]
***
-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Sunday, October
01, 2006 2:29 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Locke v. Davey
Analysis
Locke v. Davey does not
announce
; (480-444-0020) to advise me that you received
it. Thank you. PRIVILEGED> AND CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY CLIENT
COMMUNICATION/ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT>>>>> >> From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of>
[EMAIL PROT
TECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 8:10
AMTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: Locke v.
Davey Analysis
I think this is not a persuasive reading of either the opinion or any
opinion onto which the author, Rehnquist, would have signed on. Rehn
I think this is not a persuasive reading of either the opinion or any
opinion onto which the author, Rehnquist, would have signed on. Rehnquist
always looked for the dispositive element in a case, and was rarely interested
in multifactorial tests, or the kind of intuitive weighing they requi
Locke is a mystery to me. It seems to be a triumph of Chief Justice Rehnquist's quest for a wide deference in the name of states' rights.
On the other hand, WHR's analysis of discrimination is impossible to support. He seems to say that discrimination (a plain and open disparate treatment)
