« Judge Posner (or at Least His Avatar) Talks to Second Life | Main | Subsidizing Good Works (by Students) »

December 03, 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


So I wander over here to see Orin Kerr posting!!!??? I forgot he was visiting at UofC. No matter where I go online, I'm reading the same bloggers.


further proof of the contempt that Scalia has for the rule of law when it differs from his crusty nonsensical frozen in the past interpretations of the Consttution. Religious conservative zealots like him should not be allowed on the high court. I'm not sure who is more embarassing to the U of C, Ashcroft or Nino. Both are shameful human beings.


Well, as far as I know, Scalia has made good on his promise to never treat legislative history materials as an authoritative expression of Congressional intent, although I believe that he has signed onto some opinions that use those materials as such.


Justice Breyer's refusal to abide by the holding of Apprendi is one of the more notorious examples. And he even got the last (penultimate?)* laugh with his opinion in Booker, which was pretty clearly an effort to nullify the so-called merits majority.

*We'll have to see how Rita and Claiborne turn out, of course.


"Both are shameful human beings."

Oh, put a lid on it, LAK.


"Put a lid on it?"

Are you 90 years old Joe? I think that is the first time anyone has ever brought out the "put a lid on it." Next are you going to tell me to "go get bent?"

Ashcroft was the worst AG that our country has ever had. When the shit hit the fan he crumbled to politics and fear. He abdicated his oath to uphold the constitution. And Nino? the guy wants to shove his Catholisism, or rather allow otehrs tho shover theirs, down all of our throats through the pretext of a nonsensical form of constitutional interpretation that is mired in our understanding of the world as it was 230 years ago.

Again, those guys are shameful and an embarassment to the U of C. And zealots like Scalia should not be allowed on the High Court. Hamilton spins in his grave every time that extremist opens his mouth.

Larry Rosenthal

Section 3501, by its terms, applies only to prosecutions undertaken by the federal government or the District of Columbia. Of the post-Dickerson Miranda cases, only Patane was subject to section 3501, and the question whether Patane's statement should have been suppressed (the only question addressed by section 3501) was not presented to the Court in the government's petition for certiorari, nor was it fairly included within the question presented by the petition (which addressed only the admissibility of the physical evidence obtained as a consequence of the statement). Thus, Justice Scalia has not had an opportunity to apply section 3501 since Dickerson.

Larry Rosenthal
Chapman University School of Law

The comments to this entry are closed.