Question about a line in Mitchell

[David Cruz]

Perhaps:  "At least three main lines of enquiry addressed particularly to
school aid have emerged to complement evenhandedness neutrality. . . .
Third, we have found relevance in at least five characteristics of the
aid itself . . . ."

David B. Cruz
Professor of Law
University of Southern California Law School
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071
U.S.A.

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Volokh, Eugene wrote:

> 	In Mitchell, Rehnquist writes "The dissent serves up a
> smorgasbord of 11 factors that, depending on the facts of each case "in
> all its particularity," could be relevant to the constitutionality of a
> school-aid program. And those 11 are a bare minimum. We are reassured
> that there are likely more."  Does anyone recall off-hand exactly which
> language in the dissent Rehqnuist is referring to when he says "We are
> reassured that there are likely more"?  I've followed his citation to
> the dissent, and see the 11 factors, but didn't notice the dissent's
> suggesting there will likely be more factors -- but I may well have
> missed something, and I'd much appreciate it if you folks can set me
> straight.  Many thanks,
>
> 	Eugene
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at 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.
>