1=DAVID%20D.%20KIRKPATRICKamp;fdq=19960101amp;td=sysdateamp;sort=newestamp;ac=DAVID%20D.%20KIRKPATRICKamp;inline=nyt-per WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 - Senators of both parties said Thursday that Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/samuel_a_alito_jr/index.html?inline=nyt-per , President Bush's choice for the Supreme Court, had told them he believed the court might have gone too far in separating church and state.Senator John Cornyn, a Texas http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/texas/index.html?inline=nyt-geo Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said that Thursday in a private meeting Judge Alito expressed empathy for "the impression that the court's decisions were incoherent in this area of the law in a way that really gives the impression of hostility to religious speech and religious _expression_."Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/westvirginia/index.html?inline=nyt-geo , said after his own meeting with the judge that he, too, was "very satisfied" that Judge Alito had said he believed the court had e! rred by going too far in prohibiting government support for religion at the risk of hampering individual _expression_ of religion."He indicated that people have a right, a very distinct right, to express their religious views," Mr. Byrd said.Although the senators said Judge Alito had not told them how he would rule in specific cases, their comments were the first
Re: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of Hostility to Religious Expression
Title: Re: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of Hostility to Religious Expression Touche Steve. I guess not to be nitpicky is like with all due respect. :-) Take care, Frank On 11/4/05 8:50 AM, Steven Jamar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For not wanting to be picky, that was picking nits. But in the same vein, if what the court has done (as opposed to what the media and interest groups have done with what the court has actually done) is create that impression, and that impression is wrong, then the solution is to do something different to create a different impression. But Alito is, it seems to me, more likely to be simply trying to avoid accusing the sitting justices of subjective hostility while conveying the message that he thinks their decisions have been wrong and have had a hostile effect. A position touted on this list with distressing (to me) regularity. Steve On Nov 4, 2005, at 9:21 AM, Francis Beckwith wrote: I dont want to be too picky here, but Alito is saying impression of hostility, not necessarily hostility. So, in a sense, he does not disagree with Marty. Alito says impression, and Marty says misperception. A misperception is in fact an impression, but an inaccurate one. I do think that Alito is correct that there is an impression of hostility. Now whether that impression is justified is ever or always justified is another question. But clearly Alito is justified in saying that many ordinary people in fact have that impression. Frank -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/ I do not at all resent criticism, even when, for the sake of emphasis, it for a time parts company with reality. Winston Churchill, speech to the House of Commons, 1941 ___ 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. ___ 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.
RE: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of Hostility to Religious Expression
Title: Message -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Francis BeckwithSent: Friday, November 04, 2005 9:21 AMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of Hostility to Religious _expression_I dont want to be too picky here, but Alito is saying impression of hostility, not necessarily hostility. So, in a sense, he does not disagree with Marty. Alito says impression, and Marty says misperception. A misperception is in fact an impression, but an inaccurate one.I do think that Alito is correct that there is an impression of hostility. Now whether that impression is justified is ever or always justified is another question. But clearly Alito is justified in saying that many ordinary people in fact have that impression. I'm going to suggest that a large part of this misconception is the result of the almost unrelenting rhetoric we hear from the right claiming that the courts are hostile to religion, want to stamp it out from society, have "thrown God out of the schools" and so forth. I've had countless conversations with people who are shocked to find out what the courts have actually ruled on various religious _expression_ cases, people whose sole source for information about the courts are religious right leaders who engage in the most inflammatory rhetoric about "judicial tyranny" and "unelected judges" who are busy "destroying America's Christian heritage" and so forth. Inevitably, these folks are sure that no student can dare to speak about their religious views in a public school, and when I point out to them the various rulings by which the courts have explicitly protected the rights of students to choose religious subjects for papers, to use school facilities for bible clubs, to hand out religious literature to their fellow students, etc, some of them simply can't believe that I'm telling them the truth because they're so convinced by this extreme rhetoric. As Marty points out, the courts have done more to protect religious _expression_ in a wide variety of ways in the last few decades than any other form of speech, which I generally applaud as a good thing. But the fact is that most Americans know nothing at all about actual court rulings and get their information from less than reliable sources. And when their only source of information on this subject engages in inflated and wildly inaccurate rhetoric about the courts, it's small wonder that there is such a misperception out there. Ed Brayton ___ 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.
Re: Alito v. the Grinch: Was Hostility Thread
But Marci, O'C's endorsement test is not inclusive with respect to religion. It excludes all religious beliefs from being celebrated inthe public square, while permitting all secular beliefs to be celebrated. You don't show respect for all religious beliefs by throwing them out of the house. In any event, I am sure Alito's supporters would be delighted to have his confirmation turn on on his views about the EC going a bit too far in the direction of excluding religion from the public square. I can just see Sen. Kennedy protest that "Sam Alito's America is an America in which nativity scenes are permitted in public parks and schoolchildren are permitted to pledge allegiance to one Nation under God." If the argument against Alito is "Bah, humbug," Alito wins. Cheers, Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem with this debate is that those arguing for "hostility to religion," mean"hostiltity toward their religion, Christianity." O'Connor's endorsement test is sensitive to those who are religious(or not) and arenot in the favored majority. So her test in fact isnot hostile to religion, but rather makes room for a wide variety of believers. In the end, it is more respectful of religious belief than the "hostility to religion" view. The American people need to be educated on this crucial difference, and come to understand that the message they are receiving is a message about the right to dominate the public square vs. the requirement government remain sensitive toward all religious believers (in a country where the right to believe anything one wants is constitutionally absolute). While the public debate has beendominated in recent years by those who equate "religion" with "particularChristian religion,"and they have set the agenda to date, there are many indications that this equation is beginning to be challenged. It's a great time to have a debate about whether this is a country that believes in inclusion and respectfor all beliefs or the imposition on all of a particular religious group's views. If Alito's nomination spurs that kind of debate, it's good for everyone. Marci -Original Message-From: Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSent: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 07:35:28 -0800 (PST)Subject: Alito v. the Grinch: Was Hostility Thread Whatever the constitutional cognoscenti believe about the Court's EC jurisprudenceand religious hostility, many ordinary citizens reasonably view this body of law (including O'C's endorsement test) as hostile toward religion. I don't think Alito's opponents want to fight a confirmation battle over passive displays of Nativity Scenes, Ten Commandments monuments, and the Pledge of Allegiance. On these issues, Alito is likely tobe directly in the center of themainstream of the American public.Even student-initiated, voluntary prayer at football gamesis not an issue that will cause the American public to rise up against Alito. This is a great time to be having this debate, because we are about to enter the season in whichlocal governmentsare pressuredby the ACLU and similar organizationsto ban Christmas celebrations--even quite modest ones--in the public schools and public parks. For many people, the beginning of the Christmas season is the Friday after Thanksgiving. Not for me. I know that