| |||||
:: welcome to 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 :: | |||||
"Scalialicious!" -- Eve Tushnet "Frankfurter was born too soon for the Web, but I'm sure that, had it been possible, there would have been the equivalent of Ninomania for Frankfurter." -- Mark Tushnet (I agree, and commented here.) "The preeminent Scalia blog" -- Underneath Their Robes Site Feed Also please visit my opera blog, Box Five! Bloglinks: Above the Law, by David Lat Balkinization CrimLaw Duncan's Con Law Course Blog Eve Tushnet Eye of Polyphemus, by Jamie Jeffords How Appealing Hugh Hewitt Justice Thomas Appreciation Page Legal Theory Blog Lex Communis Opinio Juris Overlawyered.com Paper Chase (from JURIST) Point of Law (Manhattan Inst.) Professor Bainbridge Public Discourse Redeeming Law, by Prof. Mike Schutt SCOTUS Blog Volokh Conspiracy WSJ Law Blog Other fine sites: Alexander Hamilton Inst. for Study of Western Civilization Ave Maria School of Law Center for Thomas More Studies Family Defense Center The Federalist Society The Founders' Constitution George Mason University School of Law Immigration and Refugee Appellate Center Judged: Law Firm News & Intelligence JURIST Law Prose (Bryan Garner) Liberty Library of Constitutional Classics National Lawyers Association (alternative to ABA) Supreme Court decisions The Weekly Standard Something I wrote about marriage ![]()
|
:: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 ::
When I get back after New Years, I'll have some exciting Confrontation Clause stuff to share. After that, maybe I'll see you at AALS. :: David M. Wagner 10:43 PM [+] :: ... :: David M. Wagner 11:49 AM [+] :: ... :: David M. Wagner 5:32 PM [+] :: ... Generally speaking, now that the exam is out, I can't answer substantive questions. However, this one came in before the exam was released, so I'll answer it: I have looked online at the other exams and noticed that you gave points for things like battery and burglary, which we did not cover in this class. Do you want us to spot issues like that even if we did not go over them? If so, how in depth do you want the analysis to be?Anything we discussed in class is "examinable." OTOH, the less we talked about it, the fewer points are likely to be attached to it. :: David M. Wagner 8:18 PM [+] :: ... :: David M. Wagner 3:15 PM [+] :: ... Boston Globe: U.S. Justices Won't Hear Mass. Case, i.e. an appeal from Goodridge. Well of course not. This appeal was based on the "guarantee" clause, Article IV, Section 3: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...." This is the archtypal non-justiciable clause, ever since 1849. Everyone is reasonably sure the clause does not mean that all states have to have GOP governors and legislative majorities, tee hee, but no one knows what it does mean. (I have a hunch there's an anti-Catholic kick behind it: rule by a Catholic monarch was considered the antithesis of "a Republican Form of Government," and the Founders could not forget that the country was bordered by territories belonging to the crowns of France and Spain. Notice the "Invasion" clause that comes right after the Guarantee clause, separated only by a comma, which is less than separated New England and New York from Quebec, or Georgia from Florida.) The suit the Supremes turned aside asked them to hold, basically, that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court deprived Massachusetts of a "Republican Form of Government" by taking it upon itself to redefine marriage in that state. Courts violate the Guarantee Clause when they make decisions best left to legislatures? Oh yeah, I can see the U.S. Supreme Court holding that.... :: David M. Wagner 3:08 PM [+] :: ... |
||||
![]() |