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 A
<<< 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 s
On Oct 8, 2014, at 9:08 AM, Douglas Laycock 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.
I’m shocked that anyone could have trouble with this after Kennedy
cleared it al
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
w