Christmas is upon us when I hear of the first lawsuit filed against a Nativity display in a public park or to enjoin a Christmas celebration in a public school. That's when I and the rest of Clan Duncan break out the egg nog, throw another log on the fire, and sing Silent Night. Rick Duncan Francis Beckwith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't want to be too picky here, but Alito is saying "impression of hostility," not necessarily "hostility." So, in a sense, he does not disagree with Marty. Alito says "impression," and Marty says "misperception." A misperception is in fact an impression, but an inaccurate one.I do think that Alito is correct that there is an impression of hostility. Now whether that impression is justified is ever or always justified is another question. But clearly Alito is justified in saying that many ordinary people in fact have that impression. FrankOn 11/4/05 4:31 AM, "Marty Lederman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/04/politics/politicsspecial1/04confirm.htmlAlito believes that the Court's doctrine "really gives the impression of hostility to religious speech and religious _expression_" and that "the court had erred by going too far in prohibiting government support for religion at the risk of hampering individual _expression_ of religion"? Even after Widmar and Mergens and Lamb's Chapel and Good News Club and Rosenberger, etc.? To be perfectly honest, I find this a bit disturbing -- particularly because it plays into the all-too-common public misperception that the Court's modern doctrine has been hostile to private religious _expression_. Nothing, of course,
RE: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of Hostilityto Religious Expression
I suspect that Alito's response was in large part a reaction to two cases that he heard on the Third Circuit: Child Evangelism Fellowship of New Jersey Inc. v. Stafford Tp. School Dist., 386 F.3d 514 (3rd Cir. 2004), and C.H. v. Oliva, 226 F.3d 198 (3rd Cir. 2000). In both, the government's lawyers -- presumably not ones who are easily duped by unrelenting rhetoric we hear from the right -- apparently argued that the Establishment Clause required government entities to discriminate against private religious speech (i.e., religious speech by students or by private organizations, not religious speech by school officials in their official capacity) in schools. In Oliva, the lower court seemed to at least partly endorse this view, though its comments are a little cryptic. (And of course in Oliva, the Third Circuit ultimately concluded that the school was entitled to discriminate against the religious speech, though it didn't hold that such discrimination was required.) I haven't read the briefs in those cases, but if I were the government lawyer making that argument, I'd certainly have something to point to in the Court's decisions -- for instance, the concurrences in Pinette, which seem to suggest that the Establishment Clause sometimes may require discrimination against private religious speech, and even the plurality in Pinette, which says that compliance with the Establishment Clause is a compelling interest justifying what would otherwise be a violation of the Free Speech Clause (rather than that compliance with the Free Speech Clause is an adequate justification for what would otherwise be a violation of the Establishment Clause). My guess is that if Alito did say that the Court's doctrine really gives the impression of hostility to religious speech and religious expression and that the court had erred by going too far in prohibiting government support for religion at the risk of hampering individual expression of religion -- I say if because my sense is that it's hard to be confident of the accuracy of such second-hand quotes -- he was likely alluding to what he saw while participating in those cases: The Court's doctrine has created, among many government officials (as well as among critics of those officials) an impression that private religious speech is in some measure constitutionally disfavored, and that private religious speech can be and perhaps must be subject to special restrictions. And that strikes me as quite a sensible criticism of the Court's doctrine, though of course there are also quite sensible defenses of the Court's doctrine. Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 8:42 AM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of Hostilityto Religious Expression -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Francis Beckwith Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 9:21 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of Hostility to Religious Expression I don't want to be too picky here, but Alito is saying impression of hostility, not necessarily hostility. So, in a sense, he does not disagree with Marty. Alito says impression, and Marty says misperception. A misperception is in fact an impression, but an inaccurate one. I do think that Alito is correct that there is an impression of hostility. Now whether that impression is justified is ever or always justified is another question. But clearly Alito is justified in saying that many ordinary people in fact have that impression. I'm going to suggest that a large part of this misconception is the result of the almost unrelenting rhetoric we hear from the right claiming that the courts are hostile to religion, want to stamp it out from society, have thrown God out of the schools and so forth. I've had countless conversations with people who are shocked to find out what the courts have actually ruled on various religious expression cases, people whose sole source for information about the courts are religious right leaders who engage in the most inflammatory rhetoric about judicial tyranny and unelected judges who are busy destroying America's Christian heritage and so forth. Inevitably, these folks are sure that no student can dare to speak about their religious views in a public school, and when I point out to them the various rulings by which the courts have explicitly protected the rights of students to choose religious subjects for papers, to use school facilities for bible clubs, to hand out religious literature to their fellow students, etc, some of them simply can't believe that I'm telling them the truth because they're so convinced by this extreme rhetoric. As Marty points out, the courts have done more to protect religious expression
RE: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of HostilitytoReligious Expression
My organization represented CEF in the Stafford case. Prof. Volokh is correct that the school district argued that the Establishment Clause required it to deny CEF benefits available to other community organizations. The essence of their argument was that they needed to protect little kids from religion. Greg Baylor Gregory S. Baylor Director, Center for Law Religious Freedom Christian Legal Society 8001 Braddock Road, Suite 300 Springfield, VA 22151 (703) 642-1070 x 3502 (703) 642-1075 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.clsnet.org -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 12:15 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of HostilitytoReligious Expression I suspect that Alito's response was in large part a reaction to two cases that he heard on the Third Circuit: Child Evangelism Fellowship of New Jersey Inc. v. Stafford Tp. School Dist., 386 F.3d 514 (3rd Cir. 2004), and C.H. v. Oliva, 226 F.3d 198 (3rd Cir. 2000). In both, the government's lawyers -- presumably not ones who are easily duped by unrelenting rhetoric we hear from the right -- apparently argued that the Establishment Clause required government entities to discriminate against private religious speech (i.e., religious speech by students or by private organizations, not religious speech by school officials in their official capacity) in schools. In Oliva, the lower court seemed to at least partly endorse this view, though its comments are a little cryptic. (And of course in Oliva, the Third Circuit ultimately concluded that the school was entitled to discriminate against the religious speech, though it didn't hold that such discrimination was required.) I haven't read the briefs in those cases, but if I were the government lawyer making that argument, I'd certainly have something to point to in the Court's decisions -- for instance, the concurrences in Pinette, which seem to suggest that the Establishment Clause sometimes may require discrimination against private religious speech, and even the plurality in Pinette, which says that compliance with the Establishment Clause is a compelling interest justifying what would otherwise be a violation of the Free Speech Clause (rather than that compliance with the Free Speech Clause is an adequate justification for what would otherwise be a violation of the Establishment Clause). My guess is that if Alito did say that the Court's doctrine really gives the impression of hostility to religious speech and religious expression and that the court had erred by going too far in prohibiting government support for religion at the risk of hampering individual expression of religion -- I say if because my sense is that it's hard to be confident of the accuracy of such second-hand quotes -- he was likely alluding to what he saw while participating in those cases: The Court's doctrine has created, among many government officials (as well as among critics of those officials) an impression that private religious speech is in some measure constitutionally disfavored, and that private religious speech can be and perhaps must be subject to special restrictions. And that strikes me as quite a sensible criticism of the Court's doctrine, though of course there are also quite sensible defenses of the Court's doctrine. Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 8:42 AM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of Hostilityto Religious Expression -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Francis Beckwith Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 9:21 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of Hostility to Religious Expression I don't want to be too picky here, but Alito is saying impression of hostility, not necessarily hostility. So, in a sense, he does not disagree with Marty. Alito says impression, and Marty says misperception. A misperception is in fact an impression, but an inaccurate one. I do think that Alito is correct that there is an impression of hostility. Now whether that impression is justified is ever or always justified is another question. But clearly Alito is justified in saying that many ordinary people in fact have that impression. I'm going to suggest that a large part of this misconception is the result of the almost unrelenting rhetoric we hear from the right claiming that the courts are hostile to religion, want to stamp it out from society, have thrown God out of the schools and so forth. I've had countless conversations with people who are shocked to find out what the courts have actually ruled on various religious expression
RE: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of Hostilityto Religious Expression
I agree with Eugene that Judge Alito seems to be a strong defender of the free speech rights of private religious speakers. That is a strong pont in his favor. But I think Marty is right that the Court has already made great strides toward protecting private religious _expression_. There is still ground to be covered here (Oliva and Davey are examples), but one of the great civil liberties victories of my lifetime has been the Court's acceptance of equal access for private religious speakers. But Judge Alito, like Justice Scalia, may also believe that the Lemon testand the endorsement testhave gonetoo far in the direction of hostility towardmere government recognition of religion and religious holidays. If the state can celebrate gay pride week, and Cinco de Mayo, and Earth Day, andpork producers day on the public square, then why can't it alsocelebrate Christmas or Chanukah or Ramadan with a passive dispaly in the public parks or a party at school? Rick Duncan "Volokh, Eugene" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suspect that Alito's response was in large part a reaction totwo cases that he heard on the Third Circuit: Child EvangelismFellowship of New Jersey Inc. v. Stafford Tp. School Dist., 386 F.3d 514(3rd Cir. 2004), and C.H. v. Oliva, 226 F.3d 198 (3rd Cir. 2000).In both, the government's lawyers -- presumably not ones who areeasily duped by "unrelenting rhetoric we hear from the right" --apparently argued that the Establishment Clause required governmententities to discriminate against private religious speech (i.e.,religious speech by students or by private organizations, not religiousspeech by school officials in their official capacity) in schools. InOliva, the lower court seemed to at least partly endorse this view,though its comments are a little cryptic. (And of course in Oliva, theThird Circuit ultimately concluded tha! t the school was entitled todiscriminate against the religious speech, though it didn't hold thatsuch discrimination was required.) I haven't read the briefs in thosecases, but if I were the government lawyer making that argument, I'dcertainly have something to point to in the Court's decisions -- forinstance, the concurrences in Pinette, which seem to suggest that theEstablishment Clause sometimes may require discrimination againstprivate religious speech, and even the plurality in Pinette, which saysthat compliance with the Establishment Clause is a compelling interestjustifying what would otherwise be a violation of the Free Speech Clause(rather than that compliance with the Free Speech Clause is an adequatejustification for what would otherwise be a violation of theEstablishment Clause).My guess is that if Alito did say that the Court's doctrine"really gives the impression of hostility to religious speech andreli! gious _expression_" and that "the court had erred by going too far inprohibiting government support for religion at the risk of hamperingindividual _expression_ of religion" -- I say "if" because my sense isthat it's hard to be confident of the accuracy of such second-handquotes -- he was likely alluding to what he saw while participating inthose cases: The Court's doctrine has created, among many governmentofficials (as well as among critics of those officials) an impressionthat private religious speech is in some measure constitutionallydisfavored, and that private religious speech can be and perhaps must besubject to special restrictions. And that strikes me as quite asensible criticism of the Court's doctrine, though of course there arealso quite sensible defenses of the Court's doctrine.Eugene-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf O! f Ed BraytonSent: Friday, November 04, 2005 8:42 AMTo: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'Subject: RE: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression ofHostilityto Religious _expression_-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of FrancisBeckwithSent: Friday, November 04, 2005 9:21 AMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression ofHostility to Religious _expression_I don't want to be too picky here, but Alito is saying "impression ofhostility," not necessarily "hostility." So, in a sense, he does notdisagree with Marty. Alito says "impression," and Marty says"misperception." A misperception is in fact an impression, but aninaccurate one.I do think that Alito is correct that there is an impression ofhostility. Now whether that impression is justified is ever or alwaysjustified is another question. But clearly Alito is justified in sayingthat many ordinary people in fact have that impression.I'm going to suggest that a large part of this misconception is theresult of the almost unrelenting rhetoric we hear from the rightclaiming that the courts are hostile to religion, want to stamp it outfrom society, have "thrown God out of the schools" and so forth. I'vehad countless
Re: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of HostilitytoReligious ...
In a message dated 11/4/2005 12:32:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My organization represented CEF in the Stafford case. Prof. Volokh iscorrect that the school district argued that the Establishment Clauserequired it to deny CEF benefits available to other community organizations.The essence of their argument was that they needed to protect little kidsfrom religion. For anyone with the time and energy, read the brief of the State of New York in the United States Supreme Court in Lambs Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District. The hostility of the State of New York fairly reeks from the pages of the brief. Most notable is the "religion is only of a benefit to its adherents" remark. (Perhaps unfairly, Justice Scalia put a pointed question to the school board's attorney about that bizarre claim, even though the school board had not climbed quite so far out on the branch as had the NYAG. I still chuckle atrecalling hisinterrogatory, "How's life in the new regime?") That notion - religion only benefits those who believe- is fairly distant from the folks who, during our wastrel and misspent youths, urged us to attend our places of worship this weekend (public service announcements during Saturday cartoons, brought to us by "Religion in Public Life" and the "Ad Council"). If there are voices on this list who doubt the value of religions in which they place no faith, that is all well and good for them, but every time an all too human impulse to pulverize someone or steal their car or their spouse is suppressed by a sense of religiously inspired morality, then I count myself benefitted, and on that basis, even the most ardent atheist enjoys relative peace and quiet in this nation because religion, if nothing else, opiates the masses. And thehostility expressed in that brief is not the invention in the first degree ofthe Supreme Court, and of the lower federal courts in New York, but of the state's officials; the brief, after all expressed the view of the Attorney General of New York. There was, however, a trail of evidence indicatingindifference to or ignorance of the law or disregard for the teaching of the Supreme Court in the area of First Amendment rights in the lower court decisions, and in subsequent decisions of both lower courts in cases involving other challenges to denial of religious uses of New York school facilities.And that, I think, fairly supports the impression of hostility. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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.
