dc.contributor.author | Sherry, Suzanna | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2015-11-23T12:47:05Z | |
dc.date.available | 2015-11-23T12:47:05Z | |
dc.date.issued | 1997 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 14 Const. Comment. 27 (1997) | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1803/7291 | |
dc.description | article published in law journal | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | Supreme Court currents are no less treacherous to navigators than are river currents-and, as Michael Paulsen himself has previously pointed out, RFRA shares more than a linguistic resonance with a river.1 Unfortunately, this time Paulsen has let
himself be fooled by the prevailing political winds into believing that there will be smooth sailing for his favorite statute despite the swirling eddies ahead. He is altogether too confident of a favorable result.
Although I have no wagers, public or private (and I am shocked-shocked!-to find gambling in this establishment) on the outcome of Boeme v. Flores, I want to use my editorial prerogative to take issue with my colleague's predictions. Indeed, he seems to have things exactly backward. | en_US |
dc.format.extent | 1 PDF (7 pages) | en_US |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
dc.publisher | Constitutional Commentary | en_US |
dc.subject.lcsh | Paulsen, Michael Stokes | en_US |
dc.subject.lcsh | United States. Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 | en_US |
dc.subject.lcsh | United States. Supreme Court | en_US |
dc.title | RFRA-Vote Gambling: Why Paulsen is Wrong, As Usual | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |