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
| [::..archive..::] |
|---|
| :: |
:: Thursday, June 18, 2015 ::
CONFRONTATION CLAUSE ALERT: This morning's Ohio v. Clark is a time-bomb under Crawford v. Washington (much as, I have argued, Crawford was potentially - may still be - a time-bomb under Maryland v. Craig). Clark is unanimous as to outcome, but the Scalia-Ginsburg concurrence outright accuses the "author" of the majority - that would be Justice Alito - of weakening Crawford through word-choice and dicta, because - their words, not mine - via "unabashedly display[ing] his hostility
to Crawford and its progeny, perhaps aggravated by inability
to muster the votes to overrule them." (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment, slip op. at 3).
According to the majority, Crawford "adopted a different approach" than Ohio v. Roberts, which had permitted any unconfronted hearsay that bore "indicia of reliability." Crawford didn't change an approach: it overruled Roberts: explained why it was bad law and bad history, and drove a stake through its heart. (See e.g. this, discovered fortuitously). The Court today takes a step, although a small one, toward making them sound like two equally valid approaches.
:: David M. Wagner 11:57 AM [+] ::
...
According to the majority, Crawford "adopted a different approach" than Ohio v. Roberts, which had permitted any unconfronted hearsay that bore "indicia of reliability." Crawford didn't change an approach: it overruled Roberts: explained why it was bad law and bad history, and drove a stake through its heart. (See e.g. this, discovered fortuitously). The Court today takes a step, although a small one, toward making them sound like two equally valid approaches.
:: David M. Wagner 11:57 AM [+] ::
...
