:: 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 28, 2010 ::
    More about McDonald: The majority leaves the issue of the Privileges or Immunities Clause substantially untouched. In a section that is plurality only, the Alito opinion (with Scalia on board) says there is no need here to revisit the P/I Clause and the Slaughterhouse Cases, since the Due Process Clause is the established way in which the Court has long applied the Bill of Rights to the States.

    Precedent to one side (and yes, I enjoy saying that!), this makes no sense, for reasons Justice Scalia has eloquently explained on other occasions, but it faithfully reflects his line of questioning at oral argument in this case.

    Justice Thomas concurs separately, making the Scalian argument -- what part of "process" don't you understand? (I paraphrase) -- and going on to argue that the P/I Clause is the proper 14th Am. vehicle for incorporating the 2nd Am.

    There will be debate on whether or not this decision slams the door shut on reviving the P/I Clause, with the affirmative using a sort of J.R. Ewing argument: "Barnes, if you didn't get me this time, you never will." I stand by my statement: substantially untouched. The majority basically left the P/I Clause alone; the plurality portion of the Alito opinion used a the low-octane "no need to revisit" grade, rather than "plus" or "super."

    :: David M. Wagner 10:27 AM [+] ::
    ...

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