Is That Legal?

"it'll be OK."

Doesn't that depend on your definition of OK?

If SOC's replacement thinks search warrants that list no items to be seized because the police officer forgot to include them on the warrant, but s/he claims s/he mentioned them to the approving judge (who doesn't remember either way), are constitutional, then -- yes -- it'll be OK.

Or if SOC's replacement thinks retaliating against men who complain about overt discrimination against women in federally funded programs is unprotected by Title IX, then -- yes -- it'll be OK.

How 'bout if SOC's replacement concurs that states are immune from federally imposed liability for intentional discrimination based on any (previously thought and accepted) prohibited characteristic based on a "strict" reading of the 11th Amendment, then -- yes -- it'll be OK.

And the list goes on.

No point in mentioning Roe/Griswold.

First, there's still 5 votes to preserve them.

Second, a S/Ct reversing the privacy doctrine would be the best political commercial for what's wrong with the right controlling the levers of power. A war fought on false pretenses wasn't enough.

Thanks Eric. It needed to be said. When I read about Nancy Pelosi's comments last week, I shuddered. She referenced congressional efforts to curb Kelo, stating "when the Supreme Court decides an issue, it's settled. It's like the voice of God."

More like the voice of 9 geriatric attorneys, I've always thought. I think the insane level of hostility to the Court comes from us giving up on the legislative process, and looking to the Court to do too much for us. It's just nine elderly lawyers, as near as I can tell.

What do you think of Noah Feldman's proposal in the 7/3/05 NY Times Magazine, headlined as "a provocative proposal for redrawing the line between church and state"? I found it very disturbing. Seems to be saying that maybe the Establishment Clause isn't such a good idea?? A quote: "Atheists will doubless maintain that any public religion at all--like "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance--excludes them by endorsing the idea of religion generally. But this misses the point: it is an interpretive choice to feel excluded by other people's faiths, and the atheist, like any other dissenter from a majoritarian decision, can just as easily adhere to his own views while insisting on his full citizenship." I've never before heard discrimination referred to as "an interpretive choice to feel excluded."