:: 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, May 19, 2008 ::
    Interesting things about Dept. of Revenue of Ky. v. Davis:

    * My friends in the libertarian litigating community took it on the chin: only two Justices -- Kennedy and Alito -- bought into their claim that the Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine is a fountainhead (as it were) of judicial enforcement power for the free market.

    * In dissent, Kennedy is -- once again -- off and running with high-flying generalizations, this time about history and economics. He cites at least one Lochner-era precedent, albeit one authored by Holmes. So, those who say Kennedy is a neo-Lochnerian: you're probably right. But whether he gets more than one vote besides his own depends on the doctrine being applied: Justice Alito's very brief dissent explains that he joins Kennedy's only because of the stare decisis status of the Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine...

    *...speaking of which: Scalia and Thomas differ here, as they have before in Dormant Commerce Clause cases, on stare decisis. Scalia (concurring in all but III-B and IV) says, keep the DCC but don't extend it; Thomas says (I paraphrase freely) the DCC is twaddle, and who really needs stare decisis anyway, but Kentucky's differential taxation system for its own bonds vis-a-vis those of other states can be upheld solely on the grounds that states have long favored their own bonds in their tax systems, and Congress, though it has power to override this practice, has not done so; therefore -- concur in judgment only.

    I'm with Thomas on this one.

    :: David M. Wagner 12:02 PM [+] ::
    ...

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