RE: Atheists on Jury Duty in Alabma
Dear Carol Moore, I would encourage you to contact the Alabama ACLU affiliate. http://www.aclualabama.org/ContactUs/ContactUs.htm David B. Cruz Professor of Law University of Southern California Gould School of Law Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071 U.S.A. -Original Message- From: CAROL MOORE [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 3:28 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Atheists on Jury Duty in Alabma I have been rejected as a juror, just this week, after having been selected and seated because, when I approached the Circuit Court Judge about my inability to say the oath with so help me god at the end of it, he asked the prosecutor and defense attorney to vote on it (and this is after opening arguments, mind you). I stated my willingness to serve and to talk an alternative oath. The defense attorney refused, saying he could not have a juror who did not believe in god (the case was drunk disorderly, resisting arrest). I was removed (which, if one is actually looking for way to duck jury duty, this one was easy). My question to you all, besides being an obvious violation the US Constitution, is this worth pursuing? Carol Moore, list reader ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
JOHN LOFTON / Question, Please -- Jurors....
Are they to be judges only of the facts or also the law? And if not the law, sez who? What is a juror to do if he believes law is unjust -- un-Godly, un-Constitutional? John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com Recovering Republican Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ. -- John Calvin. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: JOHN LOFTON / Question, Please -- Jurors....
Folks: Please let's focus on technical legal discussions of the questions of the law of government and religion. If someone wants to tie these questions to Torcaso v. Watkins, or for that matter to other legal principles, that's great. But discussions at this level of abstraction, with no tie to concrete legal matters, is not helpful on the list. The list custodian From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JOHN LOFTON Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 1:37 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: JOHN LOFTON / Question, Please -- Jurors Are they to be judges only of the facts or also the law? And if not the law, sez who? What is a juror to do if he believes law is unjust -- un-Godly, un-Constitutional? John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com Recovering Republican Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ. -- John Calvin. Plan your next roadtrip with MapQuest.com http://www.mapquest.com/?ncid=mpqmap000304 : America's #1 Mapping Site. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: JOHN LOFTON / Question, Please -- Jurors....
What's lacking in any concrete sense is any link between the question and the law of government and religion -- or, more specifically, the link between the question and the exclusion of atheists from jury service, and whether or not that is or should be permissible (especially given Torcaso v. Watkins). Eugene From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JOHN LOFTON Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 1:42 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: JOHN LOFTON / Question, Please -- Jurors The question is hardly abstract; jurors face it every day. JL John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com Recovering Republican Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ. -- John Calvin. -Original Message- From: Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 3:39 pm Subject: RE: JOHN LOFTON / Question, Please -- Jurors Folks: Please let's focus on technical legal discussions of the questions of the law of government and religion. If someone wants to tie these questions to Torcaso v. Watkins, or for that matter to other legal principles, that's great. But discussions at this level of abstraction, with no tie to concrete legal matters, is not helpful on the list. The list custodian From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] On Behalf Of JOHN LOFTON Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 1:37 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: JOHN LOFTON / Question, Please -- Jurors Are they to be judges only of the facts or also the law? And if not the law, sez who? What is a juror to do if he believes law is unjust -- un-Godly, un-Constitutional? John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com Recovering Republican Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ. -- John Calvin. Plan your next roadtrip with MapQuest.com http://www.mapquest.com/?ncid=mpqmap000304 : America's #1 Mapping Site. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. Plan your next roadtrip with MapQuest.com http://www.mapquest.com/?ncid=mpqmap000304 : America's #1 Mapping Site. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: JOHN LOFTON / Question, Please -- Jurors....
