constitutional interpretation
Atypically for something written by John Yoo, I actually agree with much of the first part of his Clarence Thomas apologia. Thomas is the most principled conservative on the Court,.
Most of this lament for the polarization of the Roberts Court I addressed in a TAP article recently. The short version is that 1)Roberts will certainly fail in his attempt.
Jack Balkin and Eugene Volokh duked it out yesterday on BloggingHeads in what Balkin calls the "Bill of Rights Edition" of Blogging heads. They take on the First and Second.
On the issue of affirmative action and the alleged principled "originalism" of the Court's conservatives, Simon Lazurus has a very good summary:On the contrary, as legal and historical scholars --.
I have an article up in TAP about the affirmative action cases and "originalism." The cases make clear that for even justices who occasionally practice it rarely gets in the.
Some initial observations based on a first reading of the Court's opinion striking down voluntary school integration programs in Louisville and Seattle:Nothing in the text of the Constitution compels these.
Today's "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case actually turns on relatively narrow grounds. The problem with Roberts' opinion is that it turns on a claim that punishing the student was justified.