Re: Jim Oleske's new review of book by Robert George

ound them persuasive in the first place. > > > > Best, > > Mark > > > > Mark S. Scarberry > > Professor of Law > > Pepperdine Univ. School of Law > > > > > > > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]

RE: Jim Oleske's new review of book by Robert George

: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Doug Laycock Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:28 PM To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Jim Oleske's new review of book by Robert George I think Smith was wrong.

Re: Jim Oleske's new review of book by Robert George

I thought Smith was wrong at the time. I now think it is mostly right albeit with an unworkable, even naive standard of “neutral and generally applicable” — which was and is meaningless in a regime of accommodations (how are such laws neutral or generally applicable?). But the idea that religio

Re: Jim Oleske's new review of book by Robert George

Dear Chip - Yes, thanks, your response helps me understand your position. Rick Sent from my iPhone On Feb 18, 2015, at 6:16 PM, Ira Lupu wrote: Dear Rick: Yes, I think you are just echoing Mark and Eugene when you emphasize the distinction between pre-Smith free exercise adjudication and RFR

RE: Jim Oleske's new review of book by Robert George

-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 6:12 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Jim Oleske's new review of book by Robert George Dear Rick: Yes, I think you are just echoing

Re: Jim Oleske's new review of book by Robert George

Dear Rick: Yes, I think you are just echoing Mark and Eugene when you emphasize the distinction between pre-Smith free exercise adjudication and RFRA adjudication. Consider what Scalia says in Smith (pp. 885-890) about the normative and institutional deficiencies of free exercise adjudication --

Re: Jim Oleske's new review of book by Robert George

Dear Chip, I'm probably just echoing Eugene's earlier comment but, for what it's worth, I think your claim that "[n]o one who embraced Scalia's description of limits on the judicial role could be a fan of RFRA, unless perhaps it turned out that RFRA helped his friends" might overstate things a bit

RE: Jim Oleske's new review of book by Robert George

. Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Scarberry, Mark Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 10:56 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Jim Oleske's new review of book by Robert George In respons

RE: Jim Oleske's new review of book by Robert George

: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 9:52 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Jim Oleske's new review of book by Robert George [Snip]] No one who embraced Scalia'

Re: Jim Oleske's new review of book by Robert George

I doubt that most list members are very engaged in this tussle between Jim Oleske and Robby George. George and his friends certainly seem very engaged, though -- one might say they are more than a tad defensive in their responses to Jim Oleske's rigorously argued (I repeat) review of George's book

Re: Jim Oleske's new review of book by Robert George

One additional note on this. Mike Paulsen reports the following: http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/398692/friends-and-enemies-conscience-and-its-enemies-michael-stokes-paulsen As it happens, last spring *I* had been invited by the *Harvard Law Review Forum *to review *Conscience and Its E

Re: Jim Oleske's new review of book by Robert George

Thanks much to Chip for initially bringing my piece to the attention of the list, and to Ryan for flagging George's response. I would urge anyone who read my review (ssrn.com/abstract=2554192) to also read Professor George's response (thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/02/14430/) in full. Professor Georg

Re: Jim Oleske's new review of book by Robert George

Thanks for calling our attention to this review. The list might find George's response worth reading. Here's the opening: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/02/14430/ The Oldest Trick in the Book Reviewer's Book: On Misreading *Conscience and Its Enemies* *by* Robert P. George

Jim Oleske's new review of book by Robert George

I want to call the list's attention to Jim Oleske's rigorously argued, just published review of Robert George, Conscience and Its Enemies: Confronting the Dogmas of Liberal Secularism (2013). The web link is here, http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/01/the-born-again-champion-of-conscience/, and the