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 ::
:: Thursday, June 17, 2010 ::
"Finally, we cannot avoid comment upon Justice Kennedy’ s donning of the mantle of judicial restraint...."
Uh oh, there's no way this ends well. The Scalia plurality has already not avoided comment on this: a bit supra, where it said[I]t is strange to proclaim a democracy deficit and lack of special competence for the judicial taking of an individual property right, when this Court has had no trouble deciding matters of much greater moment, contrary to congressional desire or the legislated desires of most of the States, with no special competence except the authority we possess to enforce the Constitution.
The plurality did not here mention Casey or Lawrence: it didn't have to. (It mentions Lawrence later, quite derisively, to highlight the vagueness of Substantive Due Process in comparison to the relative precision of the Takings Clause.)
:: David M. Wagner 9:32 PM [+] ::
...
Uh oh, there's no way this ends well. The Scalia plurality has already not avoided comment on this: a bit supra, where it said
[I]t is strange to proclaim a democracy deficit and lack of special competence for the judicial taking of an individual property right, when this Court has had no trouble deciding matters of much greater moment, contrary to congressional desire or the legislated desires of most of the States, with no special competence except the authority we possess to enforce the Constitution.The plurality did not here mention Casey or Lawrence: it didn't have to. (It mentions Lawrence later, quite derisively, to highlight the vagueness of Substantive Due Process in comparison to the relative precision of the Takings Clause.)
:: David M. Wagner 9:32 PM [+] ::
...
