The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
The most IMPORTANT SCOTUS decision in US history:
Poast new message in this thread
Date: January 21st, 2006 11:52 PM Author: drunken faggot firefighter Besides Marbury. Brown by far? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879674) |
 |
Date: January 21st, 2006 11:53 PM Author: bateful harsh rehab My Con Law prof thinks so. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879677) |
|
Date: January 21st, 2006 11:54 PM Author: drunken faggot firefighter It was a very important case, and its effects are still felt today. It really changed things, too; although a lot of people like to think it was completely symbolic. It demonstrated why "liberalism" is better for our society. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879689) |
|
Date: January 21st, 2006 11:55 PM Author: adventurous cowardly digit ratio main people *yawn* (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879692) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:21 AM Author: Electric sick property I think even without brown, segregation would have eventually ended. Sure it was monumentally important and even one day without segregation is HUGE, but some of the other cases which basically the entire way the govt operates is built off of are probably more important. Because had a different verdict been reached they would have had greater implications than brown being decided another way. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879853) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 11:27 AM Author: Effete irate house halford Only FUCKTARTED Southerners believe it would have ended on its own.
Trust me, it would not have. There would be whites only drinking fountains today in Mