:: 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..::]
    ::

    :: Saturday, November 04, 2006 ::
    More on the New Jersey ssm decision: At NRO's Bench Memos, Ed Whelan stresses a different aspect of the New Jersey decision, one that I missed in the course of trying to compare NJ's Equal Protection analysis with that of other state courts that have recently addressed this issue. Ed points out that the NJ state constitutional text on which the court based its decision is a preambular passage that more closely tracks the Declaration of Independence than the 14th Am. E.P. Clause.

    The text in question says:
    “All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.”
    Says Ed:
    Based on this provision, and on previous judicial decisions construing it, the New Jersey Supreme Court has just ruled (unanimously) that all the rights and benefits of marriage need to be made available to same-sex couples. This is, simply put, judicial activism run amok, even if it reflects the gradual judicial accretion of power over some decades. So many judges today view judicial decisionmaking as essentially an autonomous process, unmoored from the meaning of the actual text. Not a single justice on the New Jersey Supreme Court did a simple sanity check: Is it remotely plausible, remotely compatible with democratic principles, to read this constitutional provision as supporting the court’s result? One could, with equal implausibility, maintain that the Declaration of Independence declares that the rights and benefits of marriage must be extended to same-sex couples.
    And that's comin' up down the road. This is one reason why I cringe just a little when my West Coast Straussian friends (among whom I number the editors of the fantabulous, rockin', you-all-should-use-it casebook that I use) tell us not to worry 'cause constitutional interpretation is rightly controlled by the good ol' Declaration.

    :: David M. Wagner 9:52 PM [+] ::
    ...

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