Transcript in case dismissed because plaintiff Muslim woman refused to unveil to testify

[Steven Jamar]

I don't see how this can be other than "generally applicable."  But  
it does expose the problems with "generally applicable" as a standard.

Steve


On Dec 18, 2006, at 4:31 PM, Christopher C. Lund wrote:

>
> I think there is a real question as to whether the rule here is  
> generally applicable.  By allowing a witness who is more than 100  
> miles away to testify by written deposition, Michigan has made a  
> value judgment -- whatever the value of demeanor evidence, it is  
> not worth forcing witnesses to travel more than 100 miles to the  
> courthouse.  The burden of a two-hour drive is enough for Michigan  
> to relax its insistence on demeanor evidence; the burden of a  
> religious commandment is not.
>
> Now courts may simply take the rule and the exception as the  
> government frames them (the rule is a rule about decorum or dress,  
> and not really about demeanor), rather than looking at the stated  
> concerns behind the rule and the rule's potential  
> underinclusiveness in responding to those concerns.  But I think  
> that's a mistake, and a poor reading of Lukumi.
>

-- 
Prof. Steven D. Jamar                               vox:  202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law                     fax:  202-806-8567
2900 Van Ness Street NW                   mailto:stevenjamar at gmail.com
Washington, DC  20008	                         http://iipsj.com/SDJ/

"I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and nonviolence are as  
old as the hills."

Gandhi



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20061218/73bf0155/attachment.htm