<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>ADF Alliance Alert &#187; Topic: Jurisprudence</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.alliancealert.org/tag/topic-jurisprudence/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.alliancealert.org</link>
	<description>news from the frontlines of the culture war</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 23:12:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Jeremy Waldron: What is Natural Law Like?</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/05/21/jeremy-waldron-what-is-natural-law-like/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/05/21/jeremy-waldron-what-is-natural-law-like/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 18:58:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Global: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: International Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Natural Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=134232</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Waldron, Jeremy, What is Natural Law Like? (May 17, 2012). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2061672 <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/05/21/jeremy-waldron-what-is-natural-law-like/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/05/21/jeremy-waldron-what-is-natural-law-like/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>David E. Steinberg: The Myth of Church-State Separation</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/05/21/david-e-steinberg-the-myth-of-church-state-separation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/05/21/david-e-steinberg-the-myth-of-church-state-separation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 18:44:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Legal Periodicals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=134226</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[David E. Steinberg, The Myth of Church-State Separation, 59 Cleveland State Law Review 623-644 (2011), Available at: http://works.bepress.com/david_steinberg/1 The Myth Of Church-State Separation by David E. Steinberg Abstract This article asserts that the church-state separation interpretation of Establishment Clause history is simply &#8230; <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/05/21/david-e-steinberg-the-myth-of-church-state-separation/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/05/21/david-e-steinberg-the-myth-of-church-state-separation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Teresa Collett: &#8220;A Constitutional and Wise Way to Protect the Unborn: A Response to Paul Linton&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/05/17/teresa-collett-a-constitutional-and-wise-way-to-protect-the-unborn-a-response-to-paul-linton/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/05/17/teresa-collett-a-constitutional-and-wise-way-to-protect-the-unborn-a-response-to-paul-linton/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 15:58:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Sanctity of Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Sanctity of Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: U.S. Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=133939</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Teresa Collett at <a href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/05/5437?utm_source=RTA+Collett+Unborn+Pain&#038;utm_campaign=email&#038;utm_medium=email">Public Discourse</a>: Paul is simply wrong as to his first point. The Court has never directly addressed whether preventing the pain of the unborn is an adequate independent basis for limiting abortions. It has, however, repeatedly noted that changes in medical knowledge and technology may require changes in its approach to abortion <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/05/17/teresa-collett-a-constitutional-and-wise-way-to-protect-the-unborn-a-response-to-paul-linton/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/05/17/teresa-collett-a-constitutional-and-wise-way-to-protect-the-unborn-a-response-to-paul-linton/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Scalia Turns Advocate Against Obama as Queries Criticized&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/05/16/scalia-turns-advocate-against-obama-as-queries-criticized/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/05/16/scalia-turns-advocate-against-obama-as-queries-criticized/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 16:57:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: U.S. Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Environmentalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Obamacare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=133815</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-15/scalia-turns-advocate-against-obama-as-queries-criticized.html">Bloomberg</a>: Scalia’s approach is fueling the perception that the biggest cases this term, including health care, may be influenced by politics, rather than the legal principles that he and other justices say should be their guide. <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/05/16/scalia-turns-advocate-against-obama-as-queries-criticized/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/05/16/scalia-turns-advocate-against-obama-as-queries-criticized/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Paul Rauker: Personhood Amendments Would Not Successfully Ban Abortions</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/05/15/paul-rauker-personhood-amendments-would-not-successfully-ban-abortions/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/05/15/paul-rauker-personhood-amendments-would-not-successfully-ban-abortions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 18:27:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Sanctity of Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Sanctity of Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=133714</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Paul Rauker at <a href="http://www.lifenews.com/2012/05/14/personhood-amendments-would-not-successfully-ban-abortions/">LifeNews</a>: