[EL] Fwd: Op-ed Supreme Court Winners and Losers

[Easley, Billy (Paul)]

"The deafening silence of Congress in the wake of the decision suggests that this is the balance that members want between the two laws.”

Senator Durbin and some prominent Democrats have made it clear that they want to take legislative action in response to the decision. But really, you ought to be very careful about trying to ascertain meaning from Congressional silence.

From: <Scarberry>, Mark <Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu<mailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu>>
Date: Tuesday, July 8, 2014 at 5:19 PM
To: "law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>" <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] Fwd: Op-ed Supreme Court Winners and Losers

I will not comment on the specifics of Frank’s op-ed, only a small portion of which deals with election law, other than to say that it seems a bit over the top.

I should say, in response to Mark Rush, that there was not a conflict in Hobby Lobby between two laws, if by laws we mean statutes. Perhaps this is a bit picky, but there was no conflict between RFRA and the terms of the ACA. There was a conflict between a statute – RFRA – and an HHS regulation promulgated under the authority of the ACA. I will stop there, since further comments would not seem relevant to the topic of election law.

Mark

Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law


From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Rush
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 1:55 PM
To: Frank Askin
Cc: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Fwd: Op-ed Supreme Court Winners and Losers

Frank--thanks for circulating.

At least with regard to the 5 guys and Hobby Lobby, it seems to me that the outrage is misplaced.  Congress wrote and passed the ACA and RFRA.  The Court was asked to resolve what appeared to be a conflict between the two laws.  The deafening silence of Congress in the wake of the decision suggests that this is the balance that members want between the two laws.

I find the decision lamentable for a number of reasons:http://hamptonroads.com/2014/06/rush-muddying-waters-religious-protection

But, I admit that the controversy arose from Congressional action.  The Court had a mess to resolve that was really' Congress's to clean up.



On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Frank Askin <faskin at kinoy.rutgers.edu<mailto:faskin at kinoy.rutgers.edu>> wrote:
my op ed from today's Star-Ledger. FRANK

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Janet Donohue" <jdonohue at kinoy.rutgers.edu<mailto:jdonohue at kinoy.rutgers.edu>>
To: askin at kinoy-new.rutgers.edu<mailto:askin at kinoy-new.rutgers.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2014 11:16:05 AM
Subject: Op-ed



--

Janet Donohue
Director of Communications
Rutgers School of Law–Newark
123 Washington Street
Newark, NJ 07102-3026
t: 973-353-5553<tel:973-353-5553>
f: 973-353-1717<tel:973-353-1717>
jdonohue at kinoy.rutgers.edu<mailto:jdonohue at kinoy.rutgers.edu>

www.law.newark.rutgers.edu<http://www.law.newark.rutgers.edu>
http://www.facebook.com/RutgersLawNewark
http://twitter.com/RULawNewark


_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election



--
Mark Rush
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140708/96c105cb/attachment.html>