:: 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, February 22, 2006 ::
    Court will hear partial-birth abortion case.

    :: David M. Wagner 1:53 PM [+] ::
    ...
    :: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 ::
    Constitution changes with time? "[Y]ou would have to be an idiot to believe that," Scalia said. "The Constitution is not a living organism; it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things."

    And the Left of course doesn't have a clue. ThinkProgress.com summarizes the speech as "The Constitution is dead, you idiot." Yes, and that's why you have constitutional rights. Under a "living Constitution," your rights could expand or contract, or even disappear (your right to confront witnesses against you in a criminal trial, for example), according to the whims of Justices discerning Holmes's "felt necessities of the times," or according to the whims of what you "democrats" dread most: political majorities, which, over time, tends to prevail in the Supreme Court when it isn't anchored to the Constitution.

    :: David M. Wagner 5:20 PM [+] ::
    ...
    Any of you students planning to take the bar in Texas? It's now a three-day exam, you know. Yeah, after the essays and the Multistate, you get shot by Dick Cheney.

    :: David M. Wagner 11:41 AM [+] ::
    ...
    Ha! I'll bet now there won't be such a hissy fit from the profs and the press when Scalia goes hunting with Cheney!!

    :: David M. Wagner 11:30 AM [+] ::
    ...
    :: Monday, February 06, 2006 ::
    GONZALEZ v. OREGON: DEAD PARROT
    Simply put, the existence of a parroting regulation does not change the fact that the question here is not the meaning of the regulation but the meaning of the statute. An agency does not acquire special authority to interpret its own words when, instead of using its expertise and experience to formulate a regulation, it has elected merely to paraphrase the statutory language.

    -- Justice Kennedy, for the Court


    Even if there were an antiparroting canon, however, it would have no application here. The Court’s description of 21 CFR § 1306.04 (2005) as a regulation that merely “paraphrase[s] the statutory language,” ante, at 10, is demonstrably false.....

    Since the Regulation does not run afowl (so to speak) of the Court’s newly invented prohibition of “parroting”; and since the Directive represents the agency’s own interpretation of that concededly valid regulation; the only question remaining is whether that interpretation is “plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation”; otherwise, it is “controlling.” Auer, supra, at 461 (internal quotation marks omitted).....

    -- Justice Scalia, dissenting

    :: David M. Wagner 2:51 PM [+] ::
    ...

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