However, the legal recognition of personhood for a zygote, embryo, or fetus would not outlaw abortion, or anything else, just like legal recognition for an adult does not outlaw the death penalty. <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/05/15/paul-rauker-personhood-amendments-would-not-successfully-ban-abortions/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/05/15/paul-rauker-personhood-amendments-would-not-successfully-ban-abortions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Eliot Spitzer: Originalist Sin</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/30/eliot-spitzer-originalist-sin/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/30/eliot-spitzer-originalist-sin/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:24:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Sanctity of Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Conscience]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Contraception]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Obamacare]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=132482</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Eliot Spitzer at <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2012/04/affordable_care_act_the_supreme_court_and_the_constitution_harvard_law_professor_einer_elhauge_shows_how_the_founding_fathers_supported_mandates_.html">Slate</a>: A brilliant article shows that the Founding Fathers not only supported mandates, they passed laws imposing them. Take that, Scalia! <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/30/eliot-spitzer-originalist-sin/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/30/eliot-spitzer-originalist-sin/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SCOTUS Blog says Scalia view is radical: The notion that sovereign states can enforce their own borders</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/26/scotus-blog-says-scalia-view-is-radical-the-notion-that-sovereign-states-can-enforce-their-own-borders/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/26/scotus-blog-says-scalia-view-is-radical-the-notion-that-sovereign-states-can-enforce-their-own-borders/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:09:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Arizona]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Immigration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Arizona v. United States]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=132171</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lyle Denniston at <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/04/argument-recap-a-choice-between-radical-and-reasonable/#more-143841">SCOTUS Blog</a>: "With Justice Antonin Scalia pushing the radical idea that the Constitution gives states clear authority to close their borders entirely to immigrants without a legal right to be in the U.S., seven other Justices on Wednesday went looking for a more reasonable way to judge states’ power in the immigration field." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/26/scotus-blog-says-scalia-view-is-radical-the-notion-that-sovereign-states-can-enforce-their-own-borders/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/26/scotus-blog-says-scalia-view-is-radical-the-notion-that-sovereign-states-can-enforce-their-own-borders/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito Says Pragmatism, Stability Should Guide Court</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/25/u-s-supreme-court-justice-samuel-alito-says-pragmatism-stability-should-guide-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/25/u-s-supreme-court-justice-samuel-alito-says-pragmatism-stability-should-guide-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 18:25:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: U.S. Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=132089</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.law.columbia.edu/media_inquiries/news_events/2012/april2012/justice-alito-burke-conference">Columbia Law School</a>: Addresses Jurisprudence at Law School Conference on Burkean Constitutionalism <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/25/u-s-supreme-court-justice-samuel-alito-says-pragmatism-stability-should-guide-court/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/25/u-s-supreme-court-justice-samuel-alito-says-pragmatism-stability-should-guide-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court is political by design</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/24/supreme-court-is-political-by-design/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/24/supreme-court-is-political-by-design/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:03:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: U.S. Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=131930</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Anna Harvey at <a href="http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20120424_Supreme_Court_is_political_by_design.html">Philadelphia Inquirer</a>:  But, unfortunately for the president, the justices have an incentive to defer to sitting House majorities, not the majorities that enacted the laws being considered. A defeated party can expect little sympathy from the court for its past policy victories. <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/24/supreme-court-is-political-by-design/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/24/supreme-court-is-political-by-design/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Heritage Foundation: Do You Know What the Constitution Really Means?