The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is a funny piece of legislation because it requires judges to do what a number of legal scholars argued judges could not possibly do well: namely, judge. Now that judges must by law (rather than by the Constitution) scrutinize legislation that violates religious freedom, suddenly all of the absurdly hyperbolic claims that judges would be tyrannical philosopher kings or whatever have been shown to lack any substantiation. Most of the time, legal conclusions just depend on the standard of review, but the conclusions following from a standard are fairly easy for any impartial observer to make. Add to the compelling evidence that liberal legal scholars just invent problems grounded in analysis scarcely more well-reasoned than scary sounding language when justifying deference to the legislature.
Posted on: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 20:05:26 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015