:: 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, July 13, 2009 ::
    I'm about to set out to teach a nine-session unit on Comparative Constitutional Law in our summer program in Strasbourg, France. I expect I will be able to update this blog from there, but if I do, it is more likely to be with reflections on that course and on my travels than on the Sotomayor hearings or the Court's end-of-term cases.

    Just a couple of Sotomayor reflections. I've been trying to find her good points rather than her bad points, and as readers know, I've found some. That said, the "wise Latina" thing really does seem to point to a more deeply-seated identity politics that I had at first apprehended. This is a problem.

    I'm even more concerned about the volume of important cases in which Judge Sotomayor has silently concurred, or else written cursory, we-affirm-the-district-court-for-the-reasons-it-gave kinds of opinions, when more may have been called for. As a wag I know asked: if America's best-known Puerto Rican entertainer can be called J-Lo, can America's best-known Puerto Rican jurist be called So-So?

    Should conservative senators vote against confirming Sotomayor? I do not have a definite opinion on this (and it's unlikely to matter anyway). It is obvious that her voting patterns on the Court will be basically in line with core Obama constituency values. Based on past Democratic Senate voting patterns and the fact that Republican courtesy in confirmation votes is generally wasted, I could see voting repeatedly against any nominee this president sends up. But (keeping in mind that Justice Thomas was confirmed by a Democrat-controlled Senate and that some Democrats voted for him), I could see being statesmanlike and voting for her if she refrains from making that impossible by her answers in the hearings.

    Then there's the whole "So-So" thing. It wasn't a right-wing racist misogynist who first raised issues about the Judge's with-its: it was Jeffrey Rosen. It was conservatives of my personal acquaintance who said, wait a minute, back in the '70s, even with a little grade inflation, you didn't graduate Princeton cum laude without with-its. And Yale Law School? Maybe it wanted Hispanic women, but it had a lot to choose from and it chose her.

    So plainly, she's qualified. But maybe, just maybe, she's not the most potentially influential nominee Obama could have chosen. Would anyone be cynical enough to vote for her just because of that?

    Meanwhile, let Randy Barnett provoke thought with this.

    :: David M. Wagner 12:07 PM [+] ::
    ...

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