Number of Muslims in Canada predicted to triple over next 20 years: study

OH: Lambda Legal argues former lesbian partner should have parental rights

6th Circuit: Courtroom Ten Commandments held unconstitutional

Int’l Pro-Family Group Defends Chick-fil-A in Marriage Controversy

ND: Questions raised over abstinence sex education bill

Iowa marriage amendment is in the hands of the Senate Democratic Caucus

Children banned on planes! Airlines are urged to introduce adult-only flights to keep business class travellers happy

Religious liberty and SSM in Maryland

Louisville Sends Sexually Oriented Businesses Packing

Does the physician’s right of conscience encompass a right against compelled speech?

Obama Justice Department Colluded with ACLU to Attack Arizona’s SB 1070

LAUSD allows Christian 5th-grade student in talent show same day ADF files for temporary restraining order

Ohio Pro-Life Legislators Introduce Three Abortion Bills

Planned Parenthood’s Incoherent Response to Sex Trafficking Sting Video

Schlafly: People should challenge aggressive judges

ND Bill would require mandatory marriage counseling for those seeking a divorce

SD lesbians denied licenses in married names

USA Today: “Analysis: Controversy looms again for Nat. Prayer Breakfast”

AZ Republican lawmaker: Ban abortions sought because of race or sex

Bill would let Mass. taxpayers opt out on abortion

Republican State Sen. Kittleman to support Maryland marriage redefinition bill

Taxpayers Stuck With Legal Bill for State Officials Ignoring Gosnell

If the US Supreme Court isn’t bound by the Constitution, should lower courts be bound by the Supreme Court?

Look to Sweden for School Choice

Rebecca Hagelin: Culture Challenge of the Week: Child Pornography on TV

Michelle Malkin: A Christian Business in the Left’s Crosshairs

    “Over the past month, several progressive activist blogs have waged an ugly war against Chick-fil-A. The company’s alleged atrocity: One of its independent outlets in Pennsylvania donated some sandwiches and brownies to a marriage seminar run by the Pennsylvania Family Institute, which happens to oppose same-sex marriage.”


  • Posted: 02/02/2011
  • |
  • Category: Featured

  • Tags: , ,

Iowa marriage amendment debate moves forward

Bishop E.W. Jackson Sr.: Chick-Fil-A Controversy is Anti-Christian Bigotry

D.C. Judicial Commission Recommends Three Lawyers for Appeals Court

Obama’s Lawyer Previews New Push to Confirm Judges

Critics say top-rated Chinese education system has a flaw

Vulnerable Senate Dems under pressure to vote yes on repeal

    The Hill: “The Tea Party group FreedomWorks is calling on activists to flood the office phones of Sens. Nelson, Tester, Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Jim Webb (D-Va.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Bob Casey Jr. (D-Pa.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) to call on them to vote for the repeal amendment.”


  • Posted: 02/02/2011
  • |
  • Category: Miscellaneous
  • |
  • Source: thehill.com

  • Tags: ,

Virginia House OKs Proposed Amendments On Prayer and Funding for Military Chaplains

Mitch Daniels Promotes Abortion Truce Again in New Interview

Muslims seek change in their Hollywood story

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to review parental consent law after challenge

Cali School Bans Christian Student’s Talent

School officials in Chatsworth tell fifth-grader his talent show number has too much Jesus; parents suing

    Contra Costa Times: Christian attorneys who advocate for religious freedom, filed suit late last week against Los Angeles Unified on behalf of the unidentified boy. “What this boils down to is that our client, like other students, wanted to be allowed to (perform) to a song about love and dancing. Only in his song he talked about his love for Jesus,” said Matt Sharp, a National Alliance attorney working on the case. “The courts have time and time again established that Christian students cannot be discriminated against for wanting to express their religious beliefs at schools.” The lawsuit seeks to overturn whatever school or district policy is prohibiting the boy from performing in the talent show scheduled for Friday. [ADF Media has asked the paper to correct ADF name references]


  • Posted: 02/02/2011
  • |
  • Category: Uncategorized
  • |
  • Source: www.contracostatimes.com

  • Tags: , , ,

Who is Lila Rose?

Lawsuit pending over Montgomery County’s restrictions on pregnancy centers

WA: City Council likes prayer model

Senate Democrats ready to defeat healthcare repeal effort

GOP leader McConnell to force Senate vote on healthcare repeal

    “Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will force an up-or-down vote on the repeal of healthcare reform on Wednesday, testing the unity of Democrats who had promised the rollback would never see the light of day in their chamber.”


  • Posted: 02/02/2011
  • |
  • Category: Featured
  • |
  • Source: thehill.com

  • Tags: ,

Commercialized Sex and Human Bondage

Obama, Not Egypt, is Biggest Threat to U.S. Energy Prices

Giving Workers a Union Choice

The uneasy ties of Americans and their government

    AP: “Back when the big health care law was little more than a dream, a prominent figure spoke out against the idea of forcing people to get health insurance. He said that would be like solving homelessness by passing a law making people buy a house.”