OK, so tell me, please, when my question is OK to ask. Thank you. JL John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com Recovering Republican Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ. -- John Calvin. -Original Message- From: Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 3:44 pm Subject: RE: JOHN LOFTON / Question, Please -- Jurors ??? What's lacking in any concrete sense is any link between the question and the law of government and religion -- or, more specifically, the link between the question and the exclusion of atheists from jury service, and whether or not that is or should be permissible?(especially given Torcaso v. Watkins). ? ??? Eugene From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JOHN LOFTON Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 1:42 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: JOHN LOFTON / Question, Please -- Jurors The question is hardly abstract; jurors face it every day. JL John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com Recovering Republican Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ. -- John Calvin. -Original Message- From: Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 3:39 pm Subject: RE: JOHN LOFTON / Question, Please -- Jurors ??? Folks:? Please let's focus on technical legal discussions of the questions of the law of government and religion.? If someone wants to tie these questions to Torcaso v. Watkins, or for that matter to other legal principles, that's great.? But discussions at this level of abstraction, with no tie to concrete legal matters, is not helpful on the list. ? ??? The list custodian From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JOHN LOFTON Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 1:37 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: JOHN LOFTON / Question, Please -- Jurors Are they to be judges only of the facts or also the law? And if not the law, sez who? What is a juror to do if he believes law is unjust -- un-Godly, un-Constitutional? John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com Recovering Republican Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ. -- John Calvin. Plan your next roadtrip with MapQuest.com: America's #1 Mapping Site. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. Plan your next roadtrip with MapQuest.com: America's #1 Mapping Site. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: Atheists on Jury Duty in Alabma
It seems to me that although the SCOTUS gave lip service to the right of jurors not to be discriminated against (Batson/race and JEB/gender), there is no practical way for you to raise the issue. In all the cases I have seem, it is raised by one of the parties via objection to the strike, and then followed up on appeal. I believe you would have all kinds of problems with standing, not to mention who you sue in the first place. Out of curiosity, I wonder if you would email me off list and share who was involved. Joel Joel L. Sogol Attorney at Law 811 21st Ave. Tuscaloosa, ALabama 35401 ph (205) 345-0966 fx (205) 345-0971 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a fair fight - which is why we have evidence rules in U.S. courts. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of CAROL MOORE Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 2:23 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Atheists on Jury Duty in Alabma Importance: High I have been rejected as a juror, just this week, after having been selected and seated because, when I approached the Circuit Court Judge about my inability to say the oath with so help me god at the end of it, he asked the prosecutor and defense attorney to vote on it (and this is after opening arguments, mind you). I stated my willingness to serve and to talk an alternative oath. The defense attorney refused, saying he could not have a juror who did not believe in god (the case was drunk disorderly, resisting arrest). I was removed (which, if one is actually looking for way to duck jury duty, this one was easy). My question to you all, besides being an obvious violation the US Constitution, is this worth pursuing? Carol Moore, list reader ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: JOHN LOFTON / Question, Please -- Jurors....
I suppose the technical legal question could revolve around the propriety of asking any potential juror who gives evidence of being deeply religious (whatever exactly that means) if he/she is willing to enforce laws (and put people in prison) even if he/she believes that the law is not only unjust, but, more to the present point, un-Godly, i.e., a violation of what the potential juror believes is the epistemically knowable Divine command with regard to behavior? Shameless self-promotion: I've recently written about our seeming incapacity to have an intelligent public conversation about the relevance of religious commitments to considering potential nominees to the federal judiciary, see http://www.stthomas.edu/law/programs/journal/Volume4num2/Levinson_Is_It_ Possi.pdf I do not see why a strongly Catholic nominee who might fear being denied communion for running afoul of the Church's basic tenets should not asked if he/she is willing to enforce Casey in spite of his/her apparent belief (perhaps based on public statements, as with Judge Pryor) that abortion is indeed a violation of God's law? And I suppose I'd be interested, these days, in whether a candidate for president (or VP) is a Christian Zionist who believes that we have special duties to Israel because of its ostensible sacred status. Perhaps we've already had a sufficient number of such discussions in the past, but that is a quite different objection from the one that such questions are unhelpful to persons who are part of the list. sandy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 3:39 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: JOHN LOFTON / Question, Please -- Jurors Folks: Please let's focus on technical legal discussions of the questions of the law of government and religion. If someone wants to tie these questions to Torcaso v. Watkins, or for that matter to other legal principles, that's great. But discussions at this level of abstraction, with no tie to concrete legal matters, is not helpful on the list. The list custodian From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JOHN LOFTON Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 1:37 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: JOHN LOFTON / Question, Please -- Jurors Are they to be judges only of the facts or also the law? And if not the law, sez who? What is a juror to do if he believes law is unjust -- un-Godly, un-Constitutional? John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com Recovering Republican Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ. -- John Calvin. Plan your next roadtrip with MapQuest.com http://www.mapquest.com/?ncid=mpqmap000304 : America's #1 Mapping Site. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Atheists on Jury Duty in Alabma
