<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>ndmckinney&#124;net &#187; SCOTUS</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ndmckinney.net/tag/scotus/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ndmckinney.net</link>
	<description>In the Army now</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 04:13:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Ginsburg is Lonely</title>
		<link>http://www.ndmckinney.net/2007/01/29/ginsburg-is-lonely/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ndmckinney.net/2007/01/29/ginsburg-is-lonely/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2007 12:06:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ndmckinney.net/2007/01/29/ginsburg-is-lonely/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According to the Washington Post, Justice Ginsburg, as the only woman on the bench, feels isolated since the departure of Justice O&#8217;Conner.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ndmckinney.net/2007/01/29/ginsburg-is-lonely/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Legal Question of the Day &#8211; 23 Aug 06</title>
		<link>http://www.ndmckinney.net/2006/08/23/legal-question-of-the-day-23-aug-06/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ndmckinney.net/2006/08/23/legal-question-of-the-day-23-aug-06/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2006 00:42:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law & Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law School]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ndmckinney.net/2006/08/23/legal-question-of-the-day-23-aug-06/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Regarding Judicial Review: The United States Constitution is largely silent on the workings of the federal courts. The concept of judicial review is not outlined anywhere in Article III. It was created in Marbury v. Madison as a necessary function of the court. So where do strict constructionists derive their authority for judicial review?]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ndmckinney.net/2006/08/23/legal-question-of-the-day-23-aug-06/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Spoiled&#8221; gets another shot in federal court.</title>
		<link>http://www.ndmckinney.net/2006/05/01/spoiled-gets-another-shot-in-federal-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ndmckinney.net/2006/05/01/spoiled-gets-another-shot-in-federal-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 May 2006 18:08:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law & Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ndmckinney.net/2006/05/01/spoiled-gets-another-shot-in-federal-court/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a unanimous decision (Stevens concurring in judgement), the Supreme Court today issued an opinion allowing Anna Nicole Smith to pursue her claim for her one-half of the estate of her late &#8220;husband.&#8221; From a quick glance, the Court based its opinion largely on a &#8220;probate&#8221; exception, where a federal court has jurisdiction to entertain [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ndmckinney.net/2006/05/01/spoiled-gets-another-shot-in-federal-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Specter to SCOTUS: You&#8217;re on Candid Camera!</title>
		<link>http://www.ndmckinney.net/2006/05/01/specter-to-scotus-youre-on-candid-camera/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ndmckinney.net/2006/05/01/specter-to-scotus-youre-on-candid-camera/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 May 2006 17:58:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law & Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ndmckinney.net/2006/04/26/specter-to-scotus-youre-on-candid-camera/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[At least, that&#8217;s how he thinks it should be. Senator Arlen Specter wrote an op-ed piece in the Washington Post Tuesday arguing that the Court needs to suck it up and accept his bill to open up the Court to television cameras. With all due respect to Senator Specter, but his camera bill is a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ndmckinney.net/2006/05/01/specter-to-scotus-youre-on-candid-camera/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>If you can&#8217;t trust Scalia, who can you trust?</title>
		<link>http://www.ndmckinney.net/2006/04/13/if-you-cant-trust-scalia-who-can-you-trust/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ndmckinney.net/2006/04/13/if-you-cant-trust-scalia-who-can-you-trust/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Apr 2006 06:17:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ndmckinney.net/2006/04/13/if-you-cant-trust-scalia-who-can-you-trust/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Apparently no one, you loser. Scalia, J., is telling you, the one who doubts his impartiality, to &#8220;get a life.&#8221; Sigh&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ndmckinney.net/2006/04/13/if-you-cant-trust-scalia-who-can-you-trust/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Blackberry at the end at last?</title>
		<link>http://www.ndmckinney.net/2006/01/23/blackberry-at-the-end-at-last/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ndmckinney.net/2006/01/23/blackberry-at-the-end-at-last/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2006 01:52:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law & Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ndmckinney.net/2006/01/23/blackberry-at-the-end-at-last/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As the BBC and the Washington Post are reporting, the Supreme Court denied certiorari to Research in Motion (&#8220;RIM&#8221;). From today&#8217;s order list (546 U.S.) 05-763 RESEARCH IN MOTION, LTD. V. NTP, INC. The motion of Intel Corporation for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The motion of Canadian Chamber of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ndmckinney.net/2006/01/23/blackberry-at-the-end-at-last/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hooray for state&#8217;s rights&#8230;I think</title>
		<link>http://www.ndmckinney.net/2006/01/18/hooray-for-states-rightsi-think/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ndmckinney.net/2006/01/18/hooray-for-states-rightsi-think/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:06:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law & Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ndmckinney.net/2006/01/18/hooray-for-states-rightsi-think/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;m not really sure how to interpret this. Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled in the case Gonzales v. Oregon, a case deciding the fate of Orgeon&#8217;s doctor-assisted suicide law. For a more thorough summary of the decision, read the Washington post, the BBC, or the NY Times. I&#8217;m not one for strong states&#8217; rights. I&#8217;d [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ndmckinney.net/2006/01/18/hooray-for-states-rightsi-think/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

