Marci,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. But let me press the issue a bit
further. You suggest in your answer to my hypo about whisky and brandy
that the court may apply strict scrutiny to decisions to accommodate one
religious practice but another when there is no meaningful difference
betwee
Alan-- In the speech cases involving content discrimination that
triggers strict scrutiny, the strict scrutiny is justified because there is
reason to be suspicious of the government's purpose and motive. So we'll
have to agree to disagree on that point.
I don't think there is a meanin
I'm not sure that I agree with Marci's argument that courts may only
employ strict scrutiny review when they suspect the government has some
improper purpose -- but a lot might depend on how one defines improper.
(For example, is it improper for government to so devalue speech that it
is willi
In a message dated 12/8/2004 10:38:40 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But courts determine all the time, and under several
different constitutional provisions, what is a compelling government interest
and whether the lrm were employed to serve that interest. Why are
standard in a statute?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 10:19
AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: SG
Application for Stay of "Hoasca Tea" Injunction
I'm coming in in the middle here, so fo
I'm coming in in the middle here, so forgive me if I'm repeating something
from this thread. It seems to me two principles are getting confused
here. The first is the free exercise principle: whether strict scrutiny
should be invoked because the government has permitted secular exemptions b
ROTECTED]>
> To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 9:40 PM
> Subject: Re: SG Application for Stay of "Hoasca Tea" Injunction
>
>
> > In its reply, the government argues at page
notwithstanding
the many tax-code exemptions), the same is not true of the nation's
drug laws.
- Original Message -
From: "Michael MASINTER" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tu
In its reply, the government argues at page 10:
That is, the Controlled Substances Act is exactly the type of law
that Congress envisioned would satisfy RFRAs compelling interest
test and it would do so categorically because there is a compelling
interest is [sic] in the uniform enforcement of the
y, December 06, 2004 1:33
PM
Subject: Re: SG Application for Stay of
"Hoasca Tea" Injunction
As I note below, the respondents have now filed their opposition to the
SG's application of a stay of the preliminary injunction granting a RFRA
exemption. I'm cu
PROTECTED]
---
-Original Message-
From: Marty Lederman
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004
12:33 PM
To: Law &
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: SG Application for
Stay of "Hoasca Tea" In
And I thought the religiously motivated sale of t-shirts bearing gospel messages on the National Mall in Washington DC was the most important RFRA case challenging federal law to date. Tea anyone?
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
___
To post, send m
As I note below, the respondents have now filed their opposition to the
SG's application of a stay of the preliminary injunction granting a RFRA
exemption. I'm curious: This is certainly the most important case
yet concerning the application of RFRA to federal law. To what extent
are prop
I presume that I am not
the only person to notice the irony (or is it a paradox?) in the
Administration's arguing that it must scrupulously adhere to a United Nations
Convention even if, by stipulation, it overrides the expressed (and otherwise
constitutional) wish of Congress that religious
Aside from very interesting questions
about preliminary injunctions raised by this case ,the case also raises the sensitive
question of whether the religious liberty rights of American citizens can be
adversely affected by a treaty.(All the judges on the Circuit thought the answer
was yes
15 matches
Mail list logo
