"There is no federal general common law. This “general law” disregarded practically all local and state law. There is no clause in the constitution giving federal courts this power. If a federal court hears a case dealing with purely state issues, it must use applicable state law in making its decision. It cannot arbitrarily apply any law it chooses."
This is a good decision. It affirms the 10th amendment.
It says that "unwritten" common or general law cannot be used by federal courts in making their decisions.
Federal courts "must use applicable state law in making its decision."
I do not know about you but I do not want to deal with "unwritten" common or general law when I am in court.
That would be the equivalent of being struck by a bolt of lightning on a clear day.
If you take the time to read the decision of Erie RR v Tompkins, you will understand how the use of unwritten common or general law was arbitrary, illogical, and ultimately capricious in its application.
This doctrine used by the federal courts for 100 years was a use of power that was never conferred on the federal courts by the Constitution. This decision actually took a lot of power out of the federal judiciary.
I do not understand the leap that some people are making that we are now under the jurisdiction of Merchant, Commercial, or Admirality law when we are in federal court and not under the jurisdicition enumerated in the Constitution in matters of federal jurisdiction.
Probably because you have no idea what the common law is. The constitution itself is a common law document.