NINOMANIA
:: A constitutional law blog by Scalia/Thomas fan David M. Wagner, M.A., J.D., Research Fellow, National Legal Foundation, and Teacher, Veritas Preparatory Academy. Opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not reflect those of the NLF or Veritas. :: bloghome | E-mail me ::
:: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 ::
Just in case you wanted to read those memos showing close collegiality between liberal interest groups and Democratic staffers on the Senate Judiciary Committee, you can access them here.
:: David M. Wagner 8:03 AM [+] ::
...
:: Monday, January 26, 2004 ::
Media: How shall we beat up on Scalia this week?
How Appealing links here to several editorials calling for Justice Scalia to recuse himself from the Vice President's energy policy case (issue: whether Cheney must reveal whom he met with to discuss the administration's energy policy) due to his longstanding friendship with Cheney, reified in their recent duck-hunting expedition.
Look. Chief Justice Marshall didn't recuse himself in Marbury even though he was a participant in the underlying events. Recusal standards have tightened since then, and no one is more sensitive to them than Justice Scalia, who recused himself in the Newdow case, apparently because he had criticized the Ninth Circuit's ruling in a speech.
Even this was unnecessary, imo. He didn't recuse himself in Lukumi, even though, in Smith, he had cited with apparent approval the District Court's opinion in Lukumi (an opinion that he later voted to reverse when the case got to the Supreme Court).
Left or right, people who rise to the Supreme Court generally know other Washington players. There would be no eligible candidates for the Court if they had to recuse themselves whenever people they know -- even people they are friends with -- have cases before them.
:: David M. Wagner 4:18 PM [+] ::
...
Interview with Texas judge who added yoga to a plea agreement
He makes his case decently (and seems to talk more like he's from New York than from Texas: "Here in Texas last week, three people got the death penalty, and I'm up here talking about yoga").
But I wonder. There is substantial evidence that yoga has religious roots not far beneath the surface, if beneath it at all. What if a judge tacked onto a plea agreement a requirement that the defendant attend, oh, a Presbyterian church? Any Christian church? The "church of your choice," as they used to say in the '50s? Any place of worship?
:: David M. Wagner 12:40 AM [+] ::
...
:: Friday, January 23, 2004 ::
(AP) Several States Seek Tough Bans on Gay Marriage
:: David M. Wagner 9:41 PM [+] ::
...
LUBBOCK, Texas (Reuters) -- The oldest bank robber in the United States, 92-year-old J.L. Hunter Rountree, was sentenced to over 12 years in prison Friday after he pleaded guilty to robbing $1,999 from a Texas bank last August.
Some retirees take up shuffleboard, some take up quilting....
:: David M. Wagner 9:38 PM [+] ::
...
Snipers could face second round of trials in Virginia
Lee Boyd Malvo, you'll recall, was convicted of the killing of Linda Franklin, and will get at most a life sentence. John Muhammed was convicted of killing Harold Meyers, and the jury recommended the death penalty. But not only do both face capital charges in others states: since both were involved in both of these killings, each could face a second trial in Virginia for the other killing; that is, Malvo for killing Meyers, and Muhammed for killing Franklin. In these trials, Virginia could get a second whack at getting a death sentence for Malvo -- and for Muhammed too, just in case the trial that led to the first death sentence (assuming the judge imposes it) had a flaw that comes out on appeal.
Wish I had an opinion on this, but I don't.
:: David M. Wagner 9:34 PM [+] ::
...
:: Friday, January 16, 2004 ::
Happy New Year, welcome to the new semester -- and welcome to a happy new world in which President Bush really gets serious about judges.
THE PRESIDENT HAS JUST USED HIS RECESS APPOINTMENT POWER TO INSTALL CHARLES PICKERING ON THE 5TH CIRCUIT. Story here.
The Federalist Society has a memo on the use of the recess appointment power for judgeships here.
