RE: Holt v. Hobbs Oral Argument
I got relatively few questions, and more time to talk, than I have ever experienced. Maybe my toughest question was Roberts complaining that we had made the case too easy and Scalia suggesting that maybe they should dig it. And of course a fair number of questions about how to reconcile deference with compelling interest and least restrictive means. That is a genuine puzzle. David Curran for Arkansas got roughed up. Alito’s last two questions were openly making fun of the state’s position. Why don’t you give the guards a comb – design it however you want – and they can make the prisoner comb out his beard and see if a SIM card or a tiny revolver falls out? Curran said that could work! He all but abandoned their arguments below, and even in the brief, and tried to construct a new argument about how a prisoner in one barracks could shave his beard in the morning, go out to work in the fields, trade ID and uniform with another prisoner who looked a little bit the same, and get into a different barracks to attack one of his enemies. He tried to claim it was alluded to in the record, with citations to specific page numbers. If the references are there, they are the barest allusions; I couldn’t find his first one, looking quickly at counsel table. Alito made fun of the switched identity argument too., Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law School 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546 From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of matt steffey Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 11:42 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Holt v. Hobbs Oral Argument chris, i hope you're well. damn technology indeed. i just wanted to say hello and observe that i can't recall seeing something quite like arkansas letter withdrawing false statement before. given they don't make policy, i almost felt sorry for the arkansas assistant a.g. who had to argue this dog of a case. i hope all is well with you and yours. matt On Oct 7, 2014, at 10:21 PM, Christopher Lund l...@wayne.edu mailto:l...@wayne.edu wrote: None of those links work. Stupid email formatting. Try these. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_prev iew/BriefsV4/13-6827_resp.authcheckdam.pdf http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_prev iew/BriefsV4/13-6827_pet_reply.authcheckdam.pdf http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/No-13-6827-Response-t o-Pet-Rule-32.3-Request.pdf -Original Message- From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Christopher Lund Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 11:16 PM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Holt v. Hobbs Oral Argument For those who don't know what Doug means by caught them red-handed (or what Marc means by playing fast and loose in this case), the relevant material can be found in pg. 46 of the respondent's brief (http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_pre view/BriefsV4/13-6827_resp.authcheckdam.pdf) and pg. 14-15 of the petitioner's reply (http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_pre view/BriefsV4/13-6827_pet_reply.authcheckdam.pdf). Arkansas' concession of error can be found here, http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/No-13-6827-Response-t o-Pet-Rule-32.3-Request.pdf. Best, Chris ___ Christopher C. Lund Associate Professor of Law Wayne State University Law School 471 West Palmer St. Detroit, MI 48202 l...@wayne.edu mailto:l...@wayne.edu (313) 577-4046 (phone) (313) 577-9016 (fax) Website—http://law.wayne.edu/profile/christopher.lund/ Papers—http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=363402 -Original Message- From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 10:57 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics; Marc Stern Subject: Re: Holt v. Hobbs Oral Argument What Marc says is clearly true. But even in this case, when we caught them red handed, I didn't feel like I could say to the Court that they lie routinely. Judges have either figured that out, or they don't believe it. And even those who have figured it out are unwilling to say it in opinions. On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 22:07:56 -0400 Marc Stern ste...@ajc.org mailto:ste...@ajc.org wrote: A simple fact of prison litigation is that prison officials lie-or simply care little for the facts-when asserting concerns about security. When I was a law clerk, the states routinely filed canned briefs asserting grave and unavoidable security concerns , no matter what the reality was-and in one memorable case in defense of a practice( labeling
Re: Holt v. Hobbs Oral Argument
On Oct 8, 2014, at 9:08 AM, Douglas Laycock dlayc...@virginia.edu wrote: And of course a fair number of questions about how to reconcile deference with compelling interest and least restrictive means. That is a genuine puzzle. sarcasm I’m shocked that anyone could have trouble with this after Kennedy cleared it all up in Fisher! Shocked! I say. Shocked! /sarcasm More seriously, thanks for the report, Doug. About 5 of my Con Law students were there for the argument yesterday and l look forward to hearing their takes on it in class tomorrow. Steve Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Director of International Programs, Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice http://iipsj.org Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 http://sdjlaw.org If you want to bake an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.” Carl Sagan ___ 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: Holt v. Hobbs Oral Argument - the comb
