"Logical me," since you started down this important road, the people have a right to your answers to these questions.
====
Posted on 10/09/2005 9:24:32 AM PDT by Wisconsin
I am a retired lawyer. I have argued three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, two of which are usually at least footnotes in most Constitutional Law texts.
I do not want a "great" Supreme Court Justice. I want a "great" Supreme Court. No single justice decides a case before the Court, the Court as a whole does.
.....
"Logical me," since you started down this important road, the people have a right to your answers to these questions.
====
ok
I read the mircosoft case, and it was pretty complex about actual versus unmanifested damages, the state of the class etc., wiht an interesting array of competing case lines, and the court finding that software has an eternal useful life, which strikes me as odd. But one needs to read the briefs to see how well the lawyers argued it.
And he established this how? By those who knew him and told great stories about him.
You might say he was TRUSTED. Because no one personally witnessed these tablets being created by God, they trusted Moses when he said they were created by God.
When you believe in someone and trust them, his word is good -- until proven wrong.
I believe President Bush and take him for his word as to why he choose Miers. The Hearings will carry out the validation of his nomination.
Agreed. All we have at the U Mich site are the decisions. A lot of this is awfully arcane stuff, however, and not constitutional issues that will excite most of us.
I was not selective in what I looked at, however. Just randomly picked stuff - except for the Disney case which you pointed out.
Sorry. I take back everything I said about Moses and cancel my post. I am not going to get into theological arguments. I am not. I am not. I am not.
Yes.
US v. Miller decided that a law taxing some arms would not be an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms if some test could determine that such arms are not "useful" to a Militia. As a result, the challenged National Firearms Act of 1934 today has the effect of permitting the civilian prohibition of bearing or manufacturing machine guns which are the standard issue to every soldier.
This abominable decision stands today. One can only hope that Roberts and Miers recognize that this "precedent" is illogical garbage in contradiction to a clear prohibition against government action.
No. Some parts of constitutional law are hard because they are, well, hard.
Did not mean to offend you. I'm sorry if I did.
The agency before the fact bit was pretty staightforward, but the ratification aspect was not, and the law is a bit of a mess in that area. In any event, the legal opinion on that point was a mess. The court seemed to find that that just because A paid money to B, and B paid money to C, that does not mean that C received A's money. I thought that aspect was pretty fly by night "analysis" of lack thereof. It kind of reminds me of the Delay situation. Again, however, it is the quality of the briefs that counts vis a vis Miers.
Her articles do seem to have a chatty quality, I agree. It may be a gender thing. Guys tend to not like that style much as a crude generalization.
The point here is to get a sense of the quality of her mind in legal argument and analysis, not her Constitutional views. The potentially telling brief against her, is that she is a mental mediocrity, not that her views are unknown. Doing that on procedural federal law issues as opposed to Constitutional issues, serves just fine for that purpose. It will also give us some sense as to whether she will be a quick study or not in picking up the Constitutional arcana in the next month.
I believe that the very best legal candidates are also those who aspire to greater responsibility and authority. I don't think it a bad thing that a state judge might wish some day to be selected to be on a state Supreme Court. Nor is it a bad thing for the most qualified to view an appointment to the Supreme Court as a validation of a lifetime of responsible work.
The logical consequence of rewarding those who "lack a paper trail" is that the most deserving people may seek ways to avoid being on the record rather than exposing themselves to criticism from those who oppose their thinking. Appointments to Circuit Courts could become a dead end which no deserving candidate will want to accept if, as a consequence, they are eliminated from the pool of potential Supreme Court nominees.
Naw, just write narrow decisions, follow precedent slavishly, and if a case of first impression in your circuit where you have to fill in the gaps, and you will fill them in, in a way that will hurt you with team Biden, just call in sick, or recuse yourself if you can. And don't ever be a con law professor who takes an interest in controversial areas, except as a honest broker.
Nothing for or against Miers here, but this is the kind of action that I dispise, actually. It is probably because of losing this suit (if not others that I don't know about) that we don't have to pay $35 to download patch 17.735 for XP18.21, i.e. that the software was supposed to work when you sold it, and that anti-trust laws prohibit you from selling something that doesn't work and then charge to make it work.
It seems fairly obvious (I am a strong anti-monopolist mystelf). Probably market forces would have forced MS to fix this problem sooner or later anyway (i.e. we would all be using LINUX).
What I suppose bothers me is that she took a case where her function was obviously to force the other side to expend enormous legal resources in a hope that the anti-trust issue would fail for lack of perseverence.
Wearing down the opposition is a trusty and effective legal tactic. It did not work in this instance. It is not, however, demonstrative of someone who is known to be so good that she can choose the cases she wants to represent. I know personally some top personal injury attornies, and they mostly win because they only take cases that they should win.
Am in full agreeement.
You might not like it, but most of these kind of cases are fought on procedural grounds. Once you know which court you will be in, and with or without a class, they become much easier to settle, because the unknowns are so much less. When microsoft failed to derail the class, it cut a check and settled. If Disney had ended up in Laredo, it would have cut a check in a hurry. I once read in the WSJ years ago, about tort lawyer fraud in fraudulently creating "facts" to get cases heard in the Bronx against insurance companies. Once you get to the Bronx, the insurance company will lose, each and every time.
I have a lot of scars, and victory trophies, to prove this point. Although not an attorney I have had to spend a lot of time on legal issues and do a lot of my own research, even when I do have an attorney. It is amazing how fast you can wear down the opposition when your own research time is "free" and the other side is paying its attornies upwards of $400 per hour per attorney. It is helpful that one only gets into these scrapes by a dogged insistance that one is both legally and morally right. Again careful research ahead of time tells you when to hold and when to fold.
Ridiculous.
>>>>The appropriate response to Roe v. Wade is simply "They got the law wrong." Nothing more.
As with the issue of slavery more then one humdred years ago, abortion rights as represented through RoevWade is both a legal and an emotional issue. If you have no respect for human life, it goes without saying, you have no respect for the law either.
I think Miers won't make much difference over O'Connor, with the exception Miers is pro-life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.