still waiting for concrete examples

[Eric Rassbach]

Don’t they sit in equity every time they rule on a request for injunctive or declaratory relief?  And bankruptcy and ERISA claims are all equitable, no?


From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Hamilton02 at aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 1:14 PM
To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: still waiting for concrete examples

In a message dated 6/22/2009 11:24:41 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ArtSpitzer at aol.com writes:
was puzzled by the Judge's complaint about RFRA.  It may have its problems, but the fact that it "imposes upon the courts of the United States the duty of 'striking sensible balances between
...  competing ... interests,'” is hardly a legitimate ground for complaint.  Judges strike (hopefully) sensible balances between competing interests every time they sit in equity.
Federal courts don't sit in equity that often, do they?  What the judge meant is that RFRA expands their policy making role radically from what he sees in his other cases.  Why is that puzzling?

Marci

________________________________
Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes<http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000006> for the grill.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20090624/e350deec/attachment.htm>