:: Ninomania ::

Keep your "Yankee From Olympus" -- Give me Sancho Panza from New Jersey!

Ver me si fece, e io ver' lui mi fei:
giudice Nin gentil, quanto mi piacque
quando ti vidi non esser tra' rei!
-- Dante, Purgatorio VIII 52-54

This is an independent blog by Professor David M. Wagner, Regent University School of Law.
:: welcome to Ninomania :: bloghome | E-mail me ::

-- 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

"All you professors should get blogs!"
-- Peter Rosentrater, Regent Law '06

 Subscribe in a reader

Site Feed


This blog does not reflect the views of Justice Scalia, who doesn't know me from Adam, or of Regent University, which does but is not such a schlemiel as to take responsibility for my views.

Also please visit my opera blog, Box Five!

    follow me on Twitter


    Above the Law, by David Lat


    Believer's Guide to Legal Issues

    Blithering Idiot

    Chuck Dunn Report

    Clerkship Notification Blog


    Cross & Gavel Resources Blog

    Duncan's Con Law Course Blog

    Eschatological Psychosis

    Eve Tushnet

    Eye of Polyphemus, by Jamie Jeffords

    How Appealing

    Hugh Hewitt

    Justice Thomas Appreciation Page

    Legal History Blog

    Legal Theory Blog

    Lex Communis


    National Ass'n of Scholars Online Forum

    Opinio Juris


    Paper Chase (from JURIST)

    Point of Law (Manhattan Inst.)

    Professor Bainbridge

    Redeeming Law, by Prof. Mike Schutt

    SCOTUS Blog

    Token Conservative

    SW Virginia Law Blog

    Virginia Appellate News

    Virginia Lawyers Weekly blog

    Volokh Conspiracy

    WSJ Law Blog

    The Yale Free Press: Vast. Right. Winged.

    Other fine sites:


    Alexander Hamilton Inst. for Study of Western Civilization

    Ave Maria School of Law

    Center for Thomas More Studies

    Cult of Scalia

    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


    Law Prose (Bryan Garner)

    Liberty Library of Constitutional Classics

    National Lawyers Association (alternative to ABA)

    Natural Law/Natural Right Page

    Norfolk & Portsmouth Bar Ass'n

    Regent University School of Law

    Supreme Court decisions

    Virginia Beach Circuit Court Bar News

    The Weekly Standard

    Something I wrote about marriage

    A conference I spoke at

    lawyer blogs


    :: Monday, December 31, 2012 ::

    Prof. Bainbridge takes care of the matter here. I could say more - perhaps I will later, esp. about how choosing one at-the-time viable reading of the Constitution over a later, victorious one, as John Adams did re the Sedition Act, does not amount to "ignoring" the Constitution - but, spurred by a tweet from @walterolson, I realized that I have somewhat aggressively not cared what Prof. Seidman thinks about the Constitution for a long time, and New Year's Eve (also, still, the thick of the grading season) is hardly the time to change ways.

    I have not yet eulogized Judge Bork, other than on Facebook, for (perceived) lack of time to do justice to the subject, so to speak. After grades are in, I hope.

    :: David M. Wagner 8:51 PM [+] ::
    :: Monday, December 10, 2012 ::
    You know, if the Court ends up holding that proponents of Prop. 8 lack standing to defend it in federal court, then that nullifies both the 9th Circuit's and Judge Walker's rulings, as those rulings were rendered in "cases" without valid plaintiffs.

    Federal standing law doesn't necessarily affect state courts, however, so the California Supreme Court's holding that Prop. 8 had effectively overruled its own earlier decision that the California Constitution enacted same sex marriage would then be the last judicial decision standing.

    That means that Prop. 8 would be in a state of dormancy, ready to go back into effect whenever (if ever) a California administration decides to enforce it. That may be very unlikely to happen, but at least it means that the issue of same sex marriage, even in California, is once again in the political process, where some say it belongs.

    Just saying.

    :: David M. Wagner 3:34 PM [+] ::
    :: Friday, December 07, 2012 ::
    The Supreme Court has granted cert in the two closely-watch "gay rights" cases: the Prop. 8 same-sex marriage case, now called Hollingsworth v. Perry, and the only DOMA case to have yielded Court of Appeals decision thus far, U.S. v. Windsor. Note that in both cases, the Court directed the parties to brief the issue of standing. That's a different issue in the two cases:

    In Hollingsworth, the standing question is: do activists who have all along promoted and defended Prop. 8 (a much more specific and narrowly-injured set of parties than simply "backers" or "supporters") have standing to defend a state constitutional amendment when the state refuses to? If not, then any state could nullify the outcome of a referendum through simple non-enforcement.

    In Windsor, the standing question is: does a group consisting of a large number of Congressmen, but which is obviously not itself Congress, have standing to challenge a decision holding a federal statute unconstitutional when the executive branch is of that opinion also?

    The Court seems to be maximizing its options for disposing of these cases on standing. The result could be standing rules that restrict activist standing beyond anything Justice Scalia ever dreamed of, and an executive coordinate constitutional review power beyond anything Andy Jackson ever dreamed of. And that's if the gay interest wins on its standing issues. One presumes it would just as soon lose on those issues and take its chances on the merits. Or would one?

    :: David M. Wagner 6:25 PM [+] ::

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