I agree with Marc Stern: Stevens' religion clause opinions can best be
explained in terms of equality (see also footnote 3 in Stevens' concurrence in
the 1982 Lee case). As an aside, I suspect Stevens' atheist art gallery
comparison in Boerne was inspired by the then recent 1994 article by prof
iginal Message-
> From: "Andrew Koppelman"
> Sender: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 18:11:10
> To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
> Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <
> religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Berry
-Original Message-
From: ste...@ajc.org
Sender: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 23:44:23
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Reply-To: ste...@ajc.org,
Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: A John Paul Stevens Puzzle
In Boerne
Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-Original Message-
From: Ira Lupu
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:15:14
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: Volokh, Eugene; hamilto...@aol.com
Subject: Re: A John Paul Stevens Puzzle
If Marci is correct about the scope of the Boerne decision, i
Koppelman"
Sender: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 18:11:10
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: A John Paul Stevens Puzzle
I agree with what's been written, but I'm t
olokh, Eugene"
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:55:25
To: hamilto...@aol.com; Law & Religion issues for
LawAcademics
Subject: RE: A John Paul Stevens Puzzle
I don't see the Court's analysis as resting on the view that the
statute violated separation of powers, as opposed to
Marc
C
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-Original Message-
From: "Andrew Koppelman"
Sender: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 18:11:10
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Acade
Eugene
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-
> > boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com
> > Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 3:50 PM
> > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Acad
, 2011 5:12 PM
To: hamilto...@aol.com; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: A John Paul Stevens Puzzle
I'm with Dan on the supposed separation of powers question; as I
read the opinion, the Court simply holds that Congress lacks the enumerated
power to impose its
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: A John Paul Stevens Puzzle
>
> We briefed the separation of powers argument as a stand-alone argument.
> The Court adopted much of our reasoning other than the Establishment
> Clause. If one re-reads the decis
ad more broadly.
Dan Conkle
-Original Message-
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 4:48 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: A John Paul Stevens Puzzle
I
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 2:55 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: A John Paul Stevens Puzzle
>
> The separation of powers defects are well-covered in the majority opinion as
> well.
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
Law Academics
Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: A John Paul Stevens Puzzle
I'm puzzled by the statement that "RFRA was not ... held
unconstitutional solely on federalism grounds" -- as I understand the majority
opinion, it cited only the f
-
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 4:48 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: A John Paul Stevens Puzzle
I'm puzzled by the statement that "RFRA wa
day, April 11, 2011 1:31 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: A John Paul Stevens Puzzle
>
> RFRA was not challenged nor held unconstitutional solely on federalism
> grounds. That is the post hoc explanation of its proponents.
> But you are correct th
...@lists.ucla.edu
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:51:21
To: religionlaw list
Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: A John Paul Stevens Puzzle
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, ch
.@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 5:29 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: A John Paul Stevens puzzle
Note JPS's examples -- a museum and an art gallery. His objection might be
styled as an EC concern, but I think what's
u] On Behalf Of David Griffiths
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 12:51 PM
To: religionlaw list
Subject: RE: A John Paul Stevens Puzzle
Isn't part of the explanation for Stevens' apparently conflicting stances in
Boerne and O Centro that: in the former case, the govt was tryin
Isn't part of the explanation for Stevens' apparently conflicting stances in
Boerne and O Centro that: in the former case, the govt was trying to attack the
constitutionality of RFRA as applied to the states, whereas in the latter the
govt party chose not to attack the constitutionality of RFRA
Oh, there you go again, Marci, talking about a case as if it were something
real! :) My comment was not to what was really going on, and what was at
stake, but what was decided and what became the official version from the
S.Ct.
Of course this is nothing new -- the actual reasons for deciding a c
One, I think he clearly hadn't thought it through in Boerne. A museum or art
gallery owned by the Catholic Church would not have been protected by RFRA
either. A weekly meeting place for the local society of atheists should be
protected, although that would likely be a hard sell to many judges.
Actually, the Establishment Clause arguments were live in Boerne. We
briefed them and several of the Justices expressed concerns at oral argument.
What happened is that now-Judge Jeff Sutton, arguing for the state of Ohio,
urged the Justices not to reach the Establishment Clause issue on
Boerne is not an establishment case. Nor is it an equal protection case. It
is a federalism case protecting state power from federal interference under
section 5 of the 14th amendment -- congress must make findings that the
state is engaging in serious misbehavior (I know -- too loose a word choic
Note JPS's examples -- a museum and an art gallery. His objection might be
styled as an EC concern, but I think what's doing most of the work is
actually the speech and assembly clauses of the First Amendment. He's
suggesting what is implied in, e.g., Heffron and the opinions in Texas
Monthly --
In Boerne v. Flores, Justice Stevens declared that the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act was unconstitutional as applied to the states because it
violated the establishment clause. "If the historic landmark on the hill in
Boerne happened to be a museum or an art gallery owned by an atheist, it
wou
25 matches
Mail list logo
