:: 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..::]
    ::

    :: Thursday, March 02, 2006 ::
    A good week

    Good news: where the "compelling state interest" test applies, it actually requires a compelling state interest! This apparently obvious yet historically doubtful point seems to be the main lesson of Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficteuniao do Vegetal, in which Chief Justice Roberts, yet again, produced unanimity on a potentially controversial issue. (What on earth are we going to call this case? I'll go with "Centro Espirita" for now.)

    Roberts has also waved his unanimity wand in another abortion-related case, bringing to an end NOW's 20-year campaign to bankrupt Joe Scheidler and intimidate pro-life protestors with RICO treble damages. In another unanimous opinion, delivered by Justice Breyer, the Court says, nope, the whole thing was a mistake, because it turns out the Hobbs Act, on which NOW was relying as a predicate felony for its RICO suit, does not forbid violent conduct unrelated to extortion or robbery.

    Just about everybody got to deliver a unanimous opinion this week. (Unanimous meaning 8-0, because these cases were argued before Justice Alito was confirmed.) Justice Thomas did an antitrust opinion, something he had excelled in on the D.C. Circuit. Even the opinions with dissents produced atypical splits. Thomas dissented from a Scalia opinion on the applicability of federal arbitration rules to state proceedings, and from a Kennedy opinion on the Federal Tort Claims Act in which Scalia joined.

    Roberts several times joined the majority when only Scalia and Thomas were in dissent, but then, Rehnquist often did that too. Before anyone starts writing "strange new respect" op-eds, remember that Roberts joined the Scalia dissent in Gonzales v. Oregon, a decision that could conceivably have been rightly decided but was not rightly reasoned. (It was actually a nondelegation case, and as such, should have been an easy one for the U.S. under Whitman v. American Trucking.)

    :: David M. Wagner 12:03 PM [+] ::
    ...

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