Welcome New Readers (Due to Scalia Secession Post) — Bumped & Updated


OK, that little post about a letter my brother got from Justice Antonin Scalia about states seceding from the nation seems to have set off quite a bit of activity on political blogs.

(Updated 2/24: It has now hit Hollywood and mainstream press, an item in The Hollywood Reporter being picked up by Reuters and on to Yahoo! News, and now the New York Times)

While I know that the vast majority of you folks will be here and gone in a heartbeat — and perhaps quicker — if you have a hankering to see what kind of stuff haunts my humble corner of the interwebs, you can look at these two “Best Of” posts to get a sampling:

Greatest hits 2009

Greatest hits 2006-2008

My guess is that, given the nature of the newcomers, last year’s Sonia Sotomayor posts, one of which ended out in a Washington Times editorial, will be of some interest. Though my appearance in an editorial for the Economic Times of India (regarding George Bush’s dog, go figure), might be a close second.

And Supreme Court aficionados may be interested in this news that I broke some time back, which also involved Justice Scalia: Supreme Court Grants Cert in “Fantasy Baseball” Case; Three Justices Recuse Themselves Due To Participation in High Court League

And feel free to add me to your RSS feed, or follow on Twitter (@Turkewitz). The price is double what you’re paying now, but I think I’m worth it.

(originally posted 2/16/10)

Tags:

4 Responses Leave a comment

  • Kathymm 2010.2.16 at 21:57 | Quote

    I seriously think that if-when there is a revolution in this country because we've been denied our rights under the constitution, the likelihood of secession will be written into an amendment once we rescue it to prevent it's being trampled from happening again… if the states can secede then it greatly diminishes the power of the fed over us.

  • Anonymous 2010.2.17 at 08:47 | Quote

    Oh please. There will be no succession in this country. A political reformation is more likely. Although if the pols would stop and think of the good of the citizens of this country and not look toward the next election, things would work better. Thanks Eric for the letter posting. I printed off and will share it with the local bar group when next we meet. I am a semi regular reader of your blog. Keep up the good work. Hope your making some money at your practice. Take care.

  • Anonymous 2010.2.17 at 13:51 | Quote

    >>The court continues that the Republic is indivisible. 'without revolution or consent of the states.' Now what does 'consent of the states' mean, no one has defined, but it exists in the case.<<<<

    I suggest that the 'consent of the states' for secession is contained in Artivle IV, Section 3. Simply a reversal of the admission process for new states — at Territory applies for admission, the Congress (the representaves of the states) debate and vote on allowing that state to become a member of the Union.

    Reverse the process, i.e. a State with the concent of its citizens applies to be removed from the Union, the Congress debates it (and I would assume resolve common property and contractural issues, and then votes on petition of said state(s).

    IMHO, it can be done constitutionally, but Unilateral Secession was never envisioned by the Framers.

  • Siouxsie Law 2010.2.18 at 22:39 | Quote

    Say what you will about Justice Scalia, his letter to your brother was pretty cool.

    I like your welcome mat, by the way; mine has a few more skulls on it.

Comments are closed.


The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.