Engel v. Vitale recusals?
DLaycock at law.utexas.edu
Mon Apr 3 10:58:44 PDT 2006
It was 6-1, with an opinion of the Court for five. And when the Court
is short handed, it is short handed for all its cases, not just this
one. My impression is that it doesn't put cases over for reargument on
grounds of shorthandedness unless it is evenly divided.
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of robson
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 12:41 PM
To: Jonathan Entin; CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Engel v. Vitale recusals?
Thanks! And thanks to those who replied off-list.
That's what I've been assuming, which leads to the real query:
Why did the Court not defer the case, since it was well-known to be
Just not close enough?
Visiting Professor of Law
Stetson University College of Law
1401 61st Street South
Gulfport, FL 33707
rrobson at law.stetson.edu
Professor of Law
City University of New York School of Law
65-21 Main Street
Flushing, NY 11367
robson at mail.law.cuny.edu
----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan Entin <mailto:jle at case.edu>
To: 'robson' <mailto:robson at mail.law.cuny.edu> ;
CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 1:41 PM
Subject: RE: Engel v. Vitale recusals?
I believe that Justice White was not sworn in until after Engel
v. Vitale was argued. I suspect that Justice Frankfurter's declining
health explains his lack of participation.
Jonathan L. Entin
Professor of Law and Political Science
Case Western Reserve University
jle at case.edu <mailto:jle at case.edu> (e-mail)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conlawprof