@Profepps why not note in your piece that majority of federal circuits that have considered the issue allow RFRA defenses in private suits?
@cdbradley2 a) not sure it's true& b not relevant to fWORDING of Indiana stat, Fed RFRA doesn't address this; IN RFRA does, as I said.
-
-
@Profepps as to a), see 99 Va. L. Rev. 343; as to b), it's pretty relevant if fed law & IN law MEAN same thing, even if worded differently -
@cdbradley2 I stated correctly that RFRA & IN RFRA had different wording. That some courts read one in a given way is a different question. -
@Profepps So you don't think it's relevant in saying laws differ that IN law codifies majority interpretation of federal law? -
@cdbradley2 I don't think an unambiguous statute "codifies" an ambiguous one. The federal issue isn't settled. You're quibbling. -
@Profepps I said it codified the interpretation, not the statute. And it's been law in four circuits for a decade or more. Who's quibbling? -
@cdbradley2 why, it's you. I discussed the wording of the statute; I'm correct so you've changed the subject.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.