About this site

  • Comments
    When you submit a comment, it won't be published until approved. This is to cut down on comment spam. However, I will also edit or block comments that are profane or offensive.
  • No Legal Advice
    Although I may from time to time discuss legal issues on this blog, nothing that I post should be construed as legal advice, nor as creating an attorney-client relationship between you and me. In fact, there's a good chance I'm not licensed to practice law wherever you are. If you need legal advice, you should consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
  • Personal View
    This blog is neither affiliated with my employer nor hosted by it. It is maintained through TypePad, and I pay the hosting fees. Nothing that is posted here should be construed as anything other than the views of the particular author of the post.
  • Tung Yin's Recent Papers (SSRN)

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      


  • Check Google Page Rank

« The will of the people: ballot measures or legislation by legislators? | Main | GWB through history »

September 09, 2005



Your reasonable comments on this letter will, I predict, be unfairly prejudged.

I am gratified that you have made such an insightful assessment of this diatribe available.

Thank you.


Re: point 2, consider Roberts' opinion in Taucher v. Brown-Hruska, in which he expressly rejected the notion "that the government is forever and always 'substantially justified' in defending in court the constitutionality of an Act of Congress, whatever the statute may say, and on any ground a legal mind may conceive . . ."

Ron Hillberg

Toward the end of the letter the following statement is made, "And because the position gave him the opportunity to express his legal views on the most important issues facing the nation", This statement fails to acknowledge that Judge Roberts duty at the time was not to reflect his personal view, but those of the President and administration he was representing. I was a fist year student of Richard Abel in his initial year at UCLA,his view of the law as primarily an instrument of social justice were thought to be way out of the mainstream by generally liberal fellow student I hung around with.


Hey professor - glad to see your analysis. Actually, I'm really happy because I was using your essay to explain to my new girlfriend the commerce clause jurisprudence. Hope all is well.




This is a terrific post. Perhaps your best ever. Very fair and honest, which I was I read this blog all the time.

Hope your fantasy football team gets off to a good start.


Very insightful view of this wide-ranging issue. I had one of the signatory professors for a class during law school, so I think I understand the pool involved here. They are very well-educated, and some are educational giants in the field of Constitutional Law (For example, Chemerinsky wrote my textbook for Con Law.) I might be more willing to buy their arguments had they thought about the issues you raise here.

The comments to this entry are closed.