described below?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 7:02
AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Institutional
Capacity to Manage Exemptions
It is
lamentable whenan accommodation that makes good sense is turned
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original
Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Newsom Michael
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 6:40
PM
To: Law Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: RE: Institutional
Capacity to Manage Exemptions
I have to ask Professor
West whether
to legislative acts and judicial rules alike if they help
religious litigants.
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 4:15
PMTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re:
In
I take it that challenges are improper even if well grounded? Not all challenges, of course, prevail (Rosenberger).
On Monday, March 14, 2005, at 04:53 PM, Anthony Picarello wrote:
Then, with the sole exception of federal constitutional amendments, religious groups can expect Establishment
As I have said repeatedly, plenty of legislative accommodations are
constitutional and legitimate. Blind accommodation, though, (RFRA/RLUIPA)
in particular, presents legislators at their worst-- deferential to the point of
being brain-dead, when there are obvious harms to others in the
It is lamentable whenan accommodation that makes good sense is
turned down by a legislature. But I see no reason to think that
forcing assimilation of many behaviors is lamentable. Only the most
rose-colored vision of religion thatcan thinkthat it should not
assimilate in many
Isn't the
attitudeAlan's identifies as "the idea that religious people will somehow
stop existing" better stated as the idea that religion should be privatized?
Many who hold the latter view sincerely believe in a robust and well-defended
area of religious worship, conduct,and _expression_.
I think it is hard to say any decision is not political, but leaving that
aside, the judicial decisions cannot be principled, because they rest on and are
made by unelected individuals who always have an inadequate factual basis to
assess and judge the public policy at stake. They cannot
hose cases.
Douglas
Laycock
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341
512-471-6988 (fax)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on
behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Fri 3/11/2005 6:01 AMTo:
religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: Institutional Capacity t
would be that they
would have taken the same position.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 8:38
AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Institutional
Capacity to Manage Exemptions
Isn't
the attitudeAlan's identifies
: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 7:50 PM
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Institutional Capacity to Manage Exemptions
One might ask, why should those who object to the majority's views on
religion alone be given across-the-board exemptions from the majority's
views taught
, 2005 6:12 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Institutional Capacity to Manage Exemptions
There are a variety of answers to this question -- about why religion is
special and merits distinct constitutional consideration. I have written
about several of them -- as have many
law has been applied?
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Lund, Christopher
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 6:44 PM
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Institutional Capacity to Manage Exemptions
] on behalf of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Thu 3/10/2005 9:24 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Institutional Capacity to Manage Exemptions
Any thoughts on how this analysis applies to Bob Jones
University, which was in fact required to change its religiosity
for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Institutional Capacity to Manage Exemptions
To follow up on Doug's point, one of the problem's I have with Marci's
arguments about judicial exemptions and legislative accommodations is
that
it sometimes appears as if Marci views religious groups seeking
legislative
I completely agree with Alan these issues are not black and white.
The question is the lesser of two evils in determining accommodation: the courts
or the legislature. I think it is very hard to argue the courts are better
suited to make such a determination than a legislature. That is not
: Wednesday, March 09, 2005
10:00 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Institutional
Capacity to Manage Exemptions
I
completely agree with Alan these issues are not black and white. The
question is the lesser of two evils in determining accommodation: the courts or
the legislature. I think
PROTECTED]Sent: Wed 3/9/2005 2:57 PMTo:
religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: Institutional Capacity to
Manage Exemptions
Byhaving
legislatures makethe accommodation, I am not repealingthe
Establishment Clause, which was the reason those cases came out the way they
did.The Smith
Message-
From: West, Ellis
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday,
March 09, 2005 5:40 PM
To: Law Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: RE: Institutional
Capacity to Manage Exemptions
Although
the issue of whether legislatures or courts are better qualified or more likely
to grant
.
-Original Message-
From: West, Ellis
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005
2:40 PM
To: Law
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Institutional
Capacity to Manage Exemptions
Although
the issue of whether legislatures or courts are better qualified or more
To follow up on Doug's point, one of the problem's I have with Marci's
arguments about judicial exemptions and legislative accommodations is that
it sometimes appears as if Marci views religious groups seeking legislative
accommodations or constitutionally mandated exemptions as self interested
@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Institutional
Capacity to Manage Exemptions
I couldn't agree more, Mike, that
the facts determinative here, but I strongly disagree with your
characterization of the facts.
Not every accommodation should be granted, indeed, many should not. Since
I don't know what the Pagans
. These narratives thoroughly demolish the theories.
And they make the case for exemptions on a case-by-case basis.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 8:03
PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Institutional
Capacity
I couldn't agree more, Mike, that the facts determinative here, but I strongly disagree with your characterization of the facts.
Not every accommodation should be granted, indeed, many should not. Since I don't know what the Pagans requested, I don't know how to judge the denials. It is nonsense
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341
512-471-6988 (fax)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on
behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Mon 3/7/2005 9:49 PMTo:
religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: Institutional Capacity to
Manage Exemptions
I couldn't agree
more
25 matches
Mail list logo
