Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Whatever happened to Henry Simons? (fp)

Wow -- that's some very scary poll results (kw)

The scarlet ankle bracelet. (fp)

Every good article should have one idea. (fp)

Family values in market turnover culture. (fp)

Banks really create value: probably $58 billion in overdraft fees & credit card penalties in 2009. (fp)

A Citizens United dream: Exxon could have deployed 10% of its 2008 profits to outspend every presidential and senatorial candidate that year. (fp)

Eternal Earth-Bound Pets promises to adopt your pet if you are raptured. (fp)

Habermas doesn't tweet, but does interview well. (fp)

Lessig on Google, copyright, orphans, and the future of access to information. (kw)

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments

    • Kristina on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open?

    • PrometheeFeu on The Advantages and Disadvantages of Rewards

    • PoNyman on Very scary poll results

    • Civ Pro King on Privacy Rights in Death Photos: Catsuouras Case Decided

    • ParatrooperJJ on Privacy Rights in Death Photos: Catsuouras Case Decided

    • Lotta on The Take Away About Take Home Exams

    • Alan on Constitutional Rorschach Test (or Zen Koan)

    • Colin Crowe on The Take Away About Take Home Exams

    • Glomarization on Links and short thoughts on Amazonfail

    • Vinca on Book Review: Divergent Opinions: Why Community Matters — A Review of Sunstein’s Going to Extremes

    • A.J. Sutter on My Letter to the Economist on Climate Change

    • Keri Brooks on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open?

    • Illinois on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open?

    • Ken Rhodes on Constitutional Rorschach Test (or Zen Koan)

    • Ken Rhodes on My Letter to the Economist on Climate Change

  •  

    Site Meter

Judge Alito and the Rule of Law

posted by Dave Hoffman

alito.jpeg

I was wrong.

In this post, I predicted that because of a footnote in a 1985 strategy memo, Judge Alito would be unlikely to find much rhetorical purchase by making “paeans to the rule of law” in his confirmation hearing. Indeed, given the Judge’s evident disdain for rule of law and precedent-based defenses of Roe, I thought that the footnote might force Judge Alito to “actually say that he believes Roe should be reversed.”

Today’s headline from the Times:

“Alito Tells Senators That ‘Rule of Law’ Is Paramount”.

That will teach me to try to read tea leaves. It also suggests the tremendous rhetorical flexibility of the concept of the “rule of law.” Now, Nate has already once taken Kaimi and I to task for our co-authored paper that had suggested the “rule of law” is almost entirely a contentless political slogan. Nevertheless, it it still evident to me that appeals to the “rule of law” in the context of public debate are almost always a form of constitutional puffery. Which probably helps to explain why Judge Alito’s “Footnote 10” problem isn’t much of one after all.


 January 9, 2006 at 7:30 pm   Posted in: Constitutional Law   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (7)

  1. Stuart - January 10, 2006 at 8:55 am

    Well, Dave, if one thinks Roe was a usurpation, then opposing it does support the rule of law, doesn’t it?

    I love being a lawyer. I can argue anything with a straight face.

  2. SCOTUSblog - January 10, 2006 at 9:41 am

    Blog Round-Up – Tuesday, January 10th

    In nomination news: On Balkinization, Robert Gordon lays out the “Basic Case Against Alito.” Here Sentencing Law & Policy suggests two questions Alito should be asked. On Slate, here is Dahlia Lithwick on “Why Alito needs to talk to us…

  3. N. Nerode - January 10, 2006 at 10:06 am

    “Rule of Law” means that everyone is subject to the same laws: that no man is above the law, not even the king.

    The trouble is that according to his record, Alito appears to support unfettered Presidential power, which is quintessentially the “rule of men”, not the “rule of law”. :-P And that is the issue of the day, since Bush has admitted to personally violating the FISA statute, based only on claims of unfettered Presidential power.

    So Alito mustn’t be allowed to get away with claims that he supports the “rule of law”, unless he’s willing to condemn that.

  4. Simon - January 10, 2006 at 11:35 am

    It seems to me that – in these hearings as in the Roberts hearings – the Senators (to an extent of both parties) demand that Alito defer broadly to Congress, and as narrowly as possible to the President. They demand he give an extremely latitudinarian interpretation of the powers of Congress to pass laws, but a miserly interpretation of the President’s powers to enforce those laws.

    I have also decided that I am going to contribute a token amount to any candidate against Mike DeWine and Charles Grassley, for their comments regarding legislative history.

  5. Stephen Laniel’s Unspecified Bunker - January 10, 2006 at 11:50 am

    Alito and the rule of law

    Lots of people have written about Alito’s (basically contentless) assertion that he

    supports the rule of law.

    See, e.g., Mark Tushnet

    and Dan Solove.

    For the record, the headline in the New York Times was

    “Alito Tells Senators That ‘Rule

  6. MJ - January 11, 2006 at 1:50 pm

    “the Judge’s evident disdain for rule of law”

    Classic. The man has been a prosecutor, a U.S. Attorney, worked for the Solicitor General’s Office, and spend 15 years on the federal bench in which he participated in 5,000 cases – and his distain for the rule of law is apparently evident.

    I don’t know what else I would expect from Dave Hoffman and his evident distain for italian- american federal judges.

    Wow. That is easy to do.

  7. Dave Hoffman - January 11, 2006 at 1:57 pm

    MJ,

    In the footnote of the memorandum, in my view, Judge Alito expressed disdain for use of the slogan “rule of law” to defend Roe and its progeny. That is different from saying that he is a lawless jurist, which charge is (evidently) what you mean to rebut by summarizing his resume. As I’m sure our regular readers are aware, I have elsewhere defended Judge Alito against charges of lawlessness.

    The posters on this blog have different views on abusive and generally unconstructive comments. Following my view, I’m going to leave your comment up.

Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Nate Oman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Adam Benforado
Mark Edwards
Michelle Harner
Kristin Johnson
Jeffrey Kahn
Alex Kreit
Viva Moffat
Adam Steinman










Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Ann Bartow
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Thomas Crocker
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
David Fagundes
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
John Ip
Kevin Johnson
Dan Kahan
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
David Post
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Susan Scafidi
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress