Subject: Re: The Roberts Court
Good question, Chip. There is
enough of a difference between the various circuits on "substantial
burden" under RLUIPA's land use provisions that it can credibly be
called a circuit split. But will the Court feel the need to
interven
Good question, Chip. There is enough of a difference between
the various circuits on "substantial burden" under RLUIPA's land use
provisions that it can credibly be called a circuit split. But will
the Court feel the need to intervene? Hard to say.
We're going to see an increasing spli
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> > Friedman, Howard M.
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 12:18 PM
> > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> > Subject: RE: The Roberts Court
> >
> > I would think that the Mt. Soledad Cross case might get to the
> > C
Title: Re: The Roberts Court
I would also add that he
won't change his vote on the creche in Allegheny County.
Douglas Laycock
Alice McKean Young Regents Chair in
Law
The University of Texas at Austin
Mailing Address:
Prof. Douglas Laycock
University of Michigan Law School
Volokh, Eugene wrote:
I was thinking about the Mt. Soledad case, but it may not be
optimal from the conservatives' viewpoint, since it's an overtly
Christian symbol. The line Scalia drew in the Ten Commandments cases
seemed to be between the Christian symbols and Judeo-Christian-Muslim(
Friedman, Howard M.
> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 12:18 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: The Roberts Court
>
> I would think that the Mt. Soledad Cross case might get to the Court.
> Justice Kennedy has already granted a stay of the tri
ECTED]
*
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lupu
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 12:32 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: The Roberts Court
All of the suggestions that have been made in response to this
question
gt; distinction may be litigated soon.
>
> Tom Berg
> University of St. Thomas School of Law (MInnesota)
>
> _
>
> From: Marc Stern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tue 7/25/2006 9:01 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: The
University of St. Thomas School of Law (MInnesota)
_
From: Marc Stern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 7/25/2006 9:01 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: The Roberts Court
I would add that an early Establishment Clause challenge to RLUIPA's
land use p
Not that I would not welcome it, but I would be surprised to see one of the
RLUIPA land use cases come before the Court this Term unless the issue is
the standard under "substantial burden." There has been far more activity
on that issue than the constitutional issues in the courts of appea
Volokh, Eugene wrote:
I'd think that the government religious speech cases might be coming
back, because the last attempted resolution (in the Ten Commandments
cases) is likely to prove quite unadministrable, and because there's a
decent chance that now there are five votes to jettison the en
Stern
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:45 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: The Roberts Court
I'd think that the government religious speech cases might
I'd think that the government religious speech cases might be coming
back, because the last attempted resolution (in the Ten Commandments
cases) is likely to prove quite unadministrable, and because there's a
decent chance that now there are five votes to jettison the endorsement
test.
Eu
13 matches
Mail list logo
