Or, I *heart* law school. And blogging for choice:
Noah Feldman is on it. It’s long, but worth a full read.
Cheryl Mills, who I had the great pleasure to meet last year and who is fabulous and brilliant, has five questions for Alito.
Kenji Yoshino, deputy dean for intellectual life at Yale Law School, has five more that focus on privacy rights, “hidden rights,” and executive power.
Read the whole Thirty Questions series:
–John Yoo, a former deputy assistant attorney general in the George W. Bush administration and a professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley.
–Leonard A. Leo, the executive vice president of the Federalist Society
–Scott Turow, a former federal prosecutor
–Stanley Fish, a former chairman of the English department at Duke University, and a professor of law at Florida International University.
And because it’s Blog For Choice day, my five favorite questions for Alito:
1. If you were sitting on the court in 1973 when it protected a woman’s right to have an abortion in Roe v. Wade, would you have voted with the majority?
2. In a famous debate half a century ago, the legal theorists H. L. A. Hart and Lon Fuller differed on the question of whether Nazi law in Germany was, in fact, law. Hart argued that morally iniquitous laws that have a valid form – laws that have emerged as the result of following legitimate procedures – are still laws, even though we might want to say that they are bad laws. Fuller contended that a legal system devoted to evil aims could not be called law because there is “a necessary relationship between substantive justice and procedural justice.” With which of these theorists are you in agreement? Are law and morality finally one or can they be distinguished? Were the laws denying the vote to women in America real laws or spurious laws?
3. Does the Constitution require that courts provide the same legal protections to gays as to racial minorities and women?
4. Do you believe that the Constitution protects rights that do not appear in the text of the document itself and, if so, how do you think the Supreme Court should go about discerning the nature of those rights?
5. Assume for the sake of this question that the Supreme Court concludes in the future that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, and that the Constitution does not protect a woman’s right to have an abortion. Without stating how you would ultimately rule, but speaking simply as a constitutional expert, is there any constitutional provision that might reasonably be thought to reserve the right to regulate abortion to the states, as some Roe opponents contend? Put another way, if Roe was reversed, what constitutional provision might prevent federal efforts to impede or outlaw abortion, like statutes making it a crime to either cross state lines to seek an abortion or place in the stream of interstate commerce any medical device or implement knowing it is likely to be used for an abortion?