Warner v Boca Raton

[Douglas Laycock]

        I don't know if its unusual.  Scalia is devout and he gave us Smith.

        The first question is attitudes towards liberty:  if you don't think the
courts or the federal government are importantly responsible for protecting
liberty, then you won't do it.  The second question is distinctions among
liberties:  different judges have different lists of favored and disfavored
liberties, and they sometimes create exceptions to their general approach
of enforcing or not enforcing liberty.

At 01:19 PM 10/04/1999 -0400, you wrote:
>I'm sorry, Marc --- I intermingled two thoughts, and I guess that I wasn't
clear.  I would prefer that we not call judges idiots because I don't think
it's terribly courteous or respectful to refer to anyone as an idiot.  The
judge's religion (or lack thereof) or ACLU affiliation is irrelevant in
that regard.
>
>My comment on the judge's faith was an unrelated point that I find
interesting, since it is often easy to assume that judges who rule against
religious claims have some hostility toward religion.  That is not true
here.  If he were a devout Jew, Muslim or whatever, the point would be the
same.  From my perspective, this seems to be a case where a judge who is,
in general, very sympathetic toward religion believes that the law compels
a result that many of us find to be offensive in its treatment of religion.
 It is an unusual case in that regard.
>
>Brad
>
>************************************************************************
>Bradley P. Jacob, J.D.
>Provost and Dean of the College
>Patrick Henry College                         540-338-1776 (voice)
>P.O. Box 1776                                    540-338-9333 (fax)
>Purcellville, VA 20134-1776                phc at hslda.org (email)
>Web:  http://phc.hslda.org
>
>************************************************************************
>
>>>> Marc Stern <MSternAJC at AOL.COM> 10/04/99 12:54PM >>>
>But if Judge Ryskamp were a meber of the ACLU or  Amercian Atheists,  it
>would be ok to criticize him as an idiot of a judge? Maybe the problem here
>is that this devout Christian judge does not see Boca Raton's restriction as
>a problem for his religion and therefore not a problem. Or may be his faith
>in circumscribing judicial authority id stronger than his Christian  faith.In
>any event,it is one thing to uphold Boca Raton's authority.It is another (and
>it was this which brough the characterization of the judge as an idiot) to
>deny that someone elses religious beliefs are religious.
>Marc Stern
>


Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX  78705
        512-232-1341 (phone)
        512-471-6988 (fax)
        dlaycock at mail.law.utexas.edu