Protecting Religious Liberty, Part 2 [presentation]

This is my attempt at free exercise of religion in a visual nutshell.

It's from a presentation I delivered at a recent panel on Protecting Religious Liberty. The event was co-sponsored by several student organizations at Albany Law School--the Christian Legal Society, the Cardozo Legal Society, and the Muslim Law Student Association--and me.
[The entire event, including the remarks of my knowledgeable and insightful fellow panelists, as well as the Q's & A's with the audience, is available on videocast. (Link below.)]

The presentation was intended as a quick opening primer. A 20 minute overview of that fundamental freedom which is enshrined in the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and in corresponding provisions of the constitutions of the states as well.

The presentation briefly traced the genesis of freedom of religion in American law. The evolution of that freedom in landmark Supreme Court decisions interpreting and applying the 1st Amendment. The startling about-face by the modern Court that has turned the constitutional guarantee on its head, and has left the protection of religious liberty diluted, uncertain, and erratic. And finally, the ongoing aftermath of a weakened constitutional protection.

An outline of the presentation would look like this:

• Thomas Jefferson and James Madison's struggle to protect religious freedom in Virginia
• Early Supreme Court decisions affording little protection to the Mormons and other religious minorities
• Subsequent Supreme Court landmarks recognizing religious liberty as a fundamental freedom, and protecting it from all restrictions except those necessary for the most compelling reasons
• Modern Supreme Court caselaw discarding those highly protective landmarks
• State high courts deciding whether to follow the Supreme Court's about-face or to adhere to more protective standards for religious liberty

Here is the power point accompaniment to that presentation:

(click to enlarge slide)

_____________________________
To view the complete slide presentation, open HERE.
(Then, for the best view, click File + Download, and Open the download.)

[The videocast of the entire event--again, including the remarks of my knowledgeable and insightful fellow panelists, as well as the Q's & A's with the audience--is accessible via this link. (https://vimeo.com/64143574. Password: Liberty2013 ) (The quality of the videocast is not very high.)]

Protecting Religious Liberty, Part 1 [commentary & interview]

[The videocast of a recent interview I did on the topic is linked at the end of the commentary that follows. The power point presentation will be included in Part 2.]

The 1st Amendment allows "no law...prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. But the protection given religious liberty today is a far cry from that promise.

That assessment is not related to the kind of nonsense heard on talk radio or a certain television news network. It's not about a "War on Christmas," or about "removing God from the classroom," or about prohibiting the erecting of a Ten Commandments monument in a courthouse, or about other decisions to keep church and state separate.

No, it's not about government being forbidden to practice or impose religion, or otherwise endorse religious beliefs. That should be forbidden. The 1st Amendment doesn't allow that either.

Rather, the assessment of poorly protected religious liberty is about individuals and groups of individuals being prevented from practicing their religion or abiding by their religious beliefs. Individuals and groups--not government--being prohibited by some law or other official action from practicing their religion. Or being required by some law or other official action to violate their religion.

Yes, that assessment is about individuals and groups of individuals being denied the right to freely exercise their religion in their lives.

It's about being denied the freedom to live according to one's most fundamental beliefs about what God--or analogously religious conscience--requires. The freedom from government and society interfering with the exercise of one's religion.

There is a serious problem in the protection of religious liberty. And the problem is that the Supreme Court could hardly be worse in protecting the 1st Amendment right of religious free exercise. Yes, hardly worse.

Religious Liberty--commentary, interview, video, presentation [updated 5/15/13]

Protecting Religious Liberty, Part 2 [presentation], May 15, 2013.

Protecting Religious Liberty, Part 1 [commentary & interview], May 12, 2013.

Catholics, Contraceptives, and 2nd Class Religious Liberty, March 15, 2012.

Catholics, Contraceptives, and the (current Supreme Court's) Constitution, March 2, 2012.

Catholics, Contraceptives, and the Constitution, Feb. 26, 2012.

My interview on religious liberty, with Judge Peter Crummey, host of Benchmark, (Colonie TV, New York), April 19, 2013:
Vincent Bonventre discusses the First Amendment
http://vimeo.com/64735035

Love Fest for Abdus-Salaam

Yes that, and little else.

The New York Senate on Monday confirmed Governor Andrew Cuomo's 2nd nominee to the state's highest court. It did so unanimously and with a standing ovation.

The Senate was taking its cue from the Judiciary Committee which had held its hearing last week. The Committee's vote was also unanimous, and it too was followed by a standing ovation. [Videocast links below.]

This was in stark contrast to the proceedings to confirm Cuomo's previous high court nominee, then-Professor Jenny Rivera. The Judiciary Committee hearing in February was more tense. More contentious. Senators were skeptical. The questioning was rigorous.
[As discussed previously on New York Court Watcher, in my view, the Judiciary Committee finally did its job. See The Rivera Hearings: The Committee & The Nominee Prove Themselves, Feb. 4, 2013.]

There was none of that in the confirmation proceedings on Sheila Abdus-Salaam. No tension. No contention. No skepticism. No rigorous questioning. Indeed, almost nothing.

The entire proceeding took less than an hour. The Senators said nothing of substance about the nominee. They asked nothing of substance.

"Justice Abdus-Salaam, you are wonderful." That, and the like, were all the Senators said.
"Justice Abdus-Salaam, why are you wonderful?" That, and the like, were all they asked.