The recess appointment power is much more clearly set forth in the Constitution (Art. II, Sec. II, third paragraph) than is the power of the Senate to bottle up nominations through filibusters. The latter is, at best, inferable from the advice and consent provision in the second paragraph of Art. II Sec. II, but that provision says nothing about filibusters.
Assuming arguendo that a Senate fililbuster of a judicial nomination is constitutional, the President's recess appointment power (which, of course, preserves the Senate's right to reject the appointee eventually) is a minimally necessary check-and-balance against the filibuster's powerful negation of the President's appointment power.
:: David M. Wagner 4:47 PM [+] ::
...
:: David M. Wagner 8:03 AM [+] ::
...
How Appealing links here to several editorials calling for Justice Scalia to recuse himself from the Vice President's energy policy case (issue: whether Cheney must reveal whom he met with to discuss the administration's energy policy) due to his longstanding friendship with Cheney, reified in their recent duck-hunting expedition.
Look. Chief Justice Marshall didn't recuse himself in Marbury even though he was a participant in the underlying events. Recusal standards have tightened since then, and no one is more sensitive to them than Justice Scalia, who recused himself in the Newdow case, apparently because he had criticized the Ninth Circuit's ruling in a speech.
Even this was unnecessary, imo. He didn't recuse himself in Lukumi, even though, in Smith, he had cited with apparent approval the District Court's opinion in Lukumi (an opinion that he later voted to reverse when the case got to the Supreme Court).
Left or right, people who rise to the Supreme Court generally know other Washington players. There would be no eligible candidates for the Court if they had to recuse themselves whenever people they know -- even people they are friends with -- have cases before them.
:: David M. Wagner 4:18 PM [+] ::
...
He makes his case decently (and seems to talk more like he's from New York than from Texas: "Here in Texas last week, three people got the death penalty, and I'm up here talking about yoga").
But I wonder. There is substantial evidence that yoga has religious roots not far beneath the surface, if beneath it at all. What if a judge tacked onto a plea agreement a requirement that the defendant attend, oh, a Presbyterian church? Any Christian church? The "church of your choice," as they used to say in the '50s? Any place of worship?
:: David M. Wagner 12:40 AM [+] ::
...
:: David M. Wagner 9:41 PM [+] ::
...
Some retirees take up shuffleboard, some take up quilting....
:: David M. Wagner 9:38 PM [+] ::
...
Lee Boyd Malvo, you'll recall, was convicted of the killing of Linda Franklin, and will get at most a life sentence. John Muhammed was convicted of killing Harold Meyers, and the jury recommended the death penalty. But not only do both face capital charges in others states: since both were involved in both of these killings, each could face a second trial in Virginia for the other killing; that is, Malvo for killing Meyers, and Muhammed for killing Franklin. In these trials, Virginia could get a second whack at getting a death sentence for Malvo -- and for Muhammed too, just in case the trial that led to the first death sentence (assuming the judge imposes it) had a flaw that comes out on appeal.
Wish I had an opinion on this, but I don't.
:: David M. Wagner 9:34 PM [+] ::
...
THE PRESIDENT HAS JUST USED HIS RECESS APPOINTMENT POWER TO INSTALL CHARLES PICKERING ON THE 5TH CIRCUIT. Story here.
The Federalist Society has a memo on the use of the recess appointment power for judgeships here.
The recess appointment power is much more clearly set forth in the Constitution (Art. II, Sec. II, third paragraph) than is the power of the Senate to bottle up nominations through filibusters. The latter is, at best, inferable from the advice and consent provision in the second paragraph of Art. II Sec. II, but that provision says nothing about filibusters.
Assuming arguendo that a Senate fililbuster of a judicial nomination is constitutional, the President's recess appointment power (which, of course, preserves the Senate's right to reject the appointee eventually) is a minimally necessary check-and-balance against the filibuster's powerful negation of the President's appointment power.
:: David M. Wagner 4:47 PM [+] ::
...
