oh, first amendment! let's recap you...
NAACP v. AL
girls are stupid....
US v. the jaycees: "it's not a marriage, it's a lunch club. it's not a religious event, it's a meeting." we're out of the intimate stage, but we're in the public stage, like with the NAACP case: how does the court reconcile without infringing on the organization? jaycees is about developing young men, and it's not changed by letting young women participate and vote on the board. is that persuasive or is it clutter?
1) the jaycee's side of an issue isn't changed by who's aprt of the voting base... that's an empirical proposition, just an assertion public association is important for later cases
2) assumption is being made that gender’s not being used to deliver anything unique in this situtation that we can point to
public association is important for later cases, and somewhat of a watermark to the association interests
boy scouts v. dale: homos are creepy....
does dale shake you when you compare to lawrence v. TX?
trying to make a distinction between public and private: moral judgment isn't the laws, but the boy scouts. criminal law proceeds from moral disapproval in lawrence, and that's not cool. but in dale, BSA (like KKK...) get to make certain discriminatory choices and decisions
remember, private discrimination is totally cool. but public figures are connected to public dimensions (speaker to audience, writer to readership, etc).
to help patrick kondas: freedom of association
things that go to the heart of our existing social order...
wooley v. maryland. live free or die. what's the legal battle? why do we care?
are we actually talking about religion for the first time, or have we been talking about religion all along? 1st amendment brings religion up, but we're pressing for a definition: is it an organized, facilitated thign? is it broader than that -- a religion without a house of worship, without even a god? is it every idea that you have that's dear to you (i like tofu... go obama... i like rumsfeld...) supreme court does not have a clear view or application for the religion clause, from old days to today. and it's worse in this world of incorporation in some ways, because all the states must play by the same rules.
so free exercise...
neutral laws and effects on free exercise.
sherbert v. verner: strict scrutiny
the sherbert test held basically until employment v. smith
in the smith case, US chucks this out of the window.
the lemon test, under the establishment clause and lemon
this is the most criticized test... nobody likes lemon
No comments:
Post a Comment