<?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>The Public Philosopher &#187; Supreme Court</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/category/supreme-court/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Jan 2011 15:36:48 +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>Play the game</title>
		<link>http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/11/02/play-the-game/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/11/02/play-the-game/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Nov 2010 04:22:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>han</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Free expression]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Han]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liberalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liberty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[art]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bioshock]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fable II]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fallout 3]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pac-man]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[video games]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/?p=2177</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Video games, value, and free speech The Supreme Court will soon hear a case concerning the state of California’s right to regulate the sale of violent video games to minors.  Writing for The Washington Post, game designer Daniel Greenberg thinks that the First Amendment should protect video games.  His argument relies on the value of [...]


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/08/20/free-speech-for-the-dumb/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Free speech for the dumb?'>Free speech for the dumb?</a></li>
<li><a href='http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/08/16/fight-fire-with-fire/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Fight fire with fire'>Fight fire with fire</a></li>
<li><a href='http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/02/10/fish-on-the-first-continued/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Fish on the First, Continued'>Fish on the First, Continued</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/11/02/play-the-game/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fear and loathing redux</title>
		<link>http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/10/26/fear-and-loathing-redux/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/10/26/fear-and-loathing-redux/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2010 15:41:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Charles</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Charles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liberalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Punishment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[independent judiciary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reason]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technocracy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/?p=2143</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Radley Balko at Reason magazine argues that the close association between democratic politics and crime policy results in a vicious cycle of fear-mongering, excessive incarceration, and intergenerational poverty. He cites a Boston Globe article that reveals a tendency for undue and irrational pessimism and fear among the population. I explored the problem of irrational fear [...]


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/10/18/i-am-shocked-and-appalled/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: I am shocked and appalled'>I am shocked and appalled</a></li>
<li><a href='http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/01/28/how-should-we-pick-judges/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: How should we pick judges?'>How should we pick judges?</a></li>
<li><a href='http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/08/03/fear-the-quack/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Fear the quack'>Fear the quack</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/10/26/fear-and-loathing-redux/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Don&#8217;t worry (about the Constitution)</title>
		<link>http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/10/04/dont-worry-about-the-constitution/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/10/04/dont-worry-about-the-constitution/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Oct 2010 15:26:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>han</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Han]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Representation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The National Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unconstitutional]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/?p=2012</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Over at The National Review, Jonah Goldberg criticizes the &#8220;creepy logic of many liberals today,&#8221; who believe legislators should not worry about the constitutionality of their laws during legislation, instead deferring such judgments to the courts.  This is an interesting question, but let us not exaggerate its importance.  Writes Goldberg: Does anyone, anywhere, think legislators should vote for [...]


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/01/21/campaign-financing-revisited/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Campaign financing revisited'>Campaign financing revisited</a></li>
<li><a href='http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/03/08/hate-speech-and-the-constitution/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Hate speech and the Constitution'>Hate speech and the Constitution</a></li>
<li><a href='http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2009/10/02/the-peoples-court/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The people&#8217;s court'>The people&#8217;s court</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/10/04/dont-worry-about-the-constitution/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Should the song remain the same?</title>
		<link>http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/09/23/should-the-song-remain-the-same/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/09/23/should-the-song-remain-the-same/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Sep 2010 05:20:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>han</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Framers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Han]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antonin scalia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Originalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TIME Magazine]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/?p=1944</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Writing for Time, Adam Cohen criticizes Supreme Court Justice Atonin Scalia for his opinion that the Constitution does not bar sex discrimination.  In the piece, Cohen criticizes &#8220;originalism,&#8221; a judicial philosophy subscribed to by Scalia, which interprets the Constitution strictly on its plain language, as intended by the writers.  Arguing for more liberal judicial philosophies, [...]


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2009/06/24/the-originality-of-originalism/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The originality of originalism'>The originality of originalism</a></li>
<li><a href='http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/05/20/the-world-court/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The world court'>The world court</a></li>
<li><a href='http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/01/04/montana-allows-assisted-suicide/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Montana allows assisted suicide'>Montana allows assisted suicide</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/09/23/should-the-song-remain-the-same/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The court of public opinion</title>
		<link>http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/07/27/the-court-of-public-opinion/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/07/27/the-court-of-public-opinion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 17:10:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>luke</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Luke]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/?p=786</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The New York Times has a cool interactive feature where you can compare your views on certain issues with the Roberts court and the general public. However, comparisons can be slightly misleading since the questions are framed as policy questions not constitutional questions. While readers are asked whether they would support a ban on partial [...]