  • Posted: 02/02/2011
  • |
  • Category: Miscellaneous
  • |
  • Source: hosted.ap.org

  • Tags: ,

Legal Periodical: Reregulating the Baby Market: A Call for a Ban on Payment of Birth-Mother Living Expenses

Legal Periodical: Are Originalist Constitutional Theories Principled, or Are They Rationalizations for Conservativism

    Richard H. Fallon, Jr., Are Originalist Constitutional Theories Principled, or Are They Rationalizations for Conservativism, 34 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 5

    My topic is whether originalism, and in particular the form of originalism that might be thought to constitute Originalism 2.0, is “a rationalization for conservatism, or a principled theory of interpretation.” [FN1] This question includes at least three parts: First, what is originalism? Second, are particular varieties of originalism capable of being, or likely to be, applied in a principled way? Third, are most or all varieties of originalism “rationalization[s] for conservatism”?
    My answer to the first of these questions frames my answers to the second and third. Although it is customary to speak of originalism as a single constitutional theory, even a cursory review of recent scholarship reveals that the range of originalist theories has grown startlingly broad and diverse and is becoming more so all the time. [FN2] So great are the differences among originalist theories that I question the premise that we can talk meaningfully about Originalism 2.0 and whether it is a principled theory or a rationalization for conservatism. It would be more accurate to say that there are multitudinous rivals for the *6 title of Originalism 2.0 and that whether these competitors are principled can only be answered on a theory-by-theory basis.

    When assessment proceeds accordingly, a striking feature of many originalists’ theories is their vagueness or indeterminacy. The vagueness of many originalist theories bears vitally on the second question, involving whether originalist theories are likely to be applied in a principled way. As a generalization, versions of originalism that are not well specified allow more opportunities for ideologically motivated manipulation to achieve conservative results than would more fully specified versions. By itself, this conclusion is hardly surprising. What may be less obvious is that originalist theories that are rigorously defined in advance, thus to avoid case-by-case inconsistencies in application, may be more prone to generate disturbing or even calamitous results than are originalist theories that leave more room for discretionary judgment. Originalists may therefore have good reason not to want to bind themselves too rigidly to a methodological mast.

    With regard to the third question, however, the more methodological discretion that originalist theories authorize, and the more that practitioners of those theories exercise their discretionary judgment to justify substantively conservative conclusions, the better the charge that originalist theories are “rationalization[s] for conservatism” appears to fit. Suspicions of rationalization are also in order insofar as originalists maintain that the case for adopting an originalist theory is entirely independent of the theory’s conservative valence. [FN3]


  • Posted: 02/02/2011
  • |
  • Category: Bench & Bar

  • Tags: , ,

Legal Periodical: Originalism, Precedent, and Judicial Restraint

    John O. McGinnis, Michael B. Rappaport, Originalism, Precedent, and Judicial Restraint, 34 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 121 (Winter 2011)

    Although originalism has grown in popularity in recent years, the theory continues to face major criticisms. One such criticism is that originalism cannot accommodate precedent. This criticism takes two forms. First, some critics, as well as some advocates of originalism, argue that originalism is inconsistent with precedent and therefore originalist judges must overturn all precedents that conflict with the Constitution’s original meaning. [FN1]

    If these scholars are correct, however, originalism becomes far less attractive because it would obligate judges to make a number of radical and unpopular decisions. For example, depending on one’s reading of the Constitution’s original meaning, an originalist might be required to declare paper money unconstitutional or to reverse Brown v. Board of Education. [FN2]
    Second, even if originalists do follow precedent on pragmatic grounds, critics argue that this approach undermines originalism and its distinctive virtues. If judges can simply decide which precedents they want to follow, then originalism is little better than an unprincipled nonoriginalism.

    This short Essay, which is based on a longer article, [FN3] responds to each of these precedent-based challenges to *122 originalism. First, we argue that there is no fundamental conflict between originalism and precedent. The original meaning of the Constitution allows for precedent because it treats precedent as a matter of federal common law that Congress can override by statute. [FN4]

    Second, we argue that one can articulate a principled doctrine of precedent that is compatible with originalism and that preserves the most important benefits of both originalism and precedent. Our normative approach is consequentialist. A normatively desirable doctrine of precedent would follow precedent when the benefits of doing so are greater than the benefits of returning to the original meaning and would follow the original meaning in the reverse situation. [FN5]
    Turning to this task, we begin by identifying the principal benefits of following the original meaning and the principal benefits of following precedent. [FN6] We then recommend a few precedent rules. [FN7] Our theory recommends an intermediate approach to precedent, sometimes following it and sometimes not. Although this theory is less respectful of precedent than the Supreme Court’s existing approach, [FN8] it would avoid the problems created by the wholesale rejection of nonoriginalist precedents while leaving a significant role for originalism in constitutional interpretation.


  • Posted: 02/02/2011
  • |
  • Category: Bench & Bar

  • Tags: , ,

Legal Periodical: The Myth of Fetal Personhood: Reconciling Roe and Fetal Homicide Laws