| |||||
:: 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 Site Feed Also please visit my opera blog, Box Five! 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
|
:: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 ::
It chose for review the two cases that I chose to study with my First Amendment seminar, because they are the cases that stake out the most decisive position on each side: Hobby Lobby (10th Circuit, granting a preliminary injunction), and Conestoga Wood (3rd Circuit, denying one). Though Conestoga Wood is closely owned by the Hahn family, of Mennonite faith and conviction, the 3rd Circuit's opinion tried to assure them and us that when they provided, through insurance, the types of contraceptives that function as abortifacients, they needn't worry: it's not the Hahns doing it, it's Conestoga Wood! The corporate form separates the owners from the corporation for corporate purposes - but for all purposes? Would the 3rd Circuit's theory work in a human rights criminal trial ("It wasn't us supplying the lethal materials, it was our company")? I recommend Judge Jordan's dissent in Conestoga. One issue he flags that Judge Tymkovich's majority opinion in Hobby Lobby does not is, just what is the "Institute of Medicine"? It's a private entity. Click on that website link for information on how wonderful it is ("self-serving," Judge Jordan notes). So, Congress made the law, delegated the details to an agency, the agency re-delegated key details to a private entity, which returned them to the agency, which then made them law. Does that pattern remind one of anything? A.L.A. Schechter, but with the HHS Secretary in place of the President? :: David M. Wagner 4:18 PM [+] :: ... |
||||
|