Some Notes on Abdus-Salaam [Part 3 of Albany Misc: Legis-Scandals, Double-Jeoparding Bruno, & Court Pick Abdus-Salaam]

It's hard to find anyone who seriously questions the qualifications of Justice Sheila Abdus-Salaam to sit on New York's highest court.

In fact, it seems that everyone is speaking highly of her. And that's not just publicly--which there's often good reason to distrust. But off-the-record and privately. By all accounts that have come to my attention, she is well-respected and well-liked and a fine choice for the Court of Appeals.

There is certainly none of the controversy and none of the doubts that attended the nomination of Governor Cuomo's first Court appointee, now-Judge Jenny Rivera. That does not mean that Rivera was a poor choice or won't turn out to be a very fine Court of Appeals Judge. It only means that Abdus-Salaam's record is much more traditional for a Court nominee.

Yes, a record of public service. And one that includes a track record as an appellate judge. A track record highlighted by judicial opinions available for all to read, examine, and critique. Check this out:

(GRAPH 1--click to enlarge)

So, 23 authored opinions. [Well, probably a lot more than that. She likely wrote many more shorter, less significant, unsigned memorandum decisions. But there are 23 opinions that we know she wrote.] Opinions which she personally signed. Hence, a body of judicial work that undoubtedly offers clues about what to expect from Abdus-Salaam as a Court of Appeals Judge.

The Do-Over vs. Bruno [Part 2 of Albany Misc: Legis-Scandals, Double-Jeoparding Bruno, & Court Pick Abdus-Salaam]

We've discussed this before.
(See Double Jeopardy, Joe Bruno, and Basic Criminal Justice, Nov. 28, 2011.)

In a nutshell:

Federal prosecutors convicted former state Senator Joe Bruno for conduct that was not a crime. The convictions were naturally overturned on appeal. Now the federal prosecutors are trying again, hoping to get it right the second time around.

Double jeopardy anyone?

At this point, the federal prosecutors--i.e., the U.S. Attorney's office for the Northern District of New York, which covers Albany--have already recharged and re-indicted Bruno. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal appeals court that covers New York State, is now considering whether re-prosecuting Bruno is unconstitutional. Does a second attempted prosecution violate the Constitution's ban against double jeopardy?

It certainly seems to me that it does. Or that it ought to.
(Others are seeing it that way as well. See e.g., The Persecution of Joseph Bruno, by Richard A. Epstein, April 2, 2013.)

Let's remember a few aspects of this case against Joe Bruno:

Albany Misc: Legis-Scandals, Double-Jeoparding Bruno, & Court Pick Abdus-Salaam (Part 1: the recent arrests)

Three items: 2 loathsome and 1 welcome. A few brief comments on each.

1st, the federal investigations and arrests of New York legislators for corruption. These include the arrest several days ago of Malcolm Smith, a leading Democratic state senator. He allegedly bribed some influential New York City Republicans to help him secure that party's nomination to run for mayor.

The headlines [with links to the articles] tell the stories. Yes, reality is more outlandish and outrageous than fiction:

Lawmakers in New York Tied to Bribery Plot in Mayor Race, by Michael Wilson and William  K. Rashbaum, NY Times, April 2, 2013.
State Sen. Malcolm Smith, city Councilman Halloran arrested in 'bribery plot' to rig mayor race, by Josh Margolin, Lorena Mongelli and Erin Calabrese, NY Post, April 2, 2013.
Malcolm Smith arrested in FBI bribery probe, by Jimmy Vielkind, Albany Times Union [Capitol Confidential], April 2, 2013.
Bharara: Smith bribery case is like ‘Groundhog Day,’ by Casey Seiler, Albany Times Union [Capitol Confidential], April 2, 2013.
One Assemblyman charged, another to resign, by Casey Seiler, Albany Times Union [Capitol Confidential], April 4, 2013.

My own reaction? Primarily, it's the response I gave when asked to compare corrupt politicians to street criminals:

"The drug dealer knows exactly what he is," Bonventre said, "and doesn't try to convince himself or anyone else that he's any better." (Trading information for leniency, by Casey Seiler, Albany Times Union, April 4, 2013.)

Anyone who has observed some of those characters who, whether in Albany or Washington or other center of government, strut the halls of power with a self-satisfied over-inflated view of themselves, is never too shocked when these "public servants" turn out to be much less than they're supposed to be. Yes, Gramps, the world is a fake.

Yes, I've met and worked with many exceptional individuals in government--in the judicial and executive branches, as well as the legislative. Extremely capable, conscientious, dedicated, ethical. Knowing them and working with them has been a great source of pride.

But as anyone who has studied government or worked in it is well aware, more than a little of it and more than a few who hold high office and power in it are indeed "a fake," as my Grandfather would say. So the alleged criminal activity may be outrageous, deplorable, despicable. But not necessarily surprising.

2nd, speaking of outrageous, deplorable, despicable--at least in my view and that of a growing chorus of lawyers--is the ongoing effort of federal prosecutors to re-prosecute former State Senator Joe Bruno.
We'll address that in the next post. But meantime....

For those who are interested, here's the link to my interview last week on Fred Dicker: Live from the State Capitol! Mr. Dicker questioned me on all 3 items in the title--and more:
http://www.talk1300.com/CMT/podcast/FREDPODCASTAPRIL082013.mp3  [Interview begins at 29:25.]