Two articles that might be of interest for my fellow con law wonks. The first is from the new issue of Legal Affairs, a fairly glowing article about him from Stephen Presser. He writes quite a bit about Thomas' notions of originalism and his disbelief in stare decisis. The second is from Doug Laycock, one of our foremost scholars on the religion clauses of the first amendment, in a message posted to the religion law listserv that I am a member of. Laycock explains why Thomas' claim that the Establishment Clause should not be binding on the states is incorrect.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Marci Hamilton has an interesting column on Findlaw about whether the Establishment Clause is incorporated by the 14th amendment, which means whether it now applies to the states or not. The Supreme Court has long held that it does, but at least one justice, Clarence Thomas, argues that it does not…
Noah Graubart has an excellent essay on the varieties of judicial conservatives, particularly in respect to the Alito nomination. Unlike most commentators, he recognizes that there are different varieties rather than casually lumping Scalia and Thomas together. That alone is refreshing to read. He…
Senator Harry Reid, the incoming Senator minority leader, caught a lot of flak for saying that Clarence Thomas' legal opinions are poorly written and that he was "an embarrassment to the court." Some of that flak came from me, in a post where I pointed out that while I am on the opposite side of…
Jack Balkin of the Yale Law School keeps a terrific blog that I link to and read often. On his blog today, he includes a reposting of a message he sent to a constitutional law listserv concerning Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and his concept of originalism. The listserv thread concerned an…