| |
:: 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 :: | |
:: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 ::
4 The dissent [by Roberts, CJ] compares VOPA’s lawsuit to such indignities as “cannibalism” and “patricide,” since it is a greater “affront to someone’s dignity to be sued by a brother than to be sued by a stranger.” Post, at 9. We think the dissent’s principle of familial affront less than universally applicable, even with respect to real families, never mind governmental siblings. Most of us would probably prefer contesting a testamentary disposition with a relative to contesting it with a stranger. And confining one’s child to his room is called grounding, while confining a stranger’s child is called kidnaping. Jurisdiction over this case does not depend on which is the most apt comparison.For a good time, and for a resolution to include a lot of Ex Parte Young in one's next Con Law I, and for yet further proof that disputes within the Roberts Court do not follow simple "conservative"/"liberal" lines, catch this morning's Virginia Office of Protection and Advocacy v. Stewart. :: David M. Wagner 12:50 PM [+] :: ... |
|
|