:: 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


 Subscribe in a reader



Site Feed


Also please visit my opera blog, Box Five!

    follow me on Twitter



    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


    lawyer blogs


    [::..archive..::]
    ::

    :: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 ::
    From transcript section 16:

    SCHUMER: ...Just explain to me why you can say it about Griswold, which I'm glad that you did, but not about Wickard. Both of them have been litigated -- tangentially, at least -- in the last five or six years.

    ROBERTS: Well, Wickard was litigated directly in the Raich case. I don't think that the issue in Griswold is likely to come before the court. It was unlike...

    SCHUMER: Isn't Lawrence an outgrowth of Griswold in terms of what the right of privacy is to consenting adults in their bedroom?

    ROBERTS: Well, that's one of the issues. But the difference between the issue that was presented in Griswold and its ramifications of the analysis, those are two very different issues.

    ___

    ME: I think what he meant was, there's a big difference between a precedent being cited and a precedent being challenged. The continuing validity of Wickard -- challeged by at least one concurrence (Thomas) in Lopez -- was at issue in Raich. The role of Griswold in Lawrence, by contrast, was merely its now-customary place in the "privacy" string-cite that usually starts with Pierce.

    :: David M. Wagner 12:21 PM [+] ::
    ...

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