I might also be unlawful under the Alabama Constitution; it is both an establishment of religion and if Alabama has a ban on religious tests for office holding (as the US constitution does) it would violate that as well. Next thing we know the Chief Justice of Alabama will want to put the Ten Commandments up in his courthouse, or something like that. Paul Finkelman Paul Finkelman President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law and Public Policy Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, New York 12208-3494 518-445-3386 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/24/08 4:15 PM Well, it's clearly unconstitutional, as you say. Torcaso v. Watkins (US 1961) says government can't require affirmation of belief in God to be a notary public. Jury member should be no different. And we have provided alternate forms of oath for religious objectors since the 18th century. Everyone gets to swear or affirm; the option to affirm was written for Quakers, but it should be available for you too. But it might be very hard to set this up as a case a court could decide. Do you sue somebody for an injunction to make sure it doesn't happen again? Well, what are the odds you will be called again? What are the odds the next judge and the next pair of lawyers would react the same way? This seems like a pretty idiosyncratic event. So you might not be able to get an injunction. It might even be that Alabama law provides that jurors can affirm instead of swear, and that this judge didn't know that or just ignored it. Or didn't think it applied to you. Do you sue for damages for not being on the jury? What damages? Your time was given back to you. Were you humiliated? Suffer emotional distress? It has to be significant, not just a momentary upset. Maybe you could you sue for $1 in nominal damages as a way of presenting the issue. But the judge and the prosecutor are absolutely immune from any suit for damages. That leaves only the defense lawyer, and he will claim that he should be immune too. He's not even a government actor. So there's a good chance that the court will never reach the merits of your claim. If you use your own name, you have to be prepared for a terrific amount of public abuse and hate mail; you will make yourself notorious. The court might let you sue as Jane Doe, and that usually provides substantial protection, but people will try to figure out who you are, and they may succeed. Quoting CAROL MOORE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I have been rejected as a juror, just this week, after having been selected and seated because, when I approached the Circuit Court Judge about my inability to say the oath with so help me god at the end of it, he asked the prosecutor and defense attorney to vote on it (and this is after opening arguments, mind you). I stated my willingness to serve and to talk an alternative oath. The defense attorney refused, saying he could not have a juror who did not believe in god (the case was drunk disorderly, resisting arrest). I was removed (which, if one is actually looking for way to duck jury duty, this one was easy). My question to you all, besides being an obvious violation the US Constitution, is this worth pursuing? Carol Moore, list reader ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw[1] Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. Douglas Laycock Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School 625 S. State St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 734-647-9713 Links: -- [1] /horde/services/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ucla.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Freligionlaw ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Atheists on Jury Duty in Alabma
ONe other thought, is this a civil rights violation based on religion? I am not in the office and don't have easy access to the 1964 act but I would bet this is a violation of the '64 act, and if jury duty is tied to voting, does it violate the '65 voting rights act as well? Paul Finkelman Paul Finkelman President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law and Public Policy Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, New York 12208-3494 518-445-3386 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/24/08 4:15 PM Well, it's clearly unconstitutional, as you say. Torcaso v. Watkins (US 1961) says government can't require affirmation of belief in God to be a notary public. Jury member should be no different. And we have provided alternate forms of oath for religious objectors since the 18th century. Everyone gets to swear or affirm; the option to affirm was written for Quakers, but it should be available for you too. But it might be very hard to set this up as a case a court could decide. Do you sue somebody for an injunction to make sure it doesn't happen again? Well, what are the odds you will be called again? What are the odds the next judge and the next pair of lawyers would react the same way? This seems like a pretty idiosyncratic event. So you might not be able to get an injunction. It might even be that Alabama law provides that jurors can affirm instead of swear, and that this judge didn't know that or just ignored it. Or didn't think it applied to you. Do you sue for damages for not being on the jury? What damages? Your time was given back to you. Were you humiliated? Suffer emotional distress? It has to be significant, not just a momentary upset. Maybe you could you sue for $1 in nominal damages as a way of presenting the issue. But the judge and the prosecutor are absolutely immune from any suit for damages. That leaves only the defense lawyer, and he will claim that he should be immune too. He's not even a government actor. So there's a good chance that the court will never reach the merits of your claim. If you use your own name, you have to be prepared