Carl Scott

This entire Roll Call article is a needed informative look at the issue I attacked in “The New Take Care Clause” post below.  RTWT, but this is it’s most striking bit: “It’s a fascinating transformation for Obama,” said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law . . . . Continue Reading »

So our Constitution has been changed again. What? You say no-one consulted your elected representatives? No amendment was passed?  C’mon, you rube, that’s not the way it works. What? You’re complaining that in this case, not even five of your indirectly elected-for-life . . . . Continue Reading »

Con-law is often a lot easier than you think. Justice Alito begins his comments on the section of his U.S. v. Windsor dissent that deals with the “merits” of the case (as opposed to the operational “cases and controversies” dispute about it) as follows: Same-sex marriage . . . . Continue Reading »

Excellent analysis by Steve Negus of Morsi’s Year over at The Arabist. I briefly met Negus when teaching at Skidmore. Behind his calm objective tone, however, the real possibility of a horrendous civil conflict and/or coup stares out at you. And if you look at the other recent posts there, an . . . . Continue Reading »

I saw COPPERHEAD today. Were I a tough movie critic, I suppose I’d give it a C or a B-, mainly for dramatic shortcomings. But still, you should go see it in the theater if you can, because you know you’ll have oodles more chances to see Monsters U and Man of Steel and the new zombie movie . . . . Continue Reading »

I’m working my way through Windsor , and I must say, Anthony Kennedy has never been worse—sophistry, casual matter-of-fact demonization, unclear basis for the decision, vague and repetitive phrasing, and a nauseating pretense of caring oh-so-much about how our federalist tradition . . . . Continue Reading »

Matthew Franck at NRO provides the best brass-tacks but fair and clear summary of what the two Supreme Court decisions, Windsor v. U.S. and Hollingsworth v. Perry actually did today. Also on NRO is Hadley Arkes’s more alarming interpretation. . . . . Continue Reading »

Yes, the Supreme Court struck down DOMA today, in U.S. v. Windsor .  Kennedy was consistent.  5-4, what else. Hadley Arkes, in a piece from a few months ago , reminds us why the act was passed (85 to 14 in the Senate and 342 to 67 in the House) back in the hoary days of 1996. You know, . . . . Continue Reading »

So tomorrow, word has it, the Supreme Court will release it’s decision in the cases concerning Prop 8 and DOMA. I.e., tomorrow we will get a same-sex-marriage ruling. Now the import of the decisions will depend on the cases, and so to understand them well, so as to avoid saying something . . . . Continue Reading »

I’m speaking of the just-issued The American Academy of Arts and Sciences report on the humanities in higher ed, the Heart of the Matter , released with snazzy blurb-testimonials to The Importance of the Humanities from George Lucas and others, and a NYT column by David Brooks. Brooks’s . . . . Continue Reading »