RE: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of HostilitytoReligious Expression
Eugene accurately describes the school board's briefs in these cases. And the captive audience argument in Oliva is at least plausible, so that that case is different from the cases decided in the Supreme Court. But Stafford should have been a routine case about announcing meetings of a private club. There is no decision of the Supreme Court that permits or requires discrimination against private religious speech because of its religious content. The line of cases protecting religious speech go back at least to the the Jehovah's Witness cases in the 30s and 40s, and there are no exceptions. The secular school boards in the north and west who keep resisting private religious speech are as obstructionist and defiant as the evangelical school boards in the south who keep resisting the school prayer cases. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 11:15 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of HostilitytoReligious Expression I suspect that Alito's response was in large part a reaction to two cases that he heard on the Third Circuit: Child Evangelism Fellowship of New Jersey Inc. v. Stafford Tp. School Dist., 386 F.3d 514 (3rd Cir. 2004), and C.H. v. Oliva, 226 F.3d 198 (3rd Cir. 2000). In both, the government's lawyers -- presumably not ones who are easily duped by unrelenting rhetoric we hear from the right -- apparently argued that the Establishment Clause required government entities to discriminate against private religious speech (i.e., religious speech by students or by private organizations, not religious speech by school officials in their official capacity) in schools. In Oliva, the lower court seemed to at least partly endorse this view, though its comments are a little cryptic. (And of course in Oliva, the Third Circuit ultimately concluded that the school was entitled to discriminate against the religious speech, though it didn't hold that such discrimination was required.) I haven't read the briefs in those cases, but if I were the government lawyer making that argument, I'd certainly have something to point to in the Court's decisions -- for instance, the concurrences in Pinette, which seem to suggest that the Establishment Clause sometimes may require discrimination against private religious speech, and even the plurality in Pinette, which says that compliance with the Establishment Clause is a compelling interest justifying what would otherwise be a violation of the Free Speech Clause (rather than that compliance with the Free Speech Clause is an adequate justification for what would otherwise be a violation of the Establishment Clause). My guess is that if Alito did say that the Court's doctrine really gives the impression of hostility to religious speech and religious expression and that the court had erred by going too far in prohibiting government support for religion at the risk of hampering individual expression of religion -- I say if because my sense is that it's hard to be confident of the accuracy of such second-hand quotes -- he was likely alluding to what he saw while participating in those cases: The Court's doctrine has created, among many government officials (as well as among critics of those officials) an impression that private religious speech is in some measure constitutionally disfavored, and that private religious speech can be and perhaps must be subject to special restrictions. And that strikes me as quite a sensible criticism of the Court's doctrine, though of course there are also quite sensible defenses of the Court's doctrine. Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 8:42 AM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of Hostilityto Religious Expression -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Francis Beckwith Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 9:21 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of Hostility to Religious Expression I don't want to be too picky here, but Alito is saying impression of hostility, not necessarily hostility. So, in a sense, he does not disagree with Marty. Alito says impression, and Marty says misperception. A misperception is in fact an impression, but an inaccurate one. I do think that Alito is correct that there is an impression of hostility. Now whether that impression is justified is ever or always justified is another question. But clearly Alito is justified in saying that many ordinary people in fact have that
Re: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of HostilitytoReligious ...
In a message dated 11/4/2005 12:51:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If there are voices on this list who doubt the value of religions in which they place no faith, that is all well and good for them, but every time an all too human impulse to pulverize someone or steal their car or their spouse is suppressed by a sense of religiously inspired morality, then I count myself benefitted, and on that basis, even the most ardent atheist enjoys relative peace and quiet in this nation because religion, if nothing else, opiates the masses. Two brief responses: (1) What aboutreligious upbringing that fails to suppress such conduct? and (2) What about secular motives that do suppress violence and cruelty? The idea that religion must be the basis of any good morality--concern and respect for others--is question begging, and I must say, with all due respect, offensive. And, of course, it completely ignores all the wars and violence throughout history based, at least in substantial part, on religion. Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ 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.
Review/O'Connor Book
If anyone is interested, I'll email you my review/essay of Sandra Day O'Connor's book “The Majesty Of The Law: Reflections Of A Supreme Court Justice.” Is it pro or con? Well, I report (and comment), you decide. But, I will say this: I agree with the assertion that a mind is a terrible thing to waste. God bless you all. John Lofton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), Recovering Republican; Editor, TheAmericanView.com. ___ 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.
Re: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of HostilitytoReligious ...
In a message dated 11/4/2005 1:23:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The idea that religion must be the basis of any good morality--concern and respect for others--is question begging, and I must say, with all due respect, offensive. And, of course, it completely ignores all the wars and violence throughout history based, at least in substantial part, on religion. If I offended, I apologize. I found the NYAG's myopic failure to recognize the value of hospitals, universities, savings and loan institutions, soup kitchens, vocational rehabilitation programs, benevolence funds, etc., to be offensive. These unassailable and yet annoying things, these facts, just cannot be swept under the rug with the convenient but inelegantly fitted charge of martial cruelties. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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.
RE: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of Hostility to Religious Expression
The Ninth Circuit has the impression that the Supreme Court's precedents require discrimination against the religious speech of students. In Doe v. Madison School District (for which I wrote an amicus brief), a panel of the Ninth Circuit held that a school district could allow high school student graduation speakers chosen on basis of their grade point average to express themselves without censorship of religious or other content. The full 9th Circuit granted rehearing, vacating the panel decision, and then dismissed the case as moot because the student who had challenged the policy had already graduated -- and the Ninth Circuit did so even though the student had sued under a pseudonym and thus had control of whether or not to disclose that he or she had graduated. In later cases the Ninth Circuit held that school officials must censor such student speeches to remove objectionable religious content. I'd say that was Lee v. Weisman on steroids, but nevertheless the Ninth Circuit had the impression that such censorship was required by Supreme Court Establishment Clause doctrine. I must say that I am encouraged by Judge Alito's dissent in C.H. v. Oliva. Mark S. Scarberry Pepperdine University School of Law -Original Message- From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 9:15 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of Hostilityto Religious Expression I suspect that Alito's response was in large part a reaction to two cases that he heard on the Third Circuit: Child Evangelism Fellowship of New Jersey Inc. v. Stafford Tp. School Dist., 386 F.3d 514 (3rd Cir. 2004), and C.H. v. Oliva, 226 F.3d 198 (3rd Cir. 2000). In both, the government's lawyers -- presumably not ones who are easily duped by unrelenting rhetoric we hear from the right -- apparently argued that the Establishment Clause required government entities to discriminate against private religious speech (i.e., religious speech by students or by private organizations, not religious speech by school officials in their official capacity) in schools. In Oliva, the lower court seemed to at least partly endorse this view, though its comments are a little cryptic. (And of course in Oliva, the Third Circuit ultimately concluded that the school was entitled to discriminate against the religious speech, though it didn't hold that such discrimination was required.) I haven't read the briefs in those cases, but if I were the government lawyer making that argument, I'd certainly have something to point to in the Court's decisions -- for instance, the concurrences in Pinette, which seem to suggest that the Establishment Clause sometimes may require discrimination against private religious speech, and even the plurality in Pinette, which says that compliance with the Establishment Clause is a compelling interest justifying what would otherwise be a violation of the Free Speech Clause (rather than that compliance with the Free Speech Clause is an adequate justification for what would otherwise be a violation of the Establishment Clause). My guess is that if Alito did say that the Court's doctrine really gives the impression of hostility to religious speech and religious expression and that the court had erred by going too far in prohibiting government support for religion at the risk of hampering individual expression of religion -- I say if because my sense is that it's hard to be confident of the accuracy of such second-hand quotes -- he was likely alluding to what he saw while participating in those cases: The Court's doctrine has created, among many government officials (as well as among critics of those officials) an impression that private religious speech is in some measure constitutionally disfavored, and that private religious speech can be and perhaps must be subject to special restrictions. And that strikes me as quite a sensible criticism of the Court's doctrine, though of course there are also quite sensible defenses of the Court's doctrine. Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 8:42 AM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of Hostilityto Religious Expression -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Francis Beckwith Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 9:21 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of Hostility to Religious Expression I don't want to be too picky here, but Alito is saying impression of hostility, not necessarily hostility. So, in a sense, he does not disagree with Marty. Alito says impression, and Marty says misperception. A misperception is in fact an impression, but an inaccurate one. I do think
Re: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of HostilitytoReligious ...
Jim Henderson wrote on 11/04/2005 12:39:02 PM: I found the NYAG's myopic failure to recognize the value of hospitals, universities, savings and loan institutions, soup kitchens, vocational rehabilitation programs, benevolence funds, etc., to be offensive. It sort of reminds me of the old question: If you're walking down a dark street at night, and you realize that a group of teenagers are about half-a-block behind you, do you feel safer if you know that they are on their way home from a Bible study as opposed to a party or a rock concert? I think most people would say, yes, we probably do. Brad___ 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.
Religious Hostility--Folding Jesus Under
Here is another great example, from Charles Haynes and the First Amendment Center, about religious hostility in the public schools: "I did not make this up. Truth really is stranger than fiction especially when the story involves religion and public schools. Flashback to the year 2000. Antonio Peck, a kindergarten student in the Baldwinsville, N.Y., school district, handed in a poster about saving the environment that included an image of Jesus. The principal decided that the school would hang the poster but fold Jesus under so he couldnt be seen. Pecks outraged parents sued." The case is still in litigation. The school's decision to censor a 5-year oldis outrageous, but it may well be permissible under the Court's reading of the First Amendment (the school's right to control the curriculum and to protect captive audiences from religious _expression_). Should the1A protect Master Peck from this kind of censorship and disrespect? Rick Duncan Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. ___ 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.
RE: Religious Hostility--Folding Jesus Under
Flashback to the year 2000. Antonio Peck, a kindergarten student in the Baldwinsville, N.Y., school district, handed in a poster about saving the environment that included an image of Jesus. The principal decided that the school would hang the poster - but fold Jesus under so he couldn't be seen. Peck's outraged parents sued. The case is still in litigation. The school's decision to censor a 5-year old is outrageous, but it may well be permissible under the Court's reading of the First Amendment (the school's right to control the curriculum and to protect captive audiences from religious expression). Should the 1A protect Master Peck from this kind of censorship and disrespect? Absolutely, and the whole notion of protecting a captive audience from the religious expression of another member of that captive audience is rather silly. But I'll bet that the courts will rule the right way in this case, as they usually do. Ed Brayton attachment: winmail.dat___ 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.
RE: Religious Hostility--Folding Jesus Under
Ed; When you say the courts usually protect student religious speech, even when it is part of the curriculum, what cases do you have in mind? RickEd Brayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Flashback to the year 2000. Antonio Peck, a kindergarten student in theBaldwinsville, N.Y., school district, handed in a poster about "saving theenvironment" that included an image of Jesus. The principal decided that theschool would hang the poster - but fold Jesus under so he couldn't be seen.Peck's outraged parents sued."The case is still in litigation. The school's decision to censor a 5-yearold is outrageous, but it may well be permissible under the Court's readingof the First Amendment (the school's right to control the curriculum and toprotect captive audiences from religious _expression_). Should the 1A protectMaster Peck from this kind of censorship and disrespect?Absolutely, and the whole notion of protecting a "captive audience" from thereligious _expression_ of another member of that captive audience is rathersil! ly. But I'll bet that the courts will rule the right way in this case, asthey usually do.Ed Brayton___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. ___ 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.
RE: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of Hostility to Religious Expression
I agree with Marty that the result in Santa Fe -- the case that Alito allegedly discussed with Sen. Cornyn -- was to strike down speech that was government preferred or sponsored, because of the majoritarian nature of the election process and the school district's past practice. But some of the language of the Stevens majority opinion goes further and suggests that the school's endorsement of the speech was established by other factors as well, such as the mere fact that the prayer or religious speech was at a school-sponsored function . . . on school property, with the trappings of the school around it. This reasoning, taken alone, would require stopping even the valedictorian -- chosen neutrally on the basis of grades, with no school review of the speech's content -- from speaking religiously at graduation. That's what happened in the panel decision in the Madison case that Mark Scarberry describes (decided before Santa Fe, but on similar reasoning). It could also support the kind of argument in the Oliva case that Eugene suggests bothers Alito. I know that we have sharp disagreement on the list about whether the valedictorian's speech should be protected or forbidden. But the position that it should be protected -- should be treated as individual rather than state-sponsored speech -- couldn't colorably be said to be a major reversal of the Court's precedents, or a central threat to the rule against government-sponsored and government-preferred speech, could it? (Even if one disagrees with the position.) I think that senators should ask about this, but they should try to find out whether any reservations Alito has about the Santa Fe case go to the holding, or to some of the broader reasoning and dicta. Tom Berg, University of St. Thomas (Minnesota) --- Thomas C. Berg Professor of Law Co-Director, Terrence J. Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought, Law, and Public Policy University of St. Thomas School of Law MSL 400 -- 1000 La Salle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403-2015 Phone: (651) 962-4918 Fax: (651) 962-4996 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- -Original Message- From: Scarberry, Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 12:49 PM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of Hostility to Religious Expression The Ninth Circuit has the impression that the Supreme Court's precedents require discrimination against the religious speech of students. In Doe v. Madison School District (for which I wrote an amicus brief), a panel of the Ninth Circuit held that a school district could allow high school student graduation speakers chosen on basis of their grade point average to express themselves without censorship of religious or other content. The full 9th Circuit granted rehearing, vacating the panel decision, and then dismissed the case as moot because the student who had challenged the policy had already graduated -- and the Ninth Circuit did so even though the student had sued under a pseudonym and thus had control of whether or not to disclose that he or she had graduated. In later cases the Ninth Circuit held that school officials must censor such student speeches to remove objectionable religious content. I'd say that was Lee v. Weisman on steroids, but nevertheless the Ninth Circuit had the impression that such censorship was required by Supreme Court Establishment Clause doctrine. I must say that I am encouraged by Judge Alito's dissent in C.H. v. Oliva. Mark S. Scarberry Pepperdine University School of Law -Original Message- From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 9:15 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of Hostilityto Religious Expression I suspect that Alito's response was in large part a reaction to two cases that he heard on the Third Circuit: Child Evangelism Fellowship of New Jersey Inc. v. Stafford Tp. School Dist., 386 F.3d 514 (3rd Cir. 2004), and C.H. v. Oliva, 226 F.3d 198 (3rd Cir. 2000). In both, the government's lawyers -- presumably not ones who are easily duped by unrelenting rhetoric we hear from the right -- apparently argued that the Establishment Clause required government entities to discriminate against private religious speech (i.e., religious speech by students or by private organizations, not religious speech by school officials in their official capacity) in schools. In Oliva, the lower court seemed to at least partly endorse this view, though its comments are a little cryptic. (And of course in Oliva, the Third Circuit ultimately concluded that the school was entitled to discriminate against the religious speech, though it didn't hold that such discrimination was required.) I haven't read the briefs in those cases, but if I were the government
