<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	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:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Supreme Court roundup	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/01/supreme-court-constitutional-law-roundup/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/01/supreme-court-constitutional-law-roundup/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Jan 2013 22:34:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: mf		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/01/supreme-court-constitutional-law-roundup/comment-page-1/#comment-198999</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[mf]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 2013 22:34:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=34741#comment-198999</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;i&gt;s the Sixth Circuit replacing the Ninth as perennial SCOTUS reversee?&lt;/i&gt;

Not possible.  It may be &lt;i&gt;joining&lt;/i&gt; the Ninth as perennial reversee.  The Ninth continues to pump out ludicrous rulings at a prodigious rate.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>s the Sixth Circuit replacing the Ninth as perennial SCOTUS reversee?</i></p>
<p>Not possible.  It may be <i>joining</i> the Ninth as perennial reversee.  The Ninth continues to pump out ludicrous rulings at a prodigious rate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: DensityDuck		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/01/supreme-court-constitutional-law-roundup/comment-page-1/#comment-198946</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[DensityDuck]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2013 23:28:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=34741#comment-198946</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The point being that even when states &lt;i&gt;do&lt;/i&gt; take action on their own, that&#039;s no guarantee that it won&#039;t end up a Federal matter after all.  If the Supreme Court thought that same-sex marriage was entirely a question for the states to resolve, then why are they hearing argument over it?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The point being that even when states <i>do</i> take action on their own, that&#8217;s no guarantee that it won&#8217;t end up a Federal matter after all.  If the Supreme Court thought that same-sex marriage was entirely a question for the states to resolve, then why are they hearing argument over it?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Walter Olson		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/01/supreme-court-constitutional-law-roundup/comment-page-1/#comment-198886</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Walter Olson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2013 20:08:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=34741#comment-198886</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[It&#039;s not clear to me why &quot;under challenge in the Supreme Court&quot; is inconsistent with the idea of &quot;potentially stable and workable position for the Republicans to endorse.&quot; Opponents challenged Obamacare in the Supreme Court and came within one vote of overturning it, but no one thinks that&#039;s a reason the Democrats shouldn&#039;t have felt free to support it in their platform.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s not clear to me why &#8220;under challenge in the Supreme Court&#8221; is inconsistent with the idea of &#8220;potentially stable and workable position for the Republicans to endorse.&#8221; Opponents challenged Obamacare in the Supreme Court and came within one vote of overturning it, but no one thinks that&#8217;s a reason the Democrats shouldn&#8217;t have felt free to support it in their platform.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: DensityDuck		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/01/supreme-court-constitutional-law-roundup/comment-page-1/#comment-198873</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[DensityDuck]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:29:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=34741#comment-198873</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&quot; &quot;Let&#039;s come up with a solution that allows New York to go one way and Texas to go the other way,&quot; [Olson] said.&quot;

Except that&#039;s what California did with Proposition 8, and now that&#039;s in the Supreme Court.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8221; &#8220;Let&#8217;s come up with a solution that allows New York to go one way and Texas to go the other way,&#8221; [Olson] said.&#8221;</p>
<p>Except that&#8217;s what California did with Proposition 8, and now that&#8217;s in the Supreme Court.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
