Title: Thank you
Here is a message sent by Dean Robel to IU faculty regarding recent events
and her response to the WSJ and National review articles. A Chronicle of
Higher Ed article on line yesterday repeated the Dillon story, which included
statements from various parties as well as the
I must also apologize for replying to the List, not to Louise alone. I will be more careful in the future.
Bobby Lipkin
Widener University School of Law
Delaware
Mark Scarberry is right. The attitudinal model, as elaborated by Spaeth
and Segal and others, posits that the Supreme Court's unique institutional
role at the top of the judicial hierarchy frees its members to vote their
ideological preferences more so than for other courts. Not only does it
Marci's message raises an intriguing perennial issue. It's at
least a century old as I believe it plagued the Lochner era court also.
The issue is what regulates what social facts the Court takes judicial
notice of. How are we supposed to know when, as Marci might say, there is
sufficient social
I think the key difference between Rehnquist's opinions in Hibbs and Morrison is that
he believed that the FMLA was about sex equality and did not believe that the civil
rights provision of VAWA was about sex equality. In previous rulings, the Court had
recognized that when states discriminate
In reply to Mark:
I don't believe I was saying anything different--obviously under the
*majority's* application of congruence and proportionality, the fact that
failure by states didn't justify allowing a cause of action agains tprivate
parties as a remedy for state discrimminaton is part of
John's response makes several sensible and reasonable points. At the same time, there
is a serious non sequitur in it.
Two sensible and reasonable points:
1. As for whether or not President Bush said during the campaign that he would appoint
conservative judges, I certainly agree that he did.