</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/24/heritage-foundation-do-you-know-what-the-constitution-really-means/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/24/heritage-foundation-do-you-know-what-the-constitution-really-means/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:57:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Group: Heritage Foundation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=131928</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/24/morning-bell-do-you-know-what-the-constitution-really-means/?utm_source=Newsletter&#038;utm_medium=Email&#038;utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell">Heritage Foundation</a>: You can learn about everything from impeachment to declarations of war, the oath of office to the Electoral College, the powers of Congress, the President and the Supreme Court, and everything else in between. Here are some other features in this great new resource . . . <a href="http://www.heritage.org/constitution">ConstitutionOnline.com</a> <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/24/heritage-foundation-do-you-know-what-the-constitution-really-means/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/24/heritage-foundation-do-you-know-what-the-constitution-really-means/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Heritage Guide to Constitution Now Online</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/23/heritage-guide-to-constitution-now-online/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/23/heritage-guide-to-constitution-now-online/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 22:53:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Group: Heritage Foundation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=131871</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!?utm_source=NewCommonSenseSpecialMessage&#38;utm_medium=Email">Here</a>. <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/23/heritage-guide-to-constitution-now-online/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/23/heritage-guide-to-constitution-now-online/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Michael Stokes Paulsen: The Unprecedented, Extraordinary, Anti-democratic, Activist Power of Judicial Review</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/23/michael-stokes-paulsen-the-unprecedented-extraordinary-anti-democratic-activist-power-of-judicial-review/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/23/michael-stokes-paulsen-the-unprecedented-extraordinary-anti-democratic-activist-power-of-judicial-review/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 18:03:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: White House]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=131818</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Michael Stokes Paulsen at <a href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/04/5246?utm_source=RTA+Paulsen+Judicial+Activism&#038;utm_campaign=email&#038;utm_medium=email">Public Discourse</a>: President Obama’s recent quips about “judicial activism” do not amount to arguments. They are shallow sloganeering. <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/23/michael-stokes-paulsen-the-unprecedented-extraordinary-anti-democratic-activist-power-of-judicial-review/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/23/michael-stokes-paulsen-the-unprecedented-extraordinary-anti-democratic-activist-power-of-judicial-review/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Iowa: Cady&#8217;s view of constitution permits judicial fiat</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/20/iowa-cadys-view-of-constitution-permits-judicial-fiat/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/20/iowa-cadys-view-of-constitution-permits-judicial-fiat/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 18:56:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Marriage and Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Iowa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Varnum v. Brien]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=131702</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[William Brown at the <a href="http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120420/OPINION/304200038/-1/hawkeye_insider/Cady-s-view-constitution-permits-judicial-fiat">De Moines Register</a>: In Iowa Supreme Court Justice Mark Cady’s April 16 guest opinion article and his March speech at the Drake University law school, he defends his “living constitution” version of constitutional interpretation over the “originalism” view that is gaining broader public acceptance in the wake of recent court decisions which many citizens view as activist. Justice Cady’s position is largely focused on defending his opinion in Varnum v. Brien, which legitimized same-sex marriage in Iowa. <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/20/iowa-cadys-view-of-constitution-permits-judicial-fiat/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/20/iowa-cadys-view-of-constitution-permits-judicial-fiat/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Strict Scrutiny for Every Law? Remembering the Real Carolene Products</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/20/strict-scrutiny-for-every-law-remembering-the-real-carolene-products/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/20/strict-scrutiny-for-every-law-remembering-the-real-carolene-products/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 18:07:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Hettinga v. United States]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=131691</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Randy Barnett at the <a href="http://volokh.com/2012/04/20/remembering-the-real-carolene-products/">Volokh Conspiracy</a>: Following the links to the blog posts by David Schraub, led me to his post Strict Scrutiny for All! in which he writes, “Judge Brown’s critique is basically the indictment of Carolene Products,” and that “Judge Brown['s] argument doesn’t support strict scrutiny for economic regulation — it supports strict scrutiny for every law Congress passes.”  But that ain’t necessarily so. <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/20/strict-scrutiny-for-every-law-remembering-the-real-carolene-products/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/20/strict-scrutiny-for-every-law-remembering-the-real-carolene-products/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Supreme Court’s Job Is to Protect Americans from Democracy</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/20/the-supreme-court%e2%80%99s-job-is-to-protect-americans-from-democracy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/20/the-supreme-court%e2%80%99s-job-is-to-protect-americans-from-democracy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 17:04:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: U.S. Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=131675</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Daniel J. Mitchell at <a href="http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/danieljmitchell/2012/04/20/the_supreme_courts_job_is_to_protect_americans_from_democracy/page/2">Townhall</a>: I offered my two cents on this issue, rhetorically asking why the Founding Fathers would have bothered listing enumerated powers if the interstate commerce clause was designed to be a blank check for politicians in Washington. <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/20/the-supreme-court%e2%80%99s-job-is-to-protect-americans-from-democracy/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/20/the-supreme-court%e2%80%99s-job-is-to-protect-americans-from-democracy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ronald Dworkin: If Obamacare is stricken &#8220;our eighteenth- century constitution is not the enduring marvel of statesmanship we suppose but an anachronistic, crippling burden&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/19/ronald-dworkin-if-obamacare-is-stricken-our-eighteenth-century-constitution-is-not-the-enduring-marvel-of-statesmanship-we-suppose-but-an-anachronistic-crippling-burden/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/19/ronald-dworkin-if-obamacare-is-stricken-our-eighteenth-century-constitution-is-not-the-enduring-marvel-of-statesmanship-we-suppose-but-an-anachronistic-crippling-burden/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:28:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: U.S. Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Obamacare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Florida v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=131514</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ronald Dworkin at NY Review of Books, <a href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/may/10/why-mandate-constitutional-real-argument/">Why the Mandate Is Constitutional: The Real Argument</a>, : If the Court does declare the act unconstitutional, it would have ruled that Congress lacks the power to adopt what it thought the most effective, efficient, fair, and politically workable remedy—not because that national remedy would violate anyone’s rights, or limit anyone’s liberty in ways a state government could not, or be otherwise unfair, but for the sole reason that in the Court’s opinion our constitution is a strict and arbitrary document that denies our national legislature the power to enact the only politically possible national program. If that opinion were right, we would have to accept that our eighteenth- century constitution is not the enduring marvel of statesmanship we suppose but an anachronistic, crippling burden we cannot escape, a straitjacket that makes it impossible for us to achieve a just national society. <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/19/ronald-dworkin-if-obamacare-is-stricken-our-eighteenth-century-constitution-is-not-the-enduring-marvel-of-statesmanship-we-suppose-but-an-anachronistic-crippling-burden/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/19/ronald-dworkin-if-obamacare-is-stricken-our-eighteenth-century-constitution-is-not-the-enduring-marvel-of-statesmanship-we-suppose-but-an-anachronistic-crippling-burden/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ideologues In Robes: The major theories about interpreting the Constitution serve competing schools of activism</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/16/ideologues-in-robes-the-major-theories-about-interpreting-the-constitution-serve-competing-schools-of-activism/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/16/ideologues-in-robes-the-major-theories-about-interpreting-the-constitution-serve-competing-schools-of-activism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:05:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Global]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: U.S. Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=131173</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304356604577337721563419672.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h">Wall Street Journal</a>: J. Harvie Wilkinson's "Cosmic Constitutional Theory" departs from those well-rehearsed patterns. The author, a highly regarded federal judge, writes not to praise any particular constitutional school of thought but to bury them all.
 <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/16/ideologues-in-robes-the-major-theories-about-interpreting-the-constitution-serve-competing-schools-of-activism/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/16/ideologues-in-robes-the-major-theories-about-interpreting-the-constitution-serve-competing-schools-of-activism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Colo. Chief Justice: Polls show lack of confidence in judiciary</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/13/colo-chief-justice-polls-show-lack-of-confidence-in-judiciary/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/13/colo-chief-justice-polls-show-lack-of-confidence-in-judiciary/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 18:57:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Colorado]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Polls]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=131124</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.journal-advocate.com/sterling-local_news/ci_20383072/colorado-supreme-court-chief-justice-michael-bender-rotary-sterling?source=most_viewed">Journal-Advocate.com</a>: “A majority of our citizens believe that judges make decisions based on their personal whim or they want to get from one court to another.” <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/13/colo-chief-justice-polls-show-lack-of-confidence-in-judiciary/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/13/colo-chief-justice-polls-show-lack-of-confidence-in-judiciary/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Justice Scalia defends view of the Constitution</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/12/justice-scalia-defends-view-of-the-constitution/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/12/justice-scalia-defends-view-of-the-constitution/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2012 15:07:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: U.S. Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=130933</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://dailytrojan.com/2012/04/10/justice-scalia-defends-view-of-the-constitution/">Daily Trojan</a>: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia discussed his philosophy of Constitutional originalism and how it can be applied to modern cases at the Gould School of Law’s 2012 Justice Lester W. Roth Lecture on Tuesday. <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/12/justice-scalia-defends-view-of-the-constitution/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/12/justice-scalia-defends-view-of-the-constitution/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Progressives Like President Obama Loathe Judicial Review</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/10/why-progressives-like-president-obama-loathe-judicial-review/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/10/why-progressives-like-president-obama-loathe-judicial-review/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:58:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: U.S. Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: White House]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=130762</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Richard M. Salsman at <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardsalsman/2012/04/09/why-progressives-like-president-obama-loathe-judicial-review/">Forbes</a>: Mr. Obama’s legal reference to Lochner is apt, but ridiculous too, given his fear that SCOTUS may scotch ObamaCare. In Lochner v. New York (1905) the Court rightly jettisoned a state regulatory scheme that violated commercial rights; yet that was the last it so ruled. Thereafter, and especially after being intimidated by FDR and his thuggish New-Dealers in the 1930s, the Court dropped its obligation to uphold economic and property rights. In effect the Court denied what the Founders had earlier argued; that liberty is indivisible, that violations of economic liberty eventually spilled over into violations of civil liberty. The Founders were right. After 80 years of losing our commercial liberties – losses that Obama only applauds – perhaps Americans are starting to glimpse the loss of their civil liberties too. <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/10/why-progressives-like-president-obama-loathe-judicial-review/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/10/why-progressives-like-president-obama-loathe-judicial-review/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Attorney General Files Letter Brief on Judicial Review in Response to Fifth Circuit Order</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/05/attorney-general-files-letter-brief-on-judicial-review-in-response-to-fifth-circuit-order/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/05/attorney-general-files-letter-brief-on-judicial-review-in-response-to-fifth-circuit-order/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2012 18:00:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Department of Justice (DOJ)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: White House]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=130573</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://volokh.com/2012/04/05/attorney-general-files-letter-brief-on-judicial-review-in-response-to-fifth-circuit-order/">Volokh Conspiracy</a>: The letter is <a href="http://blog.pacificlegal.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Obamaletterbrief.pdf">here</a> . . .  <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/05/attorney-general-files-letter-brief-on-judicial-review-in-response-to-fifth-circuit-order/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/05/attorney-general-files-letter-brief-on-judicial-review-in-response-to-fifth-circuit-order/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>President Obama Locks Horns With Chief Justice Roberts Over Health Care Case, Role of Lochner</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/05/president-obama-locks-horns-with-chief-justice-roberts-over-health-care-case-role-of-lochner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/05/president-obama-locks-horns-with-chief-justice-roberts-over-health-care-case-role-of-lochner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2012 17:38:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Sanctity of Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: U.S. Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Conscience]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Contraception]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Obamacare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: White House]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=130564</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/obama-health-care-case-chief-justice-roberts-lochner_n_1404256.html">Huffington Post</a>: The key in Lochner is that we were talking about regulation of the states, right, and the states are not limited to enumerated powers," Roberts said. "The federal government is. And it seems to me it's an entirely different question when you ask yourself whether or not there are going to be limits on the federal power, as opposed to limits on the states, which was the issue in Lochner." