, 2013 7:10 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Response to Tom Berg (and others)
Thanks everyone for terrific comments. We are in the middle of the
holiday(s) now, but I want to share some quick thoughts. Paul,
speaking now just for myself, I agree with Chip's response to you,
with one a
ms.)
Alan
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
on behalf of Nelson Tebbe [nelson.te...@brooklaw.edu]
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 7:10 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Response to Tom Berg (and other
Thanks everyone for terrific comments. We are in the middle of the holiday(s)
now, but I want to share some quick thoughts. Paul, speaking now just for
myself, I agree with Chip's response to you, with one alteration. Doctrinally,
I think the ministerial exception is grounded in the intimate re
.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Nelson Tebbe
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 6:07 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Response to Tom Berg (and others)
Tom:
Thanks so much for engaging with the piece so generously and skillfully. It's
heartening that the Establishment Clause issues are
's general constitutional
methods. For more, although I'm pretty clear in the post that it's a rough
take, see here:
http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2013/11/two-cases.html.
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:03:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Response to Tom Berg (and others)
From: icl...@la
Tom, Nelson, and Micah have very artfully and rigorously framed the
relevant questions re: the role of third party harms and Establishment
Clause concerns in the contraceptive mandate litigation. Paul's question
was addressed to Nelson, but I would like to suggest an answer --
Hosanna-Tabor can an
Nelson, just on the third-party harm point, do you therefore think that
Hosanna-Tabor was wrongly decided? Or do you think that it is something of a
misnomer to treat a ministerial employee as a total "third party?"
> On Nov 27, 2013, at 9:12 AM, "Nelson Tebbe" wrote:
>
>
>
> Tom:
>
> Than
Tom:
Thanks so much for engaging with the piece so generously and skillfully. It’s
heartening that the Establishment Clause issues are finally getting an
airing—our only worry is that it may be too late for a proper briefing before
the Supreme Court. But maybe some members of this list can h
