Scott Lemieux

Scott Lemieux is an assistant professor of political science at the College of Saint Rose. He contributes to the blogs Lawyers, Guns, and Money and Vox Pop.

Recent Articles

NORMALLY A SCHOLAR IS PLEASED WHEN HER THEORY IS CONFIRMED...

NORMALLY A SCHOLAR IS PLEASED WHEN HER THEORY IS CONFIRMED... Mark Graber passes along this chilling story from the eminent political scientist Walter Murphy , author of the classic Elements of Judicial Strategy and many other major works (including a bestselling novel about a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who becomes Pope to boot!). As Murphy details the incident: "On 1 March 07, I was scheduled to fly on American Airlines to Newark, NJ, to attend an academic conference at Princeton University, designed to focus on my latest scholarly book, Constitutional Democracy, published by Johns Hopkins University Press this past Thanksgiving." "When I tried to use the curb-side check in at the Sunport, I was denied a boarding pass because I was on the Terrorist Watch list. I was instructed to go inside and talk to a clerk. At this point, I should note that I am not only the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence (emeritus) but also a retired Marine colonel. I fought in the Korean War as a...

ARE YOU SITTING DOWN?

ARE YOU SITTING DOWN? Shockingly enough, assertions about operational connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda turn out to be ... completely bogus! Who would have thunk it? And just to pre-empt any claims that this is a strawman that nobody ever put forward as a justification for the war anyway, Glenn Reynolds thoughtfully compiled some links at the time to various conservative bloggers (in addition to himself) demanding more attention to Saddam 's fictitious connections to al-Qaeda. I particularly enjoyed reading this one : " STEPHEN F. HAYES wonders why the White House continues to downplay the Saddam / Al Qaeda connection. I've wondered the same thing." Yes, indeed, there was an obvious inference to be made from the fact that the administration (with the exception of the Vice President) largely declined to make direct assertions about Iraq's alleged ties to al-Qaeda although this would have provided an unassailable justification for the war. The fact that Reynolds, Hayes, and other...

STANDING AND EXECUTIVE...

STANDING AND EXECUTIVE POWER IN MA. v. E.P.A. I finally got a chance to read MA v. EPA , the recent decision requiring the EPA to reasonably justify its decision not to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act (which Ezra discussed in a more timely manner .) The first component of the case is whether or not the parties challenging the regulation had standing to challenge the regulatory decision; this part of the opinion I completely agree with, and indeed I only wish that Stevens had the votes to overturn the key rule established in Lujan (a 1992 standing case in which Stevens wrote a concurrence persuasively rejecting Scalia's narrowing of standing doctrine.) I would strongly recommend Jack Balkin 's two posts on the subject. First of all, he correctly notes that "[s] tanding doctrine is among the most unprincipled and arbitrary parts of American constitutional law." And second, he's also correct to point out that the narrowing of standing doctrine under the Rehnquist Court...

Built to Last

Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court by Jan Crawford Greenburg (The Penguin Press HC, 368 pages) As someone who not only studies the Supreme Court but teaches constitutional law, I always look forward to inside accounts of the Court -- the anecdotes they offer may be used to help students stay awake. Journalist Jan Crawford's much-discussed new book Supreme Conflict has both strengths and weaknesses compared to previous popular books about the Court, such as Edward Lazarus's Closed Chambers and Woodward and Armstong's The Brethren . It is not the book to turn to if you're interested in a legal analysis of the Rehnquist Court written for a general audience. (For that, I would recommend Mark Tushnet's fine recent book A Court Divided .) And since Greenburg is still a Supreme Court reporter, it doesn't (for better or worse) contain a great deal of the internal gossip about the Court that pervaded the Lazarus and Woodward-...

AND NANCY PELOSI IS GETTING A PASS FOR ATTACKING APPLE PIE AND FREEDOM!

AND NANCY PELOSI IS GETTING A PASS FOR ATTACKING APPLE PIE AND FREEDOM! Matt deals with the central abject idiocy in this post by Michael Goldfarb . Obviously, nobody is mocking McCain for having security when he tours Baghdad; they're (correctly) mocking him for claiming that walking around with a bulletproof vest, a hundred troops, and air cover could tell us anything meaningful about the security of Baghdad neighborhoods . Going for the double play of dead-ender hackery in celebration of Opening Day, however, Goldfarb also asserts that " Nancy Pelosi gets a free pass for wearing a burka." I know that Middle Eastern culture isn't terribly important in the current political context, but it seems relevant here that a burka is a head-to-toe covering that severely restricts a woman's ability to engage even in ordinary day-to-day activities. Pelosi (like Laura Bush and Condi Rice ), however, actually wore ... a headscarf. (See a convenient comparison here .) Unlike burkas, they're often...

Pages