for a terrific amount of public abuse and hate mail; you will make yourself notorious. The court might let you sue as Jane Doe, and that usually provides substantial protection, but people will try to figure out who you are, and they may succeed. Quoting CAROL MOORE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I have been rejected as a juror, just this week, after having been selected and seated because, when I approached the Circuit Court Judge about my inability to say the oath with so help me god at the end of it, he asked the prosecutor and defense attorney to vote on it (and this is after opening arguments, mind you). I stated my willingness to serve and to talk an alternative oath. The defense attorney refused, saying he could not have a juror who did not believe in god (the case was drunk disorderly, resisting arrest). I was removed (which, if one is actually looking for way to duck jury duty, this one was easy). My question to you all, besides being an obvious violation the US Constitution, is this worth pursuing? Carol Moore, list reader ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw[1] Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. Douglas Laycock Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School 625 S. State St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 734-647-9713 Links: -- [1] /horde/services/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ucla.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Freligionlaw ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: Atheists on Jury Duty in Alabama
The 1964 Act is problematic. Title II forbids discrimination in public accommodations, whose definition does not include jury duty. Title III allows the Attorney General to bring a civil suit against a public [i.e., governmental] facility for religious discrimination, but only upon receiving a complaint and certifying that the action will materially further the orderly progress of desegregation in public facilities. I suppose the AG could argue that the exclusion of atheists is a form of religious segregation. It's not clear whether the same standing argument would apply as to a private suit. There is no private right of action under Title III, since 1983 would seem to provide the right. It may be that Ms. Moore should send a complaint to DOJ under Title III [42 USC 2000b et seq.]. Title 28 forbids religious discrimination in jury selection in federal trials, but does not address state trials. 18 USC 243 makes race discrimination in jury selection a federal crime but does not address other forms of discrimination. 18 USC 245 does protect against discrimination in participation in juries, but only where the challenged action is by force or threat of force. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 2:00 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Atheists on Jury Duty in Alabma ONe other thought, is this a civil rights violation based on religion? I am not in the office and don't have easy access to the 1964 act but I would bet this is a violation of the '64 act, and if jury duty is tied to voting, does it violate the '65 voting rights act as well? Paul Finkelman Paul Finkelman President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law and Public Policy Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, New York 12208-3494 518-445-3386 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/24/08 4:15 PM Well, it's clearly unconstitutional, as you say. Torcaso v. Watkins (US 1961) says government can't require affirmation of belief in God to be a notary public. Jury member should be no different. And we have provided alternate forms of oath for religious objectors since the 18th century. Everyone gets to swear or affirm; the option to affirm was written for Quakers, but it should be available for you too. But it might be very hard to set this up as a case a court could decide. Do you sue somebody for an injunction to make sure it doesn't happen again? Well, what are the odds you will be called again? What are the odds the next judge and the next pair of lawyers would react the same way? This seems like a pretty idiosyncratic event. So you might not be able to get an injunction. It might even be that Alabama law provides that jurors can affirm instead of swear, and that this judge didn't know that or just ignored it. Or didn't think it applied to you. Do you sue for damages for not being on the jury? What damages? Your time was given back to you. Were you humiliated? Suffer emotional distress? It has to be significant, not just a momentary upset. Maybe you could you sue for $1 in nominal damages as a way of presenting the issue. But the judge and the prosecutor are absolutely immune from any suit for damages. That leaves only the defense lawyer, and he will claim that he should be immune too. He's not even a government actor. So there's a good chance that the court will never reach the merits of your claim. If you use your own name, you have to be prepared for a terrific amount of public abuse and hate mail; you will make yourself notorious. The court might let you sue as Jane Doe, and that usually provides substantial protection, but people will try to figure out who you are, and they may succeed. Quoting CAROL MOORE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I have been rejected as a juror, just this week, after having been selected and seated because, when I approached the Circuit Court Judge about my inability to say the oath with so help me god at the end of it, he asked the prosecutor and defense attorney to vote on it (and this is after opening arguments, mind you). I stated my willingness to serve and to talk an alternative oath. The defense attorney refused, saying he could not have a juror who did not believe in god (the case was drunk disorderly, resisting arrest). I was removed (which, if one is actually looking for way to duck jury duty, this one was easy). My question to you all, besides being an obvious violation the US Constitution, is this worth pursuing? Carol Moore, list reader ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw[1] Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
A guideline for list members