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/05/president-obama-locks-horns-with-chief-justice-roberts-over-health-care-case-role-of-lochner/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/05/president-obama-locks-horns-with-chief-justice-roberts-over-health-care-case-role-of-lochner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>First, Let’s Kill All the Law Schools: A Review of Schools for Misrule</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/04/first-let%e2%80%99s-kill-all-the-law-schools-a-review-of-schools-for-misrule/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/04/first-let%e2%80%99s-kill-all-the-law-schools-a-review-of-schools-for-misrule/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 22:47:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Colleges]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=130487</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1919/article_detail.asp">Claremont Institute</a>: Yet it's not as if Tocqueville was wrong, or insensitive to the full implications of his irony. It's just that he was largely describing the culture and role of traditional common lawyers—the barristers and solicitors—a breed that has almost disappeared from the American political, if not legal, landscape. He describes the English or American lawyer (in contrast to his continental counterpart) who still has "a taste and respect for what is old," and who wishes to rely "on the sense of his fathers." Such a lawyer is timid, regular, and legal—a cautious interpreter of "an occult science" that looks backward rather than forward and relies on particulars rather than highly contested abstractions. But a funny thing happened to the American common lawyer, and that funny thing was the American law school (which came into its own a century after Tocqueville wrote). As legal training and apprenticeship gave way to legal education and schooling, wave after wave of progressive thinking washed over the expanding and newly confident law schools . . .  <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/04/first-let%e2%80%99s-kill-all-the-law-schools-a-review-of-schools-for-misrule/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/04/first-let%e2%80%99s-kill-all-the-law-schools-a-review-of-schools-for-misrule/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Steven D. Smith: The Illusion of Religious Neutrality</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/03/the-illusion-of-religious-neutrality/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/03/the-illusion-of-religious-neutrality/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2012 19:26:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=130310</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Steven D. Smith at the <a href="http://libertylawsite.org/liberty-forum/the-illusion-of-religious-neutrality/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+librarylawliberty+%28Library+of+Law+%26+Liberty%29">Law of Library and Liberty</a>: Indeed, for reasons we will notice, the proposition that government should remain “neutral” in matters of religion appears to be virtually irresistible.  Which leads to embarrassment: that is because, upon closer inspection, religious neutrality also turns out to be impossible.  Worse yet, the attempt to maintain religious neutrality subtly works to undermine the constitutional commitment to religious freedom.  This essay briefly considers the predicament and reflects on possible responses. <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/03/the-illusion-of-religious-neutrality/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/03/the-illusion-of-religious-neutrality/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Religious Neutrality: Admirably Compromised</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/03/religious-neutrality-admirably-compromised/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/03/religious-neutrality-admirably-compromised/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2012 19:23:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=130308</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Darrel Hart at the <a href="http://libertylawsite.org/liberty-forum/religious-neutrality-admirably-compromised/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+librarylawliberty+%28Library+of+Law+%26+Liberty%29">Library of Law and Liberty</a>: These historical reminders may be a long winded way of saying that Stephen Smith has a point when he argues that religious neutrality, an implication of religious freedom, is theoretically impossible.  As he observes, the earliest claims on behalf of religious neutrality, such as those proposed by Jefferson and Madison, made assumptions about God and people that were hardly universal.  Smith is also correct to see how the nation’s commitment to religious freedom has left the courts tied in legal knots.  Crafting better rationales for religious freedom would be welcome.  <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/03/religious-neutrality-admirably-compromised/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/03/religious-neutrality-admirably-compromised/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Reconsidering the Authority of Religious Liberty within the Liberal Order: The Problem of Neutrality</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/03/reconsidering-the-authority-of-religious-liberty-within-the-liberal-order-the-problem-of-neutrality/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/03/reconsidering-the-authority-of-religious-liberty-within-the-liberal-order-the-problem-of-neutrality/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2012 19:19:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=130306</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Zachary R. Calo at <a href="http://libertylawsite.org/liberty-forum/reconsidering-the-authority-of-religious-liberty-within-the-liberal-order/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+librarylawliberty+%28Library+of+Law+%26+Liberty%29">Library of Law and Liberty</a>: In particular, the problem with neutrality is not merely that it is circular and self-defeating in its logic, but that it sustains and deepens the chasm of moral meaning between law and religion.   <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/03/reconsidering-the-authority-of-religious-liberty-within-the-liberal-order-the-problem-of-neutrality/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/04/03/reconsidering-the-authority-of-religious-liberty-within-the-liberal-order-the-problem-of-neutrality/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Marriage Decisions and the Importance of Judicial Reason</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/03/05/marriage-decisions-and-the-importance-of-judicial-reason/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/03/05/marriage-decisions-and-the-importance-of-judicial-reason/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2012 15:11:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Marriage and Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 9th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Marriage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=127579</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Adam J. MacLeod at <a href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/03/4768?utm_source=RTA+MacLeod+Judicial+SSM&#038;utm_campaign=email&#038;utm_medium=email">Public Discourse</a>: Recent attacks on marriage threaten not only a foundational public institution but the rule of law itself and the legitimacy of the judicial branch. <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/03/05/marriage-decisions-and-the-importance-of-judicial-reason/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/03/05/marriage-decisions-and-the-importance-of-judicial-reason/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Troubling trend in the Courts: Americans must demand action from the political branches</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/02/24/a-troubling-trend-in-the-courts/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/02/24/a-troubling-trend-in-the-courts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:25:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: U.S. Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=126752</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/24/morning-bell-a-troubling-trend-in-the-courts/?utm_source=Newsletter&#038;utm_medium=Email&#038;utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell">Heritage Foundation Morning Bell</a>: Should judges act based upon reasoned legal arguments, or based upon their personal feelings and media coverage?  A controversial recent “statement” made by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer in a case that was the legal equivalent of a slam dunk raises serious questions about what really guides some judges. <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/02/24/a-troubling-trend-in-the-courts/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/02/24/a-troubling-trend-in-the-courts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Michael Stokes Paulsen on Roe: SCOTUS has forfeited entitlement to have decisions respected</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/23/michael-stokes-paulsen-on-roe-the-supreme-court-has-forfeited-its-entitlement-to-have-its-decisions-respected-and-followed/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/23/michael-stokes-paulsen-on-roe-the-supreme-court-has-forfeited-its-entitlement-to-have-its-decisions-respected-and-followed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 11:59:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Sanctity of Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: U.S. Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=123749</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Law Professor Michael Stokes Paulsen at <a href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/01/4577">Public Discourse</a>: The Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade should not be accepted as law, in any sense. It should be resisted by legislatures and it should be refused enforcement by executive officials because it is not the law. It should be resisted by all citizens, with all the resources at their disposal, and perhaps even with resources not (yet) at their disposal. Anything less is holocaust denial. <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/23/michael-stokes-paulsen-on-roe-the-supreme-court-has-forfeited-its-entitlement-to-have-its-decisions-respected-and-followed/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/23/michael-stokes-paulsen-on-roe-the-supreme-court-has-forfeited-its-entitlement-to-have-its-decisions-respected-and-followed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Scalia: Throw Out Phony Undue Burden Test on Abortion Laws</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/20/scalia-throw-out-phony-undue-burden-test-on-abortion-laws/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/20/scalia-throw-out-phony-undue-burden-test-on-abortion-laws/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:55:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Sanctity of Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Sanctity of Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: U.S. Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=123690</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.lifenews.com/2012/01/20/scalia-throw-out-phony-undue-burden-test-on-abortion-laws/">LifeNews.com</a>: So I run to the law books to see what an ‘undue burden’ is,” Scalia said. “What do you know, for 200 years, no burden was an undue burden. You could prohibit it. So I can’t use the law books.” <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/20/scalia-throw-out-phony-undue-burden-test-on-abortion-laws/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/20/scalia-throw-out-phony-undue-burden-test-on-abortion-laws/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Scalia: &#8220;absolute madness&#8221; to allow nine justices to decide the Constitution means whatever they say</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/19/scalia-absolute-madness-to-allow-nine-justices-to-decide-the-constitution-means-whatever-they-say/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/19/scalia-absolute-madness-to-allow-nine-justices-to-decide-the-constitution-means-whatever-they-say/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:38:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=123548</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_SCALIA?SITE=AP&#038;SECTION=HOME&#038;TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&#038;CTIME=2012-01-19-14-18-20">News