Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 17:43:38
To: Rob Weinberg
From: Frank Grose
Subject: Ooops!
Funny how when people agree with my "legal opinions" they're brilliant insights, but when they don't they're just my "opinions."
Please accept my sincere apology for the clumsy construction of my "opinions" statement. Honestly, you took it in a way (and I can well see why) that I really didn't mean. I very simply was acknowledging that I had read your legal opinions. I was glad you sent them. I appreciate it. That was not a "dig."
Sincerely,
Frank
Date: Mon Nov 03 22:28:39 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: Ooops!
Seriously, I didn't take it as a dig or a comment on the merits. My skin's a lot thicker than that, really. I'm a trained professional in this, and am very adept at separating my personal opinions from the professional judgments, although often they'll coincide. I was just commenting that it made me smile because in a public hearing a couple of weeks ago, someone said something along those lines where they were taking issue with my "opinion," and advice to my clients on a subject of serious import to a number of people, and the best they could come up with was "well, that's just your opinion, right?"
Anyway, your motives have never been suspect. FWIW, if you choose to address or take issue with the particulars of the opinions, bear in mind that there are likely no arguments I haven't heard on the subject, and addressed one place or another. The real test for you will be to see if you can say something I haven't heard before and anticipated elsewhere. It's not so much a "test" as a marker of what you need to be able to do to bring me toward a different conclusion. I've left lots of clues in the form of what look like rhetorical questions. They are not arbitrary barriers, but if you want "to get through" to me, my suggestion would be that you go back and cull those questions from my earlier emails and answer them, with as much honesty and soul searching as you can muster.
There's a kid in the history class who seems like a very good candidate for law school, clear analytical thinking for the most part. He's very much conservative along the lines you are. Although I don't confront him like I do you, because he's a college kid and college is a time for espousing your opinion even if you don't have the perspective additional years give you, it gets tiresome when he trots out the "party line" about original intent and liberal judges, etc. I just haven't heard any new arguments in a long time, and remember, I have the advantage of having (a) studied the subject (from a legal perspective) for more than a decade, and (b) read the briefs from some pretty damn good legal scholars on the "Christian right" side. So the trick for you will be to find a new approach.
Here's an interesting followup to Judge DeMent's bio. We think he was a Nixon appointee as U.S. Attorney for the Middle District, and a Bush appointee as federal judge. He was once told by Judge Frank Johnson, that famous "integrationist" federal judge who tangled with Wallace in the 60's and 70's, to save his closing arguments in a case for the John Birch Society. Anyway, he's no liberal.
'Gonna turn in early tonight. Got a busy week ahead.
-Rob
Attorney general to appeal ruling on religion in schools
By Dana Beyerle
Montgomery BureauMONTGOMERY — Attorney General Bill Pryor said Monday he will appeal a federal judge's injunction against religious activities in Alabama schools to the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Pryor said he'll challenge U.S. District Judge Ira DeMent's Wednesday ruling which defined allowable religious behavior in DeKalb County and state schools.
The appeal is the first step to a challenge before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Gov. Fob James, who criticized DeMent's injunction, said he'd release his full response today.
"The judge has made a grievous error, in my opinion," James said. "His injunction is one of the utmost cases of judicial usurpation I've ever seen."
Pryor said "aspects" of DeMent's injunction are "contrary to the First Amendment and later decisions of the Supreme Court."
"A federal court does not have the legal authority to require public school officials to discriminate against religious speech," Pryor said.
Pryor said DeMent's injunction, or order, is "overly broad and ironically suffers from some of the same flaws that the court identified in March."
"Some parts of the injunction actually violate the First Amendment and do not conform to the most recent decisions of the (U.S.) Supreme Court because they curtail and limit voluntary religious expressions by students and private citizens," Pryor said.
DeMent struck down Alabama's 1993 school prayer law in March....
Tuscaloosa News, Tuesday November 4, 1997
All Rights Reserved
0 comments:
Post a Comment