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 ::
:: Monday, May 31, 2004 ::
Must have your recipe for duck soup!
The inchoate but powerful Ad Hoc Conspiracy to Embarrass Our Hero has succeeded in getting Chief Justice Rehnquist to establish a "panel" to study "federal judicial ethics."
You write a blistering dissent in a gay-rights case, no prob. You hunt ducks with the Veep when there is a case pending in which the Veep is the nominal defendant, no prob. But do BOTH, and you'll be on the receiving end of a "panel".
All members of the panel are federal judges, with one exception: the Chief's administrative assistant, Sally M. Rider. Informed readers who wish to clue us in on what she will bring to the table are invited to write me.
:: David M. Wagner 3:56 PM [+] ::
...
Is the Ninth Amendment actually an anti-McCulloch clause?
:: David M. Wagner 3:44 PM [+] ::
...
:: Friday, May 21, 2004 ::
A total of 6,298 students will graduate at George Mason University's 37th annual commencement on Saturday, May 15, in the Patriot Center. Edwin Meese III, Board of Visitors rector and former U.S. attorney general, will deliver the commencement address.
Gosh, I love my law alma mater!
:: David M. Wagner 5:29 PM [+] ::
...
:: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 ::
"Anti-gay speech" banned in Canada
I've alluded to this already; here's a Fox news item about it. As far as I can tell, no prosecutions have been launched yet under this law, known as C-250, and conceivably the worst fears of Canada's religious conservative may be overblown. On the other hand, regional "human rights commissions" in Canada have already come down hard on persons found insufficiently enthusiastic for the gay cause (see infra).
The following quotes are from World Magazine, May 8, 2004:
The bill does state that a person won't be prosecuted for anti-gay speech "if, in good faith, he expressed ... an opinion based on a belief in a religious text." But at least one Saskatchewan court has already held that certain Bible passages expose homosexuals to hatred.
Even without C-250, London, Ontario, officials recently slapped a Christian mayor with a $10,000 fine for refusing to proclaim "Gay Pride Day." A Christian businessman in Toronto was fined $5,000 for refusing to print materials for a gay-rights group.
In light of C-250's passage, church-law analysts already are advising religious leaders on how to shield themselves. Attorney Bruce W. Long in a March issue of Church Law Bulletin wrote: "Churches and religious organizations may want to consider ... avoiding public criticisms of identifiable groups ... limiting opinions to private conversation, and if targeted or investigated, relying on the constitutional right to remain silent."
Such self-censorship would normally send free-speech lawyers bounding into court. Of course, Canada isn't the U.S. and doesn't have our First Amendment and its relevant caselaw, such as Brandenburg (allowing direct prohibition of speech only when that speech causes a "clear and present danger" of physical harm to persons and property; downstream, speculative harms are not enough).
Canada does, however, think of itself as part of the English Common Law tradition which has always respected (if less punctiliously than U.S. law) the right of free speech.
I'll be following what happens under this law. The utter lack of interest in it among American academic free-speech scholars has been amazing -- or, on second thought, maybe quite predictable.
:: David M. Wagner 9:12 PM [+] ::
...
:: Saturday, May 08, 2004 ::
Is there a life -- and especially a life of the mind -- in the practice of law?
Let's solve that question the way lawyers do: by arguing about it!
There's a very interesting debate going on here about such questions, and related ones: Did I make the right choice in going to law school? What are the trade-offs? What is practice like, and is it for me? The initial post is by a badly disillusioned lawyer. There are lots of those out there. But if you click on the link, be sure to read the comments as well: they show the variety of legal careers out there, with praise for both the humblest and the highest-flying career tracks.
A recurring theme is: Does the "life of the mind" that you experiences as humanities undergrads cease as soon as you enter law school, or if not, then as soon as you start working as a lawyer? The poster and commenters express widely differing views.
:: David M. Wagner 11:13 PM [+] ::
...
:: Thursday, May 06, 2004 ::
Judge Rules Schiavo Law Unconstitutional
Yes, on two grounds, one of which you were probably expecting, the other probably not.
1. The law, which allowed Gov. Jeb Bush to order that Terri Schiavo not be killed by starvation/dehydration, violates Terri's "right to privacy" -- a right that somehow always ends up meaning either killing or being killed.
