Not a hypothetical question

Law students and legislators dread hypotheticals.

In the classroom, a professor will change the facts of the case and ask you if the court should reach the same result.

In Annapolis, committee members will think of not so likely situations that could sink your bill.

At the bill hearings on my religious accommodation legislation and at subsequent subcommittee work sessions, legislators have asked how various hypothetical requests for religious accommodation would be resolved if the bill were to become law.

Walking to my office this morning, I ran into Delegate Steve Lafferty, one of the co-sponsors of the bill. He told me about some of the hypotheticals his colleagues were discussing.

What if a resident belongs to a satanic cult and, as part of the devil worship, wanted to have a confined fire?

What if it is a practice of withcraft (and whatever goes along with that practice)?

I decided we needed a legal analysis of how the courts would handle these situations.

A recurring theme for my week.

Reasonable accommodations, unreasonable attacks

So I was feeling pretty good about myself.

I had just finished my testimony early Thursday evening on the religious accommodation bill.

No notes, no stumbles, and I had made all the points I wanted to make.

Or so I thought.

The first question from a member of the committee was: “Last year, when you testified on this legislation, it was all about installing an elevator in an apartment building. What happened?”

“You’re right,” I replied. “This bill would assist individuals who need an elevator that would stop on every floor so that residents don’t have to violate the prohibition on working on the Sabbath by pushing a button on the elevator.

“More generally, it would require dwelling owners to make reasonable accommodations for residents of all faiths who are seeking to follow their religious beliefs.”

----

I got angry when I read this op-ed in The Washington Examiner the next morning.

Del. Samuel “Sandy” Rosenberg is like one of those people who walk around with iPod earphones and can’t hear what’s going on in the real world. How else can he be so deaf to the economy tanking around him?

Last year, The Baltimore Examiner ran an equally nasty editorial criticizing me for sponsoring similar legislation to make paint manufacturers liable for poisoning young children.

Del. Rosenberg must drop HB1241. Only his trial lawyer benefactors, his campaign coffers and those of his fellow Judiciary Committee members will gain from it.

Thousands of children have been poisoned by lead paint, and its manufacturers knew that it was harmful. Instead of compensating their victims, they blame the messenger.

Last year, the lead lobbyist for the paint industry promised me that there would be no more personal attacks directed at me. I guess that commitment applied only to The Baltimore Examiner, which ceased publication a few weeks ago.

I am drafting my reply to this latest piece of garbage, which I will share with you. The full text of the op-ed is at http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/columns/marta-mossburg/Trial-lawyers-lining-up-at-the-state-trough-40386217.html.