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 ::
:: Friday, November 30, 2007 ::
The law profs behind the candidates, to the extent the candidates are telling (or the journalists are asking)
:: David M. Wagner 2:18 PM [+] ::
...
:: Thursday, November 22, 2007 ::
Feminist educators openly acknowledge differences in our classrooms, but that does not mean we must tolerate all ideas....What happens to the feminist classroom when students challenge feminist principles?
:: David M. Wagner 8:31 PM [+] ::
...
:: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 ::
High Court to Hear D.C. Gun Ban Case. Wonder what Justice Kennedy's philosophy of the mystery of life is this year.
:: David M. Wagner 2:10 PM [+] ::
...
:: Saturday, November 17, 2007 ::
Navy says malfunction caused dummy bomb to drop. What a relief: here I was afraid a dummy had caused a malfunctioning bomb to drop.
But wherein lay the malfunction -- in causing the bomb to drop, or in the bomb being a dummy? I mean, how worried should Virginia Beach be here, you know?
:: David M. Wagner 9:35 PM [+] ::
...
:: Saturday, November 10, 2007 ::
SEATTLE (AP) — A federal judge has suspended Washington state's requirement that pharmacists sell "morning-after" birth control pills, a victory for druggists who claim their moral objections to the drug are being bulldozed by the government.
I'm very happy for the druggists-plaintiffs, but I'm not sure I agree with their attorney who says:"We believe strongly that forcing someone to choose between their religious beliefs and actually losing their business or their career is unconstitutional."
Well, Braunfeld v. Brown? See, I've never been able to agree that the Constitution requires all things Nice and prohibits all things Not Nice. Requiring objecting pharmacists to dispense abortifactients (whether or not their objections are religiously based) is extremely Not Nice; come to that, abortifacients are extremely Not Nice. But neither is addressed in the Constitution, and disobedience to a generally applicable statute that requires the dispensing of these genocidal poisons is not "the free exercise" of religion within any originalist reading of that term.
Of course a pharmacist in a state with an exemption-less "Plan B" dispensing requirement may have to face prison and/or loss of business as the cost of not participating in murder. What, you thought Free Exercise was a permanent all-purpose anti-martyrdom clause?
The AP report article goes on:Some states also have laws that protect pharmacy employees who refuse to sell the contraceptive for reasons of conscience.
That's the way.
:: David M. Wagner 9:52 PM [+] ::
...
:: Thursday, November 08, 2007 ::
The media are easily led
I haven't picked a new presidential candidate since my man, Sam Brownback, dropped out (I'm not likely to follow his advice and choose McCain: 1st Amendment, you know). I have had doubts all along about Giuliani on judicial nominations, and until this piece appeared on NRO this morning, there was little to allay those doubts. (See esp. p. 2.)
But what I do have a strong view on is what's driving media attention on which evangelical leader is endorsing whom. This is something that cashes out differently depending on whether you are in an MSM newsroom or in real life.
In an MSM newsroom, evangelical Christians look to their "leaders" to tell them how to vote, because they're "poor, uneducated, and easily led." In real life, as I have gotten to know them over the years, they make up their own minds about candidates, have upper-middle-class jobs and advanced degrees in fields with objective criteria of merit, attend the church of their choice, and throw away mailings from a wide variety of parachurch ministries.
This disparity of perception explains, I think, why the MSM can produce op-eds between elections explaining how Dr. X or Rev. Y is a spent force, no longer influential, but then, during election season, race to the front page with stories about whom Dr. X or Rev. Y has endorsed.
In real life, such endorsements are important but not determinative. Evangelical voters will make up their own minds anyway; endorsements provide more information to do that with. There has always been more diversity among American evangelicals than the MSM have been interested in believing (and when that diversity becomes impossible to ignore, the MSM report it as evangelicals "changing").
Now that diversity -- a diversity of prudential judgment, more than of basic beliefs -- is manifesting itself at the leadership level. Surprised? You were expecting, maybe, 1980? (True, we do have a divorced ex-actor in the mix, but he's not as sound as Reagan was.)
:: David M. Wagner 10:40 AM [+] ::
...
:: David M. Wagner 2:18 PM [+] ::
...
Feminist educators openly acknowledge differences in our classrooms, but that does not mean we must tolerate all ideas....What happens to the feminist classroom when students challenge feminist principles?
:: David M. Wagner 8:31 PM [+] ::
...
:: David M. Wagner 2:10 PM [+] ::
...
But wherein lay the malfunction -- in causing the bomb to drop, or in the bomb being a dummy? I mean, how worried should Virginia Beach be here, you know?
:: David M. Wagner 9:35 PM [+] ::
...
SEATTLE (AP) — A federal judge has suspended Washington state's requirement that pharmacists sell "morning-after" birth control pills, a victory for druggists who claim their moral objections to the drug are being bulldozed by the government.I'm very happy for the druggists-plaintiffs, but I'm not sure I agree with their attorney who says:
"We believe strongly that forcing someone to choose between their religious beliefs and actually losing their business or their career is unconstitutional."Well, Braunfeld v. Brown? See, I've never been able to agree that the Constitution requires all things Nice and prohibits all things Not Nice. Requiring objecting pharmacists to dispense abortifactients (whether or not their objections are religiously based) is extremely Not Nice; come to that, abortifacients are extremely Not Nice. But neither is addressed in the Constitution, and disobedience to a generally applicable statute that requires the dispensing of these genocidal poisons is not "the free exercise" of religion within any originalist reading of that term.
Of course a pharmacist in a state with an exemption-less "Plan B" dispensing requirement may have to face prison and/or loss of business as the cost of not participating in murder. What, you thought Free Exercise was a permanent all-purpose anti-martyrdom clause?
The AP report article goes on:
Some states also have laws that protect pharmacy employees who refuse to sell the contraceptive for reasons of conscience.That's the way.
:: David M. Wagner 9:52 PM [+] ::
...
I haven't picked a new presidential candidate since my man, Sam Brownback, dropped out (I'm not likely to follow his advice and choose McCain: 1st Amendment, you know). I have had doubts all along about Giuliani on judicial nominations, and until this piece appeared on NRO this morning, there was little to allay those doubts. (See esp. p. 2.)
But what I do have a strong view on is what's driving media attention on which evangelical leader is endorsing whom. This is something that cashes out differently depending on whether you are in an MSM newsroom or in real life.
In an MSM newsroom, evangelical Christians look to their "leaders" to tell them how to vote, because they're "poor, uneducated, and easily led." In real life, as I have gotten to know them over the years, they make up their own minds about candidates, have upper-middle-class jobs and advanced degrees in fields with objective criteria of merit, attend the church of their choice, and throw away mailings from a wide variety of parachurch ministries.
This disparity of perception explains, I think, why the MSM can produce op-eds between elections explaining how Dr. X or Rev. Y is a spent force, no longer influential, but then, during election season, race to the front page with stories about whom Dr. X or Rev. Y has endorsed.
In real life, such endorsements are important but not determinative. Evangelical voters will make up their own minds anyway; endorsements provide more information to do that with. There has always been more diversity among American evangelicals than the MSM have been interested in believing (and when that diversity becomes impossible to ignore, the MSM report it as evangelicals "changing").
Now that diversity -- a diversity of prudential judgment, more than of basic beliefs -- is manifesting itself at the leadership level. Surprised? You were expecting, maybe, 1980? (True, we do have a divorced ex-actor in the mix, but he's not as sound as Reagan was.)
:: David M. Wagner 10:40 AM [+] ::
...
