My new article in Ratio Juris: “Justificatory Liberalism and Same-Sex Marriage”

01_ratio-juris

Earlier this week I was informed that my article, "Justificatory Liberalism and Same-Sex Marriage," has just been published in the journal Ratio Juris: An International Journal of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law 26.4 (December 2013): 487-509. Here is the abstract of the article: Supporters of Justificatory Liberalism (JL)—such as John Rawls and Gerard Gaus—typically maintain that the state may not coerce its citizens on matters of constitutional essentials unless it can provide public justif … [Read more...]

My Two Part Series on Roe v. Wade, and an extensive critique of Roe

To commemorate the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade (22 January 2013), this month I have published a two-part series over at The Catholic Thing. You can find each part at the following links:Roe at Forty, part 1: The Court’s Failure to Address the Question of the Unborn’s Moral Status Roe at Forty, part 2: The Court’s Two Unwarranted StipulationsEven though many citizens reject  Roe v. Wade, not many know why it is so flawed. The above pieces present very brief summaries of some of thos … [Read more...]

Roe at Forty, part 2: The Court’s Two Unwarranted Stipulations

Two weeks ago, I published over at The Catholic Thing part 1 of my two part series to commemorate the 40th anniversary of Roe. v. Wade (22 January 2013): "Roe at Forty, part 1: The Court’s Failure to Address the Question of the Unborn’s Moral Status." Part 2 was published today. Entitled, "Roe at Forty, part 2: The Court’s Two Unwarranted Stipulations," here's how it begins: Not only did Roe v. Wade’s majority opinion fail to address the question of whether the unborn human being is a moral subj … [Read more...]

Roe at Forty, part 1: The Court’s Failure to Address the Question of the Unborn’s Moral Status

DefendingLife

That is the title of my most recent entry over at The Catholic Thing. It is the first of two parts, the second of which will appear at The Catholic Thing on January 18, 2013. Here's how today's entry begins: Later this month on January 22, many will commemorate, in sadness, the fortieth anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that declared virtually all restrictions on abortion unconstitutional.Although prolifers reject this opinion because of its exclusion of the unborn from … [Read more...]

If Not “Under God,” then What?

Pledge of Allegiance

That's the title of my latest entry over at The Catholic Thing. Here's how it begins: The recent scuffle over God’s temporary absence from the Democrat Party’s 2012 platform is a reminder of how the understanding of “God” in certain enclaves of American life has become diminished. His critics have ceased to comprehend the meaning of His absence – or even to understand the role His presence has played in our understanding of our natural rights.It was in 1954 that the U. S. Congress inserted “ … [Read more...]

Ever Wonder Why Secular Elites Are So Ignorant of Faith and Reason Issues?

faith-and-reason

Short answer: they don't think there are any issues.  The longer answer is found in my latest entry over at The Catholic Thing. Entitled, "Faith, Reason, and Secular Hegemony," here's how it begins: About a year ago I was invited to contribute to a book on the topic of political philosophy and religious beliefs, set to be published next year by a university press. My chapter, tentatively titled, “Fides, Ratio et Juris: How Some Courts and Some Legal Theorists Misrepresent the Rational Status of … [Read more...]

Even the President of the United States Sometimes Must Have to Stand Naked

Bob Dylan - Bringing It All Back Home

From Adam White over at The Weekly Standard: Last week, President Obama clumsily announced that it would be "unprecedented" for the Supreme Court to strike down "a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." This week, his words are already having an effect in the courts—but not the effect he hoped for. Yesterday, in another case challenging Obamacare, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ordered Justice Department lawyers for a briefing on whether … [Read more...]

Why Did Legal Elites Underestimate the Case Against the Mandate?

law-school

That's the title of Jonathan Adler's insightful post over at the Volokh Conspiracy. It begins this way: Greg Sargent is one of many commentators wondering “How did legal observers and Obamacare backers get it so wrong?” I think he’s asking the wrong question.  A better question to ask is: why did so many expect legal elites to have any particular insight into the current court?  After  all, many of the legal experts who were so dismissive of the arguments against the mandate were equally dismiss … [Read more...]

We Are All Imbeciles Now: The HHS Regulations and the Specter of Buck v. Bell

national-review-online-logo

That's the title of a piece I published earlier this week over at Bench Memos on National Review Online. Here's how it begins: In the 1927 case Buck v. Bell, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Virginia statute that allowed the “superintendent of certain institutions” to order the sterilizations of “feeble-minded” persons who were under the care of these state institutions, if the superintendent“shall be of opinion that it is for the best interests of the patients and of society that an inmate under … [Read more...]

The Dangers of Anti-Sharia Laws

b279e9f7dbd7412d91733e7796d1111a

That's the title of a well-reasoned article published in the March 2012 issue of First Things.  Authored by the University of St. Thomas Law School professor Robert K. Vischer, here's how it begins: The law in several states now requires pro-life pharmacists to dispense the morning-after pill, Christian adoption agencies to place children with same-sex couples, and religious entities to pay for their employees’ contraceptives. The list of such violations of religious freedom keeps growing, al … [Read more...]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X