text/html; charset=UTF-8: Unrecognized ___ 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: Holt v. Hobbs Oral Argument - the comb
I personally would like to know whose next article is going to be entitled, Teeny Tiny Security Risks. That, to me, is a classic exchange that should never be forgotten:) On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 3:37 PM, mksa...@mindspring.com wrote: Hi- i'm not sure if this is needed, but just a clarifying note that Jusrice Alito's reference to a comb was serious; his mocking of the state was his suggestion that a revolver might fall out of a beard, when combed. But, as Doug said, Arkansas agreed when pressed that use of a small comb could provide a workable means to deter and detect contraband, though as the transcript reflects, with different language that i'm not looking at right now. best, Mark Sabel -Original Message- From: Douglas Laycock Sent: Oct 8, 2014 8:08 AM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Holt v. Hobbs Oral Argument I got relatively few questions, and more time to talk, than I have ever experienced. Maybe my toughest question was Roberts complaining that we had made the case too easy and Scalia suggesting that maybe they should dig it. And of course a fair number of questions about how to reconcile deference with compelling interest and least restrictive means. That is a genuine puzzle. David Curran for Arkansas got roughed up. Alito’s last two questions were openly making fun of the state’s position. Why don’t you give the guards a comb – design it however you want – and they can make the prisoner comb out his beard and see if a SIM card or a tiny revolver falls out? Curran said that could work! He all but abandoned their arguments below, and even in the brief, and tried to construct a new argument about how a prisoner in one barracks could shave his beard in the morning, go out to work in the fields, trade ID and uniform with another prisoner who looked a little bit the same, and get into a different barracks to attack one of his enemies. He tried to claim it was alluded to in the record, with citations to specific page numbers. If the references are there, they are the barest allusions; I couldn’t find his first one, looking quickly at counsel table. Alito made fun of the switched identity argument too., Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law School 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546 From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of matt steffey Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 11:42 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Holt v. Hobbs Oral Argument chris, i hope you're well. damn technology indeed. i just wanted to say hello and observe that i can't recall seeing something quite like arkansas letter withdrawing false statement before. given they don't make policy, i almost felt sorry for the arkansas assistant a.g. who had to argue this dog of a case. i hope all is well with you and yours. matt On Oct 7, 2014, at 10:21 PM, Christopher Lund wrote: None of those links work. Stupid email formatting. Try these. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_prev iew/BriefsV4/13-6827_resp.authcheckdam.pdf http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_prev iew/BriefsV4/13-6827_pet_reply.authcheckdam.pdf http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/No-13-6827-Response-t o-Pet-Rule-32.3-Request.pdf -Original Message- From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Christopher Lund Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 11:16 PM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Holt v. Hobbs Oral Argument For those who don't know what Doug means by caught them red-handed (or what Marc means by playing fast and loose in this case), the relevant material can be found in pg. 46 of the respondent's brief (http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_pre view/BriefsV4/13-6827_resp.authcheckdam.pdf) and pg. 14-15 of the petitioner's reply (http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_pre view/BriefsV4/13-6827_pet_reply.authcheckdam.pdf). Arkansas' concession of error can be found here, http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/No-13-6827-Response-t o-Pet-Rule-32.3-Request.pdf. Best, Chris ___ Christopher C. Lund Associate Professor of Law Wayne State University Law School 471 West Palmer St. Detroit, MI 48202 l...@wayne.edu (313) 577-4046 (phone) (313) 577-9016 (fax) Website—http://law.wayne.edu/profile/christopher.lund/ Papers—http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=363402 -Original Message- From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 10:57 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law