Here's a general guideline: The purpose of the list is to provide a forum for law professors to discuss questions having to do with the law of government and religion. For historical reasons, non-academics and even nonlawyers may participate on this list (though that's not the norm for many other lawprof lists with which I'm acquainted). But the goal should generally be to foster a scholarly discussion of relatively technical questions of the law of government and religion. Questions that go far beyond the law of government and religion -- e.g., when juries should vote their conscience independently of their instructions, or whether abortion should be constitutionally protected, or the like -- are thus not suitable for the list. Likewise for questions or assertions that are cast at too high a level of generality to contribute to a valuable discussion (e.g., Is the separation of church and state good or bad?). A good rule of thumb is that if a question doesn't refer to any Religion Clauses caselaw, or any related statute, or any established Religion Clauses doctrine, or any specific proposal for development of some sort of Religion Clauses doctrine, it's not suitable for this list. The one exception relates to items that provide useful or interesting factual information, such as the story that started this thread. If you're not sure whether the material is on-topic, please err on the side of exclusion, or, if you prefer, e-mail me first. I'm sorry to have to get into this, but my view is that these kinds of topical limits are important for the list to be useful to its intended target audience, which is something I try hard to maintain. Please accommodate me on this. The list custodian From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JOHN LOFTON Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 1:46 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: JOHN LOFTON / Question, Please -- Jurors OK, so tell me, please, when my question is OK to ask. Thank you. JL John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com Recovering Republican Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ. -- John Calvin. -Original Message- From: Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 3:44 pm Subject: RE: JOHN LOFTON / Question, Please -- Jurors What's lacking in any concrete sense is any link between the question and the law of government and religion -- or, more specifically, the link between the question and the exclusion of atheists from jury service, and whether or not that is or should be permissible (especially given Torcaso v. Watkins). Eugene From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] On Behalf Of JOHN LOFTON Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 1:42 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: JOHN LOFTON / Question, Please -- Jurors The question is hardly abstract; jurors face it every day. JL John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com Recovering Republican Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ. -- John Calvin. -Original Message- From: Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 3:39 pm Subject: RE: JOHN LOFTON / Question, Please -- Jurors Folks: Please let's focus on technical legal discussions of the questions of the law of government and religion. If someone wants to tie these questions to Torcaso v. Watkins, or for that matter to other legal principles, that's great. But discussions at this level of abstraction, with no tie to concrete legal matters, is not helpful on the list. The list custodian From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] On Behalf Of JOHN LOFTON Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 1:37 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: JOHN LOFTON / Question, Please -- Jurors Are they to
Re: JOHN LOFTON / Question, Please -- Jurors....
Without having read the entire opinion it looks like the facts in the O'Hair case were not exactly identical. The case was basically a facial establishment clause challenge to a provision of the Texas Constitution that provided: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall anyone be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being. But the case did include all sorts of facts and allegations including some related to jury service. O'Hair was seeking various injunctions including one preventing the selection of any more juries until this provision was invalidated because it supposedly excluded atheists from juries. She maintained that she personally had been exluded from jury service because of it. The opinion thus involves the exact issue, but in a very different context. *O'Hair v. White*, 675 F.2d 680 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc). David Waddilove Adjunct Professor William H. Bowen School of Law University of Arkansas at Little Rock PO Box 2060 Little Rock, AR 72223 On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Marc Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't have the citation in front of me,but on pretty much identical facts in a case involving Madeline Murray O'Hair a decade or more ago,the Fifth Circuit dismissed a challenge to a dismissal from jury service on the grounds that it was either moot or did not present a justiciable controversy because there was no certainty that the matter would ever arise again.And judges enjoy an absolute immunity from damages. marc Stern -- *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Volokh, Eugene *Sent:* Thursday, April 24, 2008 4:39 PM *To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics *Subject:* RE: JOHN LOFTON / Question, Please -- Jurors Folks: Please let's focus on technical legal discussions of the questions of the law of government and religion. If someone wants to tie these questions to Torcaso v. Watkins, or for that matter to other legal principles, that's great. But discussions at this level of abstraction, with no tie to concrete legal matters, is not helpful on the list. The list custodian -- *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *JOHN LOFTON *Sent:* Thursday, April 24, 2008 1:37 PM *To:* religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu *Subject:* JOHN LOFTON / Question, Please -- Jurors Are they to be judges only of the facts or also the law? And if not the law, sez who? What is a juror to do if he believes law is unjust -- un-Godly, un-Constitutional? John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com Recovering Republican Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ. -- John Calvin. -- Plan your next roadtrip with MapQuest.comhttp://www.mapquest.com/?ncid=mpqmap000304: America's #1 Mapping Site. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
