:: 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


    :: Thursday, September 15, 2005 ::
    Ain't he cute? Dig that smile.

    BIDEN: That is not true, Judge. Justice Ginsburg violated that rule, according to you. Justice Ginsburg said precisely what position she agreed on. Did she, in fact, somehow compromise herself when she answered that question?

    ROBERTS: She said no hints, no forecasts, no previews.

    BIDEN: No, no. Judge, she specifically, in response to a question whether or not she agreed with the majority or minority opinion in Moore v. the City of Cleveland said explicitly: I agree with the majority, and here's what the majority said and I agree with it.
    My question to you is: Do you agree with it or not?

    ROBERTS: Well, I do know, Senator, that in numerous other cases -- because I read the transcript --

    BIDEN: So did I.

    ROBERTS: -- she took the position that she should not comment. Justice O'Connor took the same position. She was asked about a particular case.

    BIDEN: Oh, Judge --


    ROBERTS: She said, It's not correct for me to comment. Now, there's a reason for that.

    BIDEN: But you're going from the --

    SPECTER: Wait a minute, Senator Biden. He's not finished his answer.

    BIDEN: He's filibustering, Senator. But OK, go ahead.


    SPECTER: No, he's not. No, he's not.


    ROBERTS: That's a bad word, Senator.

    BIDEN: That's if we do it to you. Go ahead. Go ahead and continue not to answer.


    ME: You'd think a legal epsilon like Biden would show more respect for an alpha like Roberts, but actually, no one who has watched him when he chaired the Committee -- scolding Thomas for believing in natural law, and Bork for not believing in it (there's different kinds of natural law, don't you know) should be surprised.

    Back during the Thomas hearings, one of my sons, who was four years old at the time (young enough so that the obscene attacks went over his head), pointed to Biden on the telly and said, "The one with the hammer doesn't know what's going on."

    :: David M. Wagner 10:55 PM [+] ::

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