I don’t necessary agree with every nuance — to say that law isn’t determinate is different than saying that there is “no law” — but I’m still gratified to see
I wrote a little while ago about the exclusionary rule in Canada. As Mckingford recently noted in comments, with respect to the case that was the centerpiece of the Liptak article, the Supreme Court o
Some of the nation’s foremost constitutional scholars have apparently decided to weigh in on the tax plan passed in the House: O’DONNELL (3/19/09): You know, this is, this was a brilliant trap
It probably would not shock you to know that under the Bush administration the Forest Service sold timber for logging without the legally required notice, comment and appeal provisions because of a re
As was widely expected, the Supreme Court today that Pleasant Grove, Utah’s unwillingness to display a monument erected by the Summum did not violate the religious group’s free speech righ
My position on the Senate’s authority to refuse to seat Roland Burris appears to be in conflict with several of the legal scholars I most admire (cf. Tushnet, Balkin, and Amar, but see also Levi
Steven Calabresi waxes hysterical and ludicrously implausible: If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional
Starring Wilbur Hackett as Antonin Scalia. Bonus footage: a new movie about Bush v. Gore, featuring Nelson Emerson as the Republican Party and Denis Morel as Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.