RE: Religious Hostility--Folding Jesus Under
Title: Message I didn't say "even when it is part of the curriculum". Ed Brayton -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick DuncanSent: Friday, November 04, 2005 2:57 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Religious Hostility--Folding Jesus Under Ed; When you say the courts usually protect student religious speech, even when it is part of the curriculum, what cases do you have in mind? RickEd Brayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Flashback to the year 2000. Antonio Peck, a kindergarten student in theBaldwinsville, N.Y., school district, handed in a poster about "saving theenvironment" that included an image of Jesus. The principal decided that theschool would hang the poster - but fold Jesus under so he couldn't be seen.Peck's outraged parents sued."The case is still in litigation. The school's decision to censor a 5-yearold is outrageous, but it may well be permissible under the Court's readingof the First Amendment (the school's right to control the curriculum and toprotect captive audiences from religious _expression_). Should the 1A protectMaster Peck from this kind of censorship and disrespect?Absolutely, and the whole notion of protecting a "captive audience" from thereligious _expression_ of another member of that captive audience is rathersil! ly. But I'll bet that the courts will rule the right way in this case, asthey usually do.Ed Brayton___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. ___ 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.
RE: Social Notes from All Over
Title: RE: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of Hostilityto Religious Expression Today's Washington Post includes the guest list for yesterday's lunch at the White House honoring His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and his new wife, Camilla Parker-Bowles (Windsor, Iassume). Among the distinguished guests were Ms. Mary CheneyMs. Heather Poe (Guest) According to the Post, Ms. Poe is Ms. Cheney's companion. So the question is this: Does this represent a recognition by the White House that there is nothing wrong after all in what most of us would call a "marriage-like" relationship between two men or two women (at least if one of them is the Vice President's daughter?)? And if that is the case, as I suspect it is--George Bush has never been personally homophobic, so far as I know, independent of the political stances he has taken on the gay marriage issue--what does his "base," including some of the people on this list who have expressedconcern about the threat posed to marriage by any recognition even of civil unions, think of this display of "compassionate conservatism"? I assume, incidentally, that a White House lunch attended by, among others, the Chief Justice of the United States, Condoleza Rice, Tom Brokaw, Tom Watson (the golfer), Donald Rumsfeld, and other such luminaries, is a "public event" and thus it does not count as an "invasion of privacy" to note who was honored with an invitation and what symbol such an invitatinomight be said to convey. sandy ___ 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.
Re: Social Notes from All Over
In a message dated 11/4/2005 5:05:58 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: and what symbol such an invitatinomight be said to convey. perhaps it means nothing more than that the invitees were estimated to have a healthy appetite. ___ 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.
RE: Religious Hostility--Folding Jesus Under
OK, Ed.So the cases you refer to do not apply toMaster Peck'scase. Which cases do you think apply to Master Peck's case? And do they support his freedom of _expression_, or do they support deference to the school's decision to censor his art project? Thanks, Rick Duncan Ed Brayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I didn't say "even when it is part of the curriculum". Ed Brayton -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick DuncanSent: Friday, November 04, 2005 2:57 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Religious Hostility--Folding Jesus Under Ed; When you say the courts usually protect student religious speech, even when it is part of the curriculum, what cases do you have in mind? RickEd Brayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Flashback to the year 2000. Antonio Peck, a kindergarten student in theBaldwinsville, N.Y., school district, handed in a poster about "saving theenvironment" that included an image of Jesus. The principal decided that theschool would hang the poster - but fold Jesus under so he couldn't be seen.Peck's outraged parents sued."The case is still in litigation. The school's decision to censor a 5-yearold is outrageous, but it may well be permissible under the Court's readingof the First Amendment (the school's right to control the curriculum and toprotect captive audiences from religious _expression_). Should the 1A protectMaster Peck from this kind of censorship and disrespect?Absolutely, and the whole notion of protecting a "captive audience" from thereligious _expression_ of another member of that captive audience is rathersil! ! ly. But I'll bet that the courts will rule the right way in this case, asthey usually do.Ed Brayton___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.! S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. ___ 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.
RE: Social Notes from All Over
Title: RE: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of Hostilityto Religious Expression I believe the family name of the Prince of Wales is Mountbatten. The name of the ruling house generally changes after a Queen regnant, because her children take her husband's name. Which of course has nothing to do with Sandy's substantive point. Douglas Laycock University 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 Sanford LevinsonSent: Friday, November 04, 2005 4:05 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Social Notes from All Over Today's Washington Post includes the guest list for yesterday's lunch at the White House honoring His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and his new wife, Camilla Parker-Bowles (Windsor, Iassume). Among the distinguished guests were Ms. Mary CheneyMs. Heather Poe (Guest) According to the Post, Ms. Poe is Ms. Cheney's companion. So the question is this: Does this represent a recognition by the White House that there is nothing wrong after all in what most of us would call a "marriage-like" relationship between two men or two women (at least if one of them is the Vice President's daughter?)? And if that is the case, as I suspect it is--George Bush has never been personally homophobic, so far as I know, independent of the political stances he has taken on the gay marriage issue--what does his "base," including some of the people on this list who have expressedconcern about the threat posed to marriage by any recognition even of civil unions, think of this display of "compassionate conservatism"? I assume, incidentally, that a White House lunch attended by, among others, the Chief Justice of the United States, Condoleza Rice, Tom Brokaw, Tom Watson (the golfer), Donald Rumsfeld, and other such luminaries, is a "public event" and thus it does not count as an "invasion of privacy" to note who was honored with an invitation and what symbol such an invitatinomight be said to convey. sandy ___ 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.
RE: Social Notes from All Over
What was Sandy's substantive point? Douglas Laycock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe the family name of the Prince of Wales is Mountbatten. The name of the ruling house generally changes after a Queen regnant, because her children take her husband's name. Which of course has nothing to do with Sandy's substantive point. Douglas Laycock University 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 Sanford LevinsonSent: Friday, November 04, 2005 4:05 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Social Notes from All Over Today's Washington Post includes the guest list for yesterday's lunch at the White House honoring His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and his new wife, Camilla Parker-Bowles (Windsor, Iassume). Among the distinguished guests were Ms. Mary CheneyMs. Heather Poe (Guest) According to the Post, Ms. Poe is Ms. Cheney's companion. So the question is this: Does this represent a recognition by the White House that there is nothing wrong after all in what most of us would call a "marriage-like" relationship between two men or two women (at least if one of them is the Vice President's daughter?)? And if that is the case, as I suspect it is--George Bush has never been personally homophobic, so far as I know, independent of the political stances he has taken on the gay marriage issue--what does his "base," including some of the people on this list who have expressedconcern about the threat posed to marriage by any recognition even of civil unions, think of this display of "compassionate conservatism"? I assume, incidentally, that a White House lunch attended by, among others, the Chief Justice of the United States, Condoleza Rice, Tom Brokaw, Tom Watson (the golfer), Donald Rumsfeld, and other such luminaries, i! s a "public event" and thus it does not count as an "invasion of privacy" to note who was honored with an invitation and what symbol such an invitatinomight be said to convey. sandy___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. ___ 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.
Kansas situation
I don't think this case has been mentioned, but this all came down yesterday. In the Matthew Limon case in Kansas, the guy who was convicted of underage sex with another male and given a 17 year sentence when the sentence if his partner was female would have been 15 months, struck down unanimously by the Kansas Supreme Court recently, there is a new development with church and state implications. The judge has released him into the custody of his aunt and uncle, but ordered that he must attend church every week. This seems to me to be an obvious violation of the free exercise clause. Any thoughts? Ed Brayton attachment: winmail.dat___ 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.
RE: Social Notes from All Over
That on some issues, this administration is more decent in own behavior than when it's posturing for the base. Douglas Laycock University 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 Rick DuncanSent: Friday, November 04, 2005 5:03 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Social Notes from All Over What was Sandy's substantive point? Douglas Laycock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe the family name of the Prince of Wales is Mountbatten. The name of the ruling house generally changes after a Queen regnant, because her children take her husband's name. Which of course has nothing to do with Sandy's substantive point. Douglas Laycock University 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 Sanford LevinsonSent: Friday, November 04, 2005 4:05 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Social Notes from All Over Today's Washington Post includes the guest list for yesterday's lunch at the White House honoring His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and his new wife, Camilla Parker-Bowles (Windsor, Iassume). Among the distinguished guests were Ms. Mary CheneyMs. Heather Poe (Guest) According to the Post, Ms. Poe is Ms. Cheney's companion. So the question is this: Does this represent a recognition by the White House that there is nothing wrong after all in what most of us would call a "marriage-like" relationship between two men or two women (at least if one of them is the Vice President's daughter?)? And if that is the case, as I suspect it is--George Bush has never been personally homophobic, so far as I know, independent of the political stances he has taken on the gay marriage issue--what does his "base," including some of the people on this list who have expressedconcern about the threat posed to marriage by any recognition even of civil unions, think of this display of "compassionate conservatism"? I assume, incidentally, that a White House lunch attended by, among others, the Chief Justice of the United States, Condoleza Rice, Tom Brokaw, Tom Watson (the golfer), Donald Rumsfeld, and other such luminaries, i! s a "public event" and thus it does not count as an "invasion of privacy" to note who was honored with an invitation and what symbol such an invitatinomight be said to convey. sandy___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. ___ 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.
Re: Social Notes from All Over
It seems to be: when you go with someone to a social event, it's a way of saying "I'm having sex with this person."AnnOn Nov 4, 2005, at 5:02 PM, Rick Duncan wrote: What was Sandy's substantive point? Douglas Laycock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe the family name of the Prince of Wales is Mountbatten. The name of the ruling house generally changes after a Queen regnant, because her children take her husband's name. Which of course has nothing to do with Sandy's substantive point. Douglas Laycock University 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 Sanford LevinsonSent: Friday, November 04, 2005 4:05 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Social Notes from All Over Today's Washington Post includes the guest list for yesterday's lunch at the White House honoring His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and his new wife, Camilla Parker-Bowles (Windsor, I assume). Among the distinguished guests were Ms. Mary CheneyMs. Heather Poe (Guest) According to the Post, Ms. Poe is Ms. Cheney's companion. So the question is this: Does this represent a recognition by the White House that there is nothing wrong after all in what most of us would call a "marriage-like" relationship between two men or two women (at least if one of them is the Vice President's daughter?)? And if that is the case, as I suspect it is--George Bush has never been personally homophobic, so far as I know, independent of the political stances he has taken on the gay marriage issue--what does his "base," including some of the people on this list who have expressed concern about the threat posed to marriage by any recognition even of civil unions, think of this display of "compassionate conservatism"? I assume, incidentally, that a White House lunch attended by, among others, the Chief Justice of the United States, Condoleza Rice, Tom Brokaw, Tom Watson (the golfer), Donald Rumsfeld, and other such luminaries, i! s a "public event" and thus it does not count as an "invasion of privacy" to note who was honored with an invitation and what symbol such an invitatinomight be said to convey. sandy___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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. ___ 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.
RE: Social Notes from All Over
Title: RE: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of Hostilityto Religious Expression Actually, it still appears to be Windsor. See http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page135.asp and http://www.royal.gov.uk/files/pdf/Windsor%20family%20tree.pdf. The name of the Earl of Wessexs daughter is Lady Louise Windsor. Just a bit of trivia on a Friday afternoon. Christine Corcos Associate Professor of Law Faculty Graduate Studies Program Supervisor Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University Associate Professor, Women's and Gender Studies Program LSU AM W325 Law Building 1 East Campus Drive Baton Rouge LA 70803 tel: 225/578-8327 fax: 225/578-3677 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 4:27 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Social Notes from All Over I believe the family name of the Prince of Wales is Mountbatten. The name of the ruling house generally changes after a Queen regnant, because her children take her husband's name. Which of course has nothing to do with Sandy's substantive point. Douglas Laycock University 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 Sanford Levinson Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 4:05 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Social Notes from All Over Today's Washington Post includes the guest list for yesterday's lunch at the White House honoring His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and his new wife, Camilla Parker-Bowles (Windsor, Iassume). Among the distinguished guests were Ms. Mary Cheney Ms. Heather Poe (Guest) According to the Post, Ms. Poe is Ms. Cheney's companion. So the question is this: Does this represent a recognition by the White House that there is nothing wrong after all in what most of us would call a marriage-like relationship between two men or two women (at least if one of them is the Vice President's daughter?)? And if that is the case, as I suspect it is--George Bush has never been personally homophobic, so far as I know, independent of the political stances he has taken on the gay marriage issue--what does his base, including some of the people on this list who have expressedconcern about the threat posed to marriage by any recognition even of civil unions, think of this display of compassionate conservatism? I assume, incidentally, that a White House lunch attended by, among others, the Chief Justice of the United States, Condoleza Rice, Tom Brokaw, Tom Watson (the golfer), Donald Rumsfeld, and other such luminaries, is a public event and thus it does not count as an invasion of privacy to note who was honored with an invitation and what symbol such an invitatinomight be said to convey. sandy ___ 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.
