Boerne....Lane

[earl maltz]

It seems to me that he quite explicitly states that his opinion is much
like Stevens' opinion in Boerne--a First Amendment opinion masquarading as
a federal power argument.  This characterization would fit far more
comfortably with the rest of his opinions and positions on federal power
issues.





At 11:17 AM 11/29/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>Breyer's dissenting opinion in Eldred v. Ashcroft provides powerful, though 
>(arguably) substantively limited, evidence supporting Marci's assertion.
>
>
>Trevor W. Morrison
>Assistant Professor of Law
>Cornell Law School
>116 Myron Taylor Hall
>Ithaca, NY 14853
>607-255-9023
>607-255-7193 (fax)
>
>
>
>At 11:05 AM 11/29/2004 -0500, earl maltz wrote:
>>Where is the evidence for this assertion with respect to Breyer and Souter?
>>
>>
>>At 09:55 AM 11/29/2004 EST, Marci Hamilton wrote:
>> >           it's pretty clear that no one on the Court is inclined to give
>> >Congress effectively unreviewable power.
>> >  _______________________________________________ To post, send message to
>> >Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or
get
>> >password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>> >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 Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>>
>>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.
>
>
>
>