JOHN LOFTON / Question, Please -- Jurors....

[David Waddilove]

Without having read the entire opinion it looks like the facts in the O'Hair
case were not exactly identical.  The case was basically a
facial establishment clause challenge to a provision of the Texas
Constitution that provided:

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office,
or public trust, in this State; nor shall anyone be excluded from holding
office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the
existence of a Supreme Being.

But the case did include all sorts of facts and allegations including some
related to jury service.  O'Hair was seeking various injunctions including
one preventing the selection of any more juries until this provision was
invalidated because it supposedly excluded atheists from juries.  She
maintained that she personally had been exluded from jury service because of
it.  The opinion thus involves the exact issue, but in a very different
context.

*O'Hair v. White*, 675 F.2d 680 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc).

David Waddilove
Adjunct Professor
William H. Bowen School of Law
University of Arkansas at Little Rock
PO Box 2060
Little Rock, AR 72223




On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Marc Stern <mstern at ajcongress.org> wrote:

>  I don't have the citation in front of me,but on pretty much identical
> facts in a case involving Madeline Murray O'Hair a decade or more ago,the
> Fifth Circuit dismissed a challenge to a dismissal from jury service on the
> grounds that it was either moot or did not present a justiciable
>  controversy because there was no certainty that the matter would ever arise
> again.And judges  enjoy an absolute immunity from damages.
> marc Stern
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
> religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Volokh, Eugene
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 24, 2008 4:39 PM
> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> *Subject:* RE: JOHN LOFTON / Question, Please -- Jurors....
>
>       Folks:  Please let's focus on technical legal discussions of the
> questions of the law of government and religion.  If someone wants to tie
> these questions to Torcaso v. Watkins, or for that matter to other legal
> principles, that's great.  But discussions at this level of abstraction,
> with no tie to concrete legal matters, is not helpful on the list.
>
>     The list custodian
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
> religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *JOHN LOFTON
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 24, 2008 1:37 PM
> *To:* religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> *Subject:* JOHN LOFTON / Question, Please -- Jurors....
>
>  Are they to be judges only of "the facts" or also "the law"? And if not
> "the law," sez who? What is a juror to do if he believes law is unjust --
> un-Godly, un-Constitutional?
>
> John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
> Recovering Republican
>
> "Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed
> are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of
> Christ." -- John Calvin.
>  ------------------------------
> Plan your next roadtrip with MapQuest.com<http://www.mapquest.com/?ncid=mpqmap00030000000004>:
> America's #1 Mapping Site.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080424/acfb1b31/attachment.htm