Pop Quiz: Justice O'Connor and the Religion Clauses

[Marty Lederman]

You are absolutely correct -- mea culpa!  (And since I worked on Agostini at DOJ, I have absolutely no excuse.)

 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Fee" <Feej at lawgate.byu.edu>
To: <religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: Pop Quiz: Justice O'Connor and the Religion Clauses


> Aha.  Justice O'Connor has written two majority opinions dealing with
> the Religion Clauses:  Lyng (1988) and Agostini v. Felton (1997). 
> (Howard Freidman's blog forgets Agostini.)
> 
>>>> marty.lederman at comcast.net 07/02/05 8:50 AM >>>
> QUESTION ONE
> 
> Those of you who have already glanced over at Howard Friedman's blog
> will already know the answer to this first question and thus are
> disqualified.  If you haven't looked over there yet, don't peek.
> 
> It is fair to say -- as most of us have in fact repeatedly said -- that
> Justice O'Connor has written the Law of the Religion Clauses over the
> past generation, and that as her retirement approaches, the governing
> law in the area is predominantly what SOC has said it is.  Believe it or
> not, however, in her 24 Terms on the Court Justice O'Connor has written
> only one majority opinion dealing with the Religion Clauses.
> 
> Name her single majority opinion.  (How long did it take you to figure
> out the answer?)
> 
> 
> QUESTION TWO
> 
> According to the Washington Post, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
> yesterday issued a statement "thank God she's retiring."  Presumably
> this sentiment is the function of the view that Justice O'Connor's
> jurisprudence has harmed religious liberty.  (I welcome any corrections
> or qualifications from the Becket folks on this list -- I haven't been
> able to find the full statement.)  Rick Garnett, on the other hand,
> writes on his blog that "In my view, she was -- among other things -- a
> consistent and important defender of religious freedom, and of the
> constitutional principle that our First Amendment does not require
> discrimination against religious believers or the exclusion of religion
> from the public square."
> 
> Who's right?      
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20050702/4b9faed6/attachment.html