« Mainstream Media Shout-Outs to the Blogosphere | Main | Harriet Miers: Not Handsome, Not Clever, Not Rich »

October 09, 2005



I'll let the lawyers argue about the 'reverse commerce clause'. I was impressed that you stooped to link to that camel toe website and used an obvious double-entendre in the following sentence. This website is a scream.

Peter Griffith

More good news for sufferers of status anxiety. UTR is now linked from the Library of Congress law library nominations web site.

"[A3G] feels that kind of people who are under SCOTUS consideration probably should be law dorks who enjoy talking about the Commerce Clause in their spare time (e.g., ... Chief Justice John G. Roberts)."

Ann Coulter is of the same opinion, as demonstrated in her piece "This Is What 'Advice and Consent' Means", and hopes that the current nomination is just a joke. She argues that SCOTUS is different from other courts and that we really need uber-nerds like Roberts on the bench. Furthermore, she argues that "Ed Meese, Antonin Scalia, Robert Bork and all the founders of the Federalist Society" have been working for 25 years to create "a farm team of massive legal talent [i.e. uber-nerds] on the right" for a moment just such as this, and to confirm Harriet instead of one of them is a waste.

(Of course, Coulter also opposed Roberts' nomination.)


Is either debate really that arcane?

Incidentally, "reverse commerce clause" is the dumbest name for that doctrine. Who uses it? Weirdos, I say. Dormant or negative 4 life.


"'We don't dwell much on the reverse Commerce Clause,' Hecht said with a laugh, referring to an arcane debate among some lawyers over the right of Congress to regulate interstate commerce and other activity."

Not to be picky, but the "reverse Commerce Clause" refers to an arcane debate among some lawyers over the right of STATES to regulate interstate commerce. The debate over Congress's right to regulate interstate commerce is far from arcane as evidenced by the slew of Lopez and Morrison questions at Chief Justice Roberts' hearing.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)