:: 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 18, 2007 ::
    I've been arguing online today about Bowles v. Russell, where the Court, 5-4, held that a criminal defendant seeking habeas review in federal court is bound by the time limit fixed in the Fed.R.App.P., notwithstanding that the federal trial judge told him he had three extra days; the 14-day limit (itself a limit on an extensnion only available in limited circumstances that apply here) is jurisdictional, the Court says.

    Conservatives, especially Christian ones, have to hate cases like this, because the rule-of-law principle is pitted against justice itself. Bowles is "only" facing a 15-year term, but nothing in the Court's opinion turned on its not being a capital case. Indeed, the case has prompted memories of that of Roger Keith Coleman, who was in fact executed. His federal appeal from his Virginia conviction was likewise jurisdictionally barred, and in turning it aside, Justice O'Connor -- not Justice Scalia, mind you, but Justice O'Connor, the one who was willing to devise a new legal rule for almost every fact pattern she saw -- began the opinion: "This is a case about federalism."

    Coleman's guilt has since been sustained by DNA tests long sought by his supporters, but there was enough that was hasty about his trial that, even if it was "a case about federalism" in the posture in which it reached the Court, one has to wince.

    And yet -- and yet -- do we declare all procedural deadlines merely advisory in criminal cases? Would that be itself the rule of law, and if so, would the rule of law be well served by the consequences? No one should be happy about the Bowles case, but I'm not yet persuaded it's wrong.

    :: David M. Wagner 7:00 PM [+] ::
    ...

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