Day: April 4, 2017

Instant Analysis of Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College

The 7th Circuit’s en banc decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, establishing that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, is overshadowed by Judge Posner’s remarkably honest, and arrogant opinion, in which he introduces a new school of statutory interpretation: “judicial interpretive updating.” It’s exactly what it sounds like. His approach is the precise opposite of what I’ve dubbed “statutory originalism.”

I discuss the opinion, and Judge Sykes’s dissent, in this Twitter moment.

Read More

Justice Scalia on Confirmation Hearings

Justice Scalia’s dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey offers an apt summary on the current state of our Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

Roe fanned into life an issue that has inflamed our national politics in general, and has obscured with its smoke the selection of Justices to this Court, in particular, ever since. And by keeping us in the abortion-umpiring business, it is the perpetuation of that disruption, rather than of any Pax Roeana that the Court’s new majority decrees

What makes all this relevant to the bothersome application of “political pressure” against the Court are the twin facts that the American people love democracy and the American people are not fools. As long as this Court thought (and the people thought) that we Justices were doing essentially lawyers’ work up here – reading text and discerning our society’s traditional understanding of that text – the public pretty much left us alone. Texts and traditions are facts to study, not convictions to demonstrate about. But if in reality, our process of constitutional adjudication consists primarily of making value judgments; if we can ignore a long and clear tradition clarifying an ambiguous text, as we did, for example, five days ago in declaring unconstitutional invocations and benedictions at public high school graduation ceremonies, Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577(1992); if, as I say, our pronouncement of constitutional law rests primarily on value [505 U.S. 833, 1001]   judgments, then a free and intelligent people’s attitude towards us can be expected to be (ought to be) quite different. The people know that their value judgments are quite as good as those taught in any law school – maybe better. If, indeed, the “liberties” protected by the Constitution are, as the Court says, undefined and unbounded, then the people should demonstrate, to protest that we do not implement their values instead of ours. Not only that, but the confirmation hearings for new Justices should deteriorate into question-and-answer sessions in which Senators go through a list of their constituents’ most favored and most disfavored alleged constitutional rights, and seek the nominee’s commitment to support or oppose them. Value judgments, after all, should be voted on, not dictated; and if our Constitution has somehow accidentally committed them to the Supreme Court, at least we can have a sort of plebiscite each time a new nominee to that body is put forward. JUSTICE BLACKMUN not only regards this prospect with equanimity, he solicits it.

Of course, Justice Blackmun’s concluding remarks in Casey are ever-relevant:

In one sense, the Court’s approach is worlds apart from that of THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE SCALIA. And yet, in another sense, the distance between the two approaches is short – the distance is but a single vote.

I am 83 years old. I cannot remain on this Court forever, and when I do step down, the confirmation process for my successor well may focus on the issue before us today. That, I regret, may be exactly where the choice between the two worlds will be made.


Read More

ConLaw Class 22 – Individual Autonomy II

Class 22 – 4/4/17

Individual Autonomy II

  • Roe v. Wade (1059 – 1071)
  • Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1097 – 1115)
  • Gonzales v. Carhart (1116 – 1124)

The lecture notes are here.

Roe v. Wade

This is Norma McCorvey (“Jane Roe”) protesting outside the Supreme Court in 1989 with her lawyer, Gloria Allred, after arguments in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services.



Here is McCorvey in 1985.


Roe didn’t even make top billing in the Times. LBJ died on decision day.


In 1996, McCorvey came out as opposing abortion. She noted that she lied in affidavits submitted to the Supreme Court, and she was never raped, let alone gang raped.


I could not find a full, color photo of the Leutze painting. Here is the best version I could find.


Here is another portrait of Taney:


Planned Parenthood v. Casey

This is Governor Bob Casey of Pennsylvania.

Gonzales v. Carhart

This is Dr. LeRoy Carhart.

This is his clinic in Nebraska.

Read More




Subscribe to YouTube Channel

[powr-youtube-gallery id=158059bf_1477783431]

Upcoming Events




April 2017
« Mar