tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post7612193183635319590..comments2024-03-26T11:33:59.219-06:00Comments on Religion in American History: Holy Granola?Paul Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13881964303772343114noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-9667305695508259942013-04-22T10:34:43.776-06:002013-04-22T10:34:43.776-06:00Thanks, Elesha. The SDI's lawyers statement do...Thanks, Elesha. The SDI's lawyers statement does convey that this is a much messier case than the issues H-T case. Again, thanks for sharing. This is fascinating. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10762487595483265718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-74337620587949548922013-04-20T09:26:20.645-06:002013-04-20T09:26:20.645-06:00Christopher,
I don't know to what extent Hosa...Christopher,<br /><br />I don't know to what extent Hosanna-Tabor was decisive in this case. SDI lawyers did lean on it, but they made other arguments as well, for example:<br /><br />"Of course, the difficulty of plaintiff's proposed process [of replacing leaders] would be greatly magnified by the fact that this Court would be required to make a series of difficult, discretionary decisions within the hardly hospitable context of a bitter intra-religious schism. As the State acknowledges, with no existing mechanism in place to reconstitute the YB-inspired community and its leadership, at each step along the way this Court would have to fashion its own procedures. Those procedural decisions will inevitably be intertwined--or at the very least would be perceived to be intertwined--with the community's religious, moral and philosophical principles. The constant entanglement that would result weighs strongly in favor of this Court's exercising its discretion to deny the requested governance-related relief, even without reaching the constitutional issues discussed below."<br /><br />The case is over now. What actually happened (as best I understand) was that the SDI leaders won--the court did not intervene to oust them--but were then replaced anyway as part of a subsequent settlement. I haven't seen the text of any final ruling, so I don't know if a judge applied Hosanna-Tabor reasoning or something else. The question of whether SDI "ordained" its leaders, or whether they qualified as "ministers" (or equivalents to either of those categories), may never have come up.Eleshahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03764991021577652939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-21383774534178572342013-04-19T21:00:26.216-06:002013-04-19T21:00:26.216-06:00This is fascinating; thanks for sharing. But a que...This is fascinating; thanks for sharing. But a question. The crucial issue in Hosanna-Tabor was that the ECLA school in question had in some fashion deaconized or ordained its teachers through training and certification. This was why the court refused to intervene--and why even Kagan and Alito surprisingly weant to great lengths to argue in their concurring opinion that the single defining factor were the church's designation of H-T teachers as ministers. Does SDI present its business owners the same way? Or are they religious members who pragmatically/logistically appointed to their position. If the latter the case could get really interesting cause you could argue H-T doesn't apply........Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10762487595483265718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-70634898625745135532013-04-19T08:25:56.411-06:002013-04-19T08:25:56.411-06:00Great reflections and questions here, Elesha, than...Great reflections and questions here, Elesha, thanks.Mark T. Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13687874101232569510noreply@blogger.com