RE: Social Notes from All Over
It seems to me that inviting people to dinner is totally unrelated tosupporting a radical re-definition of marriage. The one is socially decent, the other would be totally destructive of a great institution. Bush is right to invite his Veep's family guests to dinner at the WH. He is also right to stand up for traditional marriage. IfBush invited Clinton to dinner, wouldit mean that he is celebrating disbarred lawyers. I think not. Rick Duncan Douglas Laycock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That on some issues, this administration is more decent in own behavior than when it's posturing for the base. Douglas Laycock University 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 Rick DuncanSent: Friday, November 04, 2005 5:03 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Social Notes from All Over What was Sandy's substantive point? Douglas Laycock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe the family name of the Prince of Wales is Mountbatten. The name of the ruling house generally changes after a Queen regnant, because her children take her husband's name. Which of course has nothing to do with Sandy's substantive point. Douglas Laycock University 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 Sanford LevinsonSent: Friday, November 04, 2005 4:05 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Social Notes from All Over Today's Washington Post includes the guest list for yesterday's lunch at the White House honoring His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and his new wife, Camilla Parker-Bowles (Windsor, Iassume). Among the distinguished guests were Ms. Mary CheneyMs. Heather Poe (Guest) According to the Post, Ms. Poe is Ms. Cheney's companion. So the question is this: Does this represent a recognition by the White House that there is nothing wrong after all in what most of us would call a "marriage-like" relationship between two men or two women (at least if one of them is the Vice President's daughter?)? And if that is the case, as I suspect it is--George Bush has never been personally homophobic, so far as I know, independent of the political stances he has taken on the gay marriage issue--what does his "base," including some of the people on this list who have expressedconcern about the threat posed to marriage by any recognition even of civil unions, think of this display of "compassionate conservatism"? I assume, incidentally, that a White House lunch attended by, among others, the Chief Justice of the United States, Condoleza Rice, Tom Brokaw, Tom Watson (the golfer), Donald Rumsfeld, and other such luminaries, i! ! s a "public event" and thus it does not count as an "invasion of privacy" to note who was honored with an invitation and what symbol such an invitatinomight be said to convey. sandy___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. ___ 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
RE: Kansas situation
I just found another story about this that may change things. According to the Kansas City Star, the aunt and uncle asked if he could attend church, the judge was not requiring it. So it may well be false. I'll keep looking for information. Ed Brayton -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 6:07 PM To:ReligionLaw list Subject: Kansas situation I don't think this case has been mentioned, but this all came down yesterday. In the Matthew Limon case in Kansas, the guy who was convicted of underage sex with another male and given a 17 year sentence when the sentence if his partner was female would have been 15 months, struck down unanimously by the Kansas Supreme Court recently, there is a new development with church and state implications. The judge has released him into the custody of his aunt and uncle, but ordered that he must attend church every week. This seems to me to be an obvious violation of the free exercise clause. Any thoughts? attachment: winmail.dat___ 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.
Procedural Question on Intelligent Design Case
While watching a news report this evening on the local television station about the intelligent design case underway about 100 miles to the west in York, Pa., the reporter stated that a decision from the trial judge isn't expected for several weeks but that no matter what it is, this case has been carefully crafted so that it will end up in the Supreme Court. Now I know I ought not rely on what a reporter says (but perhaps many listeners think it is so), but I don't understand how this case will end up in the Supreme Court as a matter of absolute certainty. Perhaps the reporter meant carefully crafted so that it will have a good chance of ending up in the Supreme Court or something like that. Am I correct that this case (in which the school board is being sued for incorporating the teaching of intelligent design in the high school curriculum) does not get decided by (or end up in the Supreme Court) unless the Supreme Court chooses to grant certiorari? In other words, it's not a suit between states, does not involve the constitutionality of a federal statute, but is a First Amendment case (which do not automatically get heard by the Court)? If I'm wrong, I'd like to know (and if I'm right, it would be nice to know that, too, I suppose). Thanks. Jim Maule Villanova University School of Law ___ 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.
Re: Alito Note on Zorach and McCollum
Finally got a chance to reed the Alito Note, and boy, the thing that really jumps out is how insufferable (and, of course, self-righteous) Frankfurter was. Some of you may have seen this correspondence previously, but if you haven't, take a look at FF's letter to Stanley Reed in footnote 104 (when Reed was preparing his sole dissent in McCollum), and, especially,at FF's letter to Frank Murphy in footnote 40 (when Murphy, the Court's only Catholic,was agonizing about being the swing vote in Everson and FF was trying to cajole him to vote against the busing plan). They are remarkable letters, virtually unimaginable today. I can't possibly do them justice -- just read them. I will say this: It's not surprising that Murphy and Reed withstood Frankfurter's attempts to "persude" them - Original Message - From: Marty Lederman To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 3:31 AM Subject: Alito Note on Zorach and McCollum The Yale Law Journal has posted a pdf version of Judge Alito's 1974 Note on the released-time cases -- attached. The Note received the Israel H. Peres prize for best student contribution to The Yale Law Journal in 1974. It can be found online here: http://www.yalelawjournal.org/ylj_online/alito_note.pdf And the YLJ will be hosting a dicussion of it here: http://www.thepocketpart.org/2005/09/discussion.html ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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. ___ 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.
RE: Procedural Question on Intelligent Design Case
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Maule Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 10:29 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Procedural Question on Intelligent Design Case While watching a news report this evening on the local television station about the intelligent design case underway about 100 miles to the west in York, Pa., the reporter stated that a decision from the trial judge isn't expected for several weeks but that no matter what it is, this case has been carefully crafted so that it will end up in the Supreme Court. Now I know I ought not rely on what a reporter says (but perhaps many listeners think it is so), but I don't understand how this case will end up in the Supreme Court as a matter of absolute certainty. The report was wrong. Both sides have already said that they plan to appeal the decision, regardless of the outcome. The appeals court has to take it, of course, but the Supreme Court does not. In fact, most of the folks I've read on the subject don't think the court will grant cert if it goes that far. Ed Brayton ___ 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.
RE: It seems to me that general debates about same-sex marriage aren'tquite on-topic for this list
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 2:13 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: It seems to me that general debates about same-sex marriage aren'tquite on-topic for this list It seems to me that general debates about same-sex marriage aren't quite on-topic for this list, unless one can tie them with some specificity to the law of government and religion. I think such debates are quite interesting; I just hosted one this week and two weeks before on my blog; but they seem to me to be off-topic here. That's probably true. I really enjoyed what you did on your blog and linked to it from mine. It was nice to see the arguments of both sides articulated well and without rancor. Of course, I thought Professor Carpenter's arguments were much stronger than Maggie Gallagher's, but that's not going to be a surprise to anyone. Ed Brayton ___ 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.
