E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
What both John Roberts and Harriet Miers have in common is that the administration knows a lot more about them than the rest of us. In this sense, Miers is very different than David Souter, who seems to have been unknown to everyone, including President Bush the Elder, when nominated. What may be most troubling about such nominations is that they are means of avoiding accountability. An increasing number of political scientists and law professors are advancing what might be called a political regime theory of the judicial function. On this view, the constitution may be plausibly interpreted in different (not infinite) ways so presidents (and senators) are authorized by election to seek federal justices who share their constitutional vision. As I have said in public numerous times, my primary objection to Scalia is my objection to Ronald Reagan and the Republicans who won the 1980 Senate elections. My objection to Bush the younger is that he steadfastly refuses to inform us of exactly what is his constitutional vision. Does he favor overruling Roe or merely narrowing the decision. What about the revival of commerce clause and 11th amendment limitations on federal power. I do not need detail, but I'd like something more than cliches about modest justices and judicial restraint. In short, President Bush is clearly moving the court in a particular direction. he just isn't telling us what that direction is other than vaguely conservative. Posted
8:33 AM
by Mark Graber [link]