:: 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..::]
    ::

    :: Monday, June 25, 2007 ::
    "Flast in his first book wrote about, wrote about..."

    The Hein plurality opinion contains some good language on the separation-of-powers importance of standing. It goes on to distinguish Flast v. Cohen by -- well, do you remember the Monty Python sketch about the "Summarizing Proust" competition? Well, as Justice Scalia's scathing concurrence (a type of opinion that I believe he invented) in this case shows, the years since Flast have seen a number of "Distinguishing Flast" competitions, won by a bewildering variety of contestants -- so bewildering that, as Scalia discusses, Judges Flaum and Easterbrook declined to take this case en banc, not because they agreed with the panel's expansion of Flast, but because Higher Authority was too inconsistent to be worth the full circuit's time in trying to apply it.

    The distinction that wins today's Distinguishing Flast contest is the distinction between a specific and directive line-item in an appropriations bill, and an executive actions funded out of more general appropriations to the executive branch. Thus, I suppose, a line-item that says "the Secretary of Education shall give a speech praising religion" would give rise to Flast standing, but the speech itself, funded by an appropriation that merely allows him a salary, does not.

    Interestingly, this distinction could have been based on a strict, Thomas-esque reading of the constitutional clause allegly violated: it is directed at Congress, which is told to "make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It does not prohibit executive officers from praising religion in their speeches; in fact by its terms it is not directed to executive (or judicial, or state) officers at all.

    But this cannot be the plurality's meaning, because it goes on to list several hypothetical violations of the Establishment Clause by the President, so as to assure us that such conduct would not go unredressed even after today's ruling.

    Scalia's concurrence is a comprehensive tour of the wanderings of the standing issue, leading to the conclusion that it would be better -- and more consistent with post-Flast cases -- to overrule Flast than to "beat[] [it] to a pulp" and then "send it out to the lower courts...more incomprehensible than ever."

    Has Flast been weakened, or is it now in a "whatever doesn't kill me makes me stronger" position? Of course, Roe could be sustituted for Flast in much of the Scalia concurrence....

    Final note: in quoting Tocqueville, Scalia uses the Mansfield translation, which is -- wait for it! -- Straussssssssssssian!! Watch for exposes in the New York Review of Books, impeachment demands from the Larouchies -- the works!

    :: David M. Wagner 11:55 AM [+] ::
    ...

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