Religion & Law

And here it is, posted in response to Rick's post earlier the same day:

"The passage in my book that Rick cites is about cases in which there are First Amendment--political process--values on one side and non-political-process values on the other.  But in Citizens United there were political process values on both sides!  And, so, the Thayerian presumption stands:  There is no reason in such a case for a majority of the Court to act imperially by insisting on its own judgment that the legislation at issue disserves political process values if the competing judgment that the legislation serves political process values is a reasonable one."

I added, in my original post:  "Marc DeGirolami's comments, in the thread following Rick's post, are right on target!  In particular:  Perhaps the Thayerian presumption should stand even in cases in which there are political process values on one side and non-political-process values on the other.  But for better or worse, Mark, I'm not there yet."

Now, much, much more importantly:  I want again to express my gratitude to Rick for reviewing my book in Commonweal--a book that, alas, only Rick, my family, and at most a half dozen others even know exists.