Politic of Personal Destruction.

Anyone who remembers the confirmation hearings will know that Clarence Thomas is no stranger to the politics of personal destruction. This story combined with the criticism leveled at the Court by Obama in his last State of the Union address, looks to be another salvo in the same game. This time from the Administration and their lapdogs in the media.

This is not too surprising. Thomas is the most dangerous Justice on the court as far as Obama's agenda is concerned. Thomas seems to be a true originalist and recognize that the starting point in analysis of the Constitution is the text of the Constitution itself. From there he examines the historical evidence and looks to precedent only after a review of the primary material. Thus, he is willing to ignore precedent when he thinks it is wrong.

Scalia, arguably in the number two slot, is a conservative and, as such, can be trusted to put personal beliefs ahead of the Constitution in certain cases. This does not make him a friend of the Obama Administration but he can be expected to hold the line on any radical expansion of freedom. His hostility to Privileges or Immunities is well known and he seems to have little use for privacy rights. While not completely reliable from a collectivist point of view, Scalia is also quite friendly to the grossly expanded Commerce Clause a large part of the "progressive" agenda relies on.

If my suspicions are correct, I expect more attacks on Thomas. These may be followed by similar stories on Scalia, Roberts and, maybe, Alito but Thomas is the logical first target.

H/T to Sipsey Street Irregulars

There is No Right to Secede

Or so (allegedly) sayeth Justice Antonin Scalia.

Eric Turkewitz relates how his brother, a screenwriter, wrote the the Supreme Courts Justices -- including the departing O'Conner -- and asking about the question of secession. Of the ten, only Scalia responded saying,

I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, "one Nation, indivisible.") Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.

I am sure that poetic license can overcome all that -- but you do not need legal advice for that. Good luck with your screenplay.

I hope most people who contemplate secession understand the above already and accept that., for better or worse, the question of secession will be settled as it was in 1776 and again in 1865. By force.

Nordyke v King En Banc

Volokh Conspiracy Ninth Circuit Will Rehear Nordyke v. King En Banc
Law.com Giving Gun Case Another Look

The whole gun rights blogosphere is abuzz with speculation on this. I'll post more as information comes in.