from The Associated Press</a>: In a colorful attack on those high court colleagues who don't share his approach, Scalia said it's "absolute madness" to allow the nine justices to decide the Constitution means whatever they say. <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/19/scalia-absolute-madness-to-allow-nine-justices-to-decide-the-constitution-means-whatever-they-say/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/19/scalia-absolute-madness-to-allow-nine-justices-to-decide-the-constitution-means-whatever-they-say/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mark Levin on ‘Ameritopia:’ ‘We Now Live in a Post-Constitutional Country’</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/18/mark-levin-on-%e2%80%98ameritopia%e2%80%99-%e2%80%98we-now-live-in-a-post-constitutional-country%e2%80%99/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/18/mark-levin-on-%e2%80%98ameritopia%e2%80%99-%e2%80%98we-now-live-in-a-post-constitutional-country%e2%80%99/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:03:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=123328</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://cnsnews.com/news/article/exclusive-mark-levin-ameritopia-we-now-live-post-constitutional-country">Mark Levin on ‘Ameritopia:’ ‘We Now Live in a Post-Constitutional Country’ &#124; CNSnews.com</a>: In an interview with CNSNews.com about his new book—“Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America”—Mark R. Levin said he believes America has already largely become “a post-constitutional country.” <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/18/mark-levin-on-%e2%80%98ameritopia%e2%80%99-%e2%80%98we-now-live-in-a-post-constitutional-country%e2%80%99/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/18/mark-levin-on-%e2%80%98ameritopia%e2%80%99-%e2%80%98we-now-live-in-a-post-constitutional-country%e2%80%99/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Santorum: “States Do Not Have the Right to Do Wrong”</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/05/santorum-%e2%80%9cstates-do-not-have-the-right-to-do-wrong%e2%80%9d/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/05/santorum-%e2%80%9cstates-do-not-have-the-right-to-do-wrong%e2%80%9d/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2012 13:35:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Nominations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=122113</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jonathan Adler at <a href="http://volokh.com/2012/01/05/santorum-states-do-not-have-the-right-to-do-wrong/">The Volokh Conspiracy </a>: The <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/01/04/santorum-soundbites-on-the-judiciary-10th-amendment/">WSJ Law Blog</a> reports on comments by former Senator Rick Santorum (unearthed at RedState) on federalism and the authority of different states to adopt different policies on moral questions. <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/05/santorum-%e2%80%9cstates-do-not-have-the-right-to-do-wrong%e2%80%9d/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/05/santorum-%e2%80%9cstates-do-not-have-the-right-to-do-wrong%e2%80%9d/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gingrich, Desegregation, and Judicial Supremacy</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/05/gingrich-desegregation-and-judicial-supremacy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/05/gingrich-desegregation-and-judicial-supremacy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2012 10:21:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=122038</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Joel Alicea at <a href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/01/4491">Public Discourse</a>: The real question is not whether opponents of the Court's assertion of judicial supremacy in Cooper applaud the outcome of the case; it is whether supporters of judicial supremacy understand that their position places them on the other side of Abraham Lincoln. It was Lincoln who, in response to Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney's opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford, rejected judicial supremacy in his first inaugural address. <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/05/gingrich-desegregation-and-judicial-supremacy/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/05/gingrich-desegregation-and-judicial-supremacy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gingrich vs. Judicial Activism: His proposals have been widely dismissed as unconstitutional. They aren&#8217;t.</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/12/23/gingrich-vs-judicial-activism-his-proposals-have-been-widely-dismissed-as-unconstitutional-they-arent/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/12/23/gingrich-vs-judicial-activism-his-proposals-have-been-widely-dismissed-as-unconstitutional-they-arent/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:24:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Jurisprudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=121654</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Curt Levey at <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204552304577113212481831618.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h">WSJ</a> (via <a href="http://news.google.com/news?q=%22Gingrich+Vs.+Judicial+Activism%22&#38;hl=en&#38;emb=0&#38;sa=N&#38;tab=ln">Google</a>): Gingrich would arrest judges," scream the headlines. You'd think he'd proposed some crazy, unconstitutional crackdown on federal judges. Instead, Newt Gingrich's position paper, "Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution," has a set of controversial but thoughtful proposals for reining in judicial activism. <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/12/23/gingrich-vs-judicial-activism-his-proposals-have-been-widely-dismissed-as-unconstitutional-they-arent/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/12/23/gingrich-vs-judicial-activism-his-proposals-have-been-widely-dismissed-as-unconstitutional-they-arent/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

