:: welcome to


:: 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 ::

-- 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

 Subscribe in a reader

Site Feed

Also please visit my opera blog, Box Five!

    follow me on Twitter


    Above the Law, by David Lat



    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


    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


    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

    lawyer blogs


    :: Friday, August 12, 2005 ::
    Well, I guess this spares me the trouble of fisking the NARAL ad.

    Thing is, though, it was no more dishonest than many of the ads, op-eds, and Senate speeches used against Bork. Lots of them followed the same script: focus on a dislikeable person or act on the side the nominee advocated for, or ruled in favor of, and then declaim based on the assumption that the nominee personally embraced that person or act.

    It looks like NARAL has actually been dealt a setback by msm folks who are ordinarily its friends. Of course, it may be a set-up, designed to make later attacks on Roberts (whether by NARAL or anyone else) look honest by comparison.

    Or, this may all really be about the next nominee, not about Roberts. Bob Novak:
    NARAL's approach was not meant to sway the Senate but to pick off nervous Democrats and perhaps a Republican or two, keeping Roberts as close to 60 votes as possible. The president and his closest advisers then would have to ask themselves: If a nominee as squeaky clean as John Roberts cannot do better than this, can we risk nominating another conservative for the next vacancy?...

    Luttig, Jones or Owen going on the court would cement a conservative majority. Any one of them likely would trigger a filibuster, either for chief justice or to replace Scalia, and the "nuclear option" might have to be pulled out of the closet for confirmation. Liberal hopes for Bush missing this golden opportunity could depend on how many Senators vote against Roberts, and that is reason enough to smear him as an abortion bomber.

    :: David M. Wagner 12:31 AM [+] ::

    Site Meter
    This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?