In my experience, almost any discussion (including this one) of "originalism," somebody will bring up a distinction between "original intent" and "original meaning." This argument was made prominently in Robert.
As if to provide a perfect example for Dahlia Lithwick's demonstration of the superficial and selective nature of Tea Party reverence for the Constitution, Steve King has decided to open.
A few points about Michael Lind's argument here: Even if WikiLeaks is defined as a news organization, American law allows both prior injunctions halting publication of government secrets and prosecutions.
Megan McArdle apparently believes she has liberals who support broad federal powers dead to rights: 1) Can Congress enact a $50,000 tax on second term abortions? 2) Can Congress enact.
As others have noted, Henry Hudson's opinion holding that the mandate provision of the ACA was unconstitutional contained the bizarre argument that "[i]f a person’s decision not to purchase health.
...matters if the Supreme Court will uphold it. I continue to think that this is very unlikely, and if they did it would probably produce a better health care policy.
Occasioned by his recent NYRB article about the death penalty, I have a new American Prospect article about John Paul Stevens and equal protection. I think that his relatively obscure.
George Will has introduced the latest effort to claim that, by definition, only liberal judges can be enagaged in judicial activism. This latest gloss on the more accurate "judgifying I.
