Why Can't The State Accede To The

There Is No Basis In Text, Tradition, Or Even In Contemporary Practice (if That Were Enough), For Finding In The Constitution A Right To Demand Judicial Consideration Of Newly Discovered Evidence Of Innocence Brought Forward After Conviction. My Concern Is That In Making Life Easier For Ourselves We Not Appear To Make It Harder For The Lower Federal Courts, Imposing Upon Them The Burden Of Regularly Analyzing Newly-discovered-evidence-of-innocence Claims In Capital Cases (in Which Event Such Federal Claims, It Can Confidently Be Predicted, Will Become Routine And Even Repetitive).

If You're Going To Be A Good And Faithful Judge, You Have To Resign Yourself To The Fact That You're Not Always Going To Like The Conclusions You Reach. If You Like Them All The Time, You're Probably Doing Something Wrong.

Rather Than Rewriting The Law Under The Pretense Of Interpreting It, The Court Should Have Left It To Congress To Decide What To Do About The Act's Limitation Of Tax Credits To State Exchanges.

Certainly The Constitution Does Not Require Discrimination On The Basis Of Sex. The Only Issue Is Whether It Prohibits It. It Doesn't.

The Court Today Completes The Process Of Converting Title Vii Of The Civil Rights Act Of 1964 From A Guarantee That Race Or Sex Will Not Be The Basis For Often Will.