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, 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