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/06/28/the-supreme-court-of-public-opinion/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The (supreme) court of public opinion'>The (supreme) court of public opinion</a></li>
<li><a href='http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/05/18/too-smart-for-the-supreme-court/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Too smart for the supreme court?'>Too smart for the supreme court?</a></li>
<li><a href='http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2009/10/02/the-peoples-court/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The people&#8217;s court'>The people&#8217;s court</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/07/27/the-court-of-public-opinion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Graham&#8217;s vote for Kagan</title>
		<link>http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/07/22/grahams-vote-for-kagan/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/07/22/grahams-vote-for-kagan/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:52:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>luke</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Luke]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/?p=778</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When should senators confirm judges whose judicial philosophy differs from their own? On Tuesday the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court. The vote split along party lines, with the exception of South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham, who broke rank to support Kagan’s nomination. Graham defended his choice by saying that [...]


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/05/10/rookie-rules/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Rookie rules'>Rookie rules</a></li>
<li><a href='http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2009/08/24/be-prepared/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Be prepared'>Be prepared</a></li>
<li><a href='http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/05/11/yes-but-is-she-persuasive/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Yes, but is she persuasive?'>Yes, but is she persuasive?</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/07/22/grahams-vote-for-kagan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The challenge of social science in constitutional interpretation and public policy</title>
		<link>http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/07/01/the-challenge-of-social-science-in-constitutional-interpretation-and-public-policy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/07/01/the-challenge-of-social-science-in-constitutional-interpretation-and-public-policy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2010 18:04:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Charles</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Charles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Framers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liberty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bill of rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[classical conservatism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[classical liberalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consequentialism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gun control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[McDonald v. Chicago]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Originalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[second amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/?p=725</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Or: how I learned to stop worrying and love the gun On Monday, the Supreme Court’s majority decision in McDonald v. Chicago affirmed, with some qualifications, that the individual right to bear arms may not be infringed by state or local governments. Was the Court’s decision appropriate? Does the right to bear arms deserve the [...]


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2009/06/30/private-values-public-policy/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Private values, public policy'>Private values, public policy</a></li>
<li><a href='http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/03/29/is-political-science-relevant/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Is political science relevant?'>Is political science relevant?</a></li>
<li><a href='http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/06/08/kagans-consequentialism/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Kagan&#8217;s consequentialism'>Kagan&#8217;s consequentialism</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/07/01/the-challenge-of-social-science-in-constitutional-interpretation-and-public-policy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The (supreme) court of public opinion</title>
		<link>http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/06/28/the-supreme-court-of-public-opinion/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/06/28/the-supreme-court-of-public-opinion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:29:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sam</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Sam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/?p=721</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The value and content of confirmation hearings What&#8217;s the value of transparency in a democracy?  Does it serve a function, or is it simply a right of the people to hear from elected and appointed officials, holding them to account through public opinion and in the ballot box? These and other questions loom in the [...]


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/07/27/the-court-of-public-opinion/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The court of public opinion'>The court of public opinion</a></li>
<li><a href='http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/05/18/too-smart-for-the-supreme-court/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Too smart for the supreme court?'>Too smart for the supreme court?</a></li>
<li><a href='http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2009/08/13/supreme-ideology/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Supreme ideology'>Supreme ideology</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/06/28/the-supreme-court-of-public-opinion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Kagan&#8217;s consequentialism</title>
		<link>http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/06/08/kagans-consequentialism/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/06/08/kagans-consequentialism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2010 15:49:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sam</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Sam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/?p=695</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Professor David Rose says that asking Kagan her moral framework is a relevant question in considering her fitness for the bench (particularly, is she or isn&#8217;t she a consequentialist?): This is a timely issue. If confirmed, Ms. Kagan may hear a constitutional challenge to the mandatory insurance requirement of the new health-care law. A nonconsequentialist [...]


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/05/10/rookie-rules/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Rookie rules'>Rookie rules</a></li>
<li><a href='http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2009/11/10/is-it-fair-to-discriminate-against-the-obese/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Does health reform treat the obese unfairly?'>Does health reform treat the obese unfairly?</a></li>
<li><a href='http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2009/08/26/more-on-healthcare-and-choice/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: More on healthcare and choice'>More on healthcare and choice</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/06/08/kagans-consequentialism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The world court</title>
		<link>http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/05/20/the-world-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/05/20/the-world-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 May 2010 14:02:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>luke</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Framers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[History of Political Thought]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Luke]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/?p=672</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When is it appropriate for American courts to reference foreign law? The other day Jake posted on the Supreme Court ruling that teenagers cannot be sentenced to life in prison for non-homicide crimes. In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy referenced the consensus in the international community against such punishments: There is support for our [...]


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2009/10/02/the-peoples-court/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The people&#8217;s court'>The people&#8217;s court</a></li>
<li><a href='http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/04/29/guest-post-picking-the-next-supreme-court-justice/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Guest post: Picking the next Supreme Court Justice'>Guest post: Picking the next Supreme Court Justice</a></li>
<li><a href='http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2009/12/10/how-soccer-explains-the-world/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: How soccer explains the world'>How soccer explains the world</a></li>
</ol>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2010/05/20/the-world-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

