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 issu
<<< 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
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
le-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'
>
: '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
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 fig
Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2014 9:03 PM
>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
>Reply To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
>Subject: RE: Holt v. Hobbs Oral Argument
>
>
>I think this case on its facts is likely to be easy for the Court because so
>many other st
how long
> Is too long.
> Marc Stern
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE
> network.
>*From: *Friedman, Howard M.
> *Sent: *Tuesday, October 7, 2014 9:03 PM
> *To: *Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> *Reply To: *Law & R
ong.
Marc Stern
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network.
From: Friedman, Howard M.
Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2014 9:03 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Reply To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Holt v. Hobbs Oral Argum
...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
on behalf of Failinger, Marie [mfailin...@hamline.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 6:38 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Holt v. Hobbs Oral Argument
I haven't read all of the background materials, but it se
I haven't read all of the background materials, but it seems to me a little
bizarre to worry about what one could hide in a 1/4, 1/2 or even 3 inch
beard given what one could hide in a typical prison uniform. If uniforms
are searched for contraband, why not beards? Seems like it would be much
eas
e.blogs.com
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
on behalf of Berg, Thomas C.
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 2:59 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Hol
The oral argument transcript is up,
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-6827_8758.pdf.
I haven't read it yet, but from the SCOTUS Blog report, it looks like things
went poorly for the state.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/10/argument-report-trouble-at-the-lecter
14 matches
Mail list logo