2. The law was also an unconstitutional delegation of power to the Governor. Well, well -- not used (by the U.S. Supreme Court anyway) to strike down any law since 1936, this doctrine suddenly comes back to life when handy to advance the culture of death.
:: David M. Wagner 5:42 PM [+] ::
...
The inchoate but powerful Ad Hoc Conspiracy to Embarrass Our Hero has succeeded in getting Chief Justice Rehnquist to establish a "panel" to study "federal judicial ethics."
You write a blistering dissent in a gay-rights case, no prob. You hunt ducks with the Veep when there is a case pending in which the Veep is the nominal defendant, no prob. But do BOTH, and you'll be on the receiving end of a "panel".
All members of the panel are federal judges, with one exception: the Chief's administrative assistant, Sally M. Rider. Informed readers who wish to clue us in on what she will bring to the table are invited to write me.
:: David M. Wagner 3:56 PM [+] ::
...
:: David M. Wagner 3:44 PM [+] ::
...
Gosh, I love my law alma mater!
:: David M. Wagner 5:29 PM [+] ::
...
I've alluded to this already; here's a Fox news item about it. As far as I can tell, no prosecutions have been launched yet under this law, known as C-250, and conceivably the worst fears of Canada's religious conservative may be overblown. On the other hand, regional "human rights commissions" in Canada have already come down hard on persons found insufficiently enthusiastic for the gay cause (see infra).
The following quotes are from World Magazine, May 8, 2004:
The bill does state that a person won't be prosecuted for anti-gay speech "if, in good faith, he expressed ... an opinion based on a belief in a religious text." But at least one Saskatchewan court has already held that certain Bible passages expose homosexuals to hatred.
Even without C-250, London, Ontario, officials recently slapped a Christian mayor with a $10,000 fine for refusing to proclaim "Gay Pride Day." A Christian businessman in Toronto was fined $5,000 for refusing to print materials for a gay-rights group.
In light of C-250's passage, church-law analysts already are advising religious leaders on how to shield themselves. Attorney Bruce W. Long in a March issue of Church Law Bulletin wrote: "Churches and religious organizations may want to consider ... avoiding public criticisms of identifiable groups ... limiting opinions to private conversation, and if targeted or investigated, relying on the constitutional right to remain silent."
Such self-censorship would normally send free-speech lawyers bounding into court. Of course, Canada isn't the U.S. and doesn't have our First Amendment and its relevant caselaw, such as Brandenburg (allowing direct prohibition of speech only when that speech causes a "clear and present danger" of physical harm to persons and property; downstream, speculative harms are not enough).
Canada does, however, think of itself as part of the English Common Law tradition which has always respected (if less punctiliously than U.S. law) the right of free speech.
I'll be following what happens under this law. The utter lack of interest in it among American academic free-speech scholars has been amazing -- or, on second thought, maybe quite predictable.
:: David M. Wagner 9:12 PM [+] ::
...
Let's solve that question the way lawyers do: by arguing about it!
There's a very interesting debate going on here about such questions, and related ones: Did I make the right choice in going to law school? What are the trade-offs? What is practice like, and is it for me? The initial post is by a badly disillusioned lawyer. There are lots of those out there. But if you click on the link, be sure to read the comments as well: they show the variety of legal careers out there, with praise for both the humblest and the highest-flying career tracks.
A recurring theme is: Does the "life of the mind" that you experiences as humanities undergrads cease as soon as you enter law school, or if not, then as soon as you start working as a lawyer? The poster and commenters express widely differing views.
:: David M. Wagner 11:13 PM [+] ::
...
Yes, on two grounds, one of which you were probably expecting, the other probably not.
1. The law, which allowed Gov. Jeb Bush to order that Terri Schiavo not be killed by starvation/dehydration, violates Terri's "right to privacy" -- a right that somehow always ends up meaning either killing or being killed.
2. The law was also an unconstitutional delegation of power to the Governor. Well, well -- not used (by the U.S. Supreme Court anyway) to strike down any law since 1936, this doctrine suddenly comes back to life when handy to advance the culture of death.
:: David M. Wagner 5:42 PM [+] ::
...
