Wesleyan College Roosevelts discuss Scalia with Professor Finn!

Turns  out I’ve been making a critical error on here for a while – the Roosevelt Institute leader I’d been calling Sylvie Stein all this time is actually named Wesley Ing ’12. My bad, Wesley:
Whether you’re going to Antonin Scalia’s talk on Thursday and want to know more about him, his opinions, and the Supreme Court, or didn’t get a ticket, and want to learn all this great stuff anyway, come to the ROOSEVELT INSTITUTE this Tuesday and get your judicial juices flowing with constitutional law Professor John Finn! Professor Finn will be giving a brief talk and then facilitating a discussion on Scalia’s opinions and the constitutional issues they’ve raised. The meeting is open to any and all interested students!
Where: Shapiro Center, at the top of Allbritton
When: Tuesday, March 6th at 7pm
Why: Because John Finn is The Man
Also, feel free to bother Wesley by email (sstein01@wes) if you’d like to get some recommended reading on Scalia and his originalist approach to the Constitution.
frostedmoose [11.10am, 3/5]Actually sstein01, could you post some of those recommended readings in the comments section below? I think that’s easier. And more helpful. And more edible.
(Visited 16 times, 1 visits today)

4 thoughts on “Wesleyan College Roosevelts discuss Scalia with Professor Finn!

  1. Pingback: Voices – Wesleyan Student Blogs » Blog Archive » Is the Jury Still Out? Deciding Wesleyan, and a Visit from a Supreme Court Justice

  2. Pingback: Scalia talk with Prof Finn tonight moved to 6pm – Wesleying

  3. Sstein01

    yes, frosted moose! readings:
    New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) (Justice Scalia has recently suggested that this very important case on the First Amendment was wrongly decided); http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_39
    Employment Division v. Smith (1986) (Justice Scalia’s “take” on the free exercise clause); http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_946
    D.C. v. Heller (2008) (on the original meaning of the second amendment); http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290
    R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992) (on the First Amendment & hate speech); http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_7675
    Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011) (on violent video games as speech); http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2010/2010_08_1448
    Citizens United v. F.E.C. (2010) (on corporations and speech rights); http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205
    Justice Scalia on constitutional interpretation:  http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/guest_commentary/scalia-constitutional-speech.htm
    For a decent summary of Justice Scalia’s understanding of originalism, see:  http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2010_spr/scalia.htm
    For an accessible critique of originalism, see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/conservatives-constitution-_b_959277.html

Comments are closed.