I am pleased to stand corrected.
Marc Stern
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 6:02 PM
Subject: Re: HAnsen v. Ann Arbor Public Schools 293 FSupp2d 780
In a message dated 4/19/04 4:58:49 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is
Footnote 17 of the Repondents' Brief in Hurley, which speaks for
itself and which fully explains the ACLU's state-action argument:
FN17. One amicus, the American Civil Liberties Union, argues that
the state courts did not fully explore the way in which the City's
longstanding pattern
I don't think the ACLU argument in Hurley is either bizarre or the product
of interest group politics. A good amicus brief should assist the Court
irrespective of whether it supports a party. Though the ACLU, like other
organizations, often agrees with one party or another, and signals that
I think that the free speech claim, standing alone, would have
to be a loser. I take it that a public university should be free to
discriminate based on viewpoint in setting up panels -- we do that all
the time, even when we're trying to set up balanced panels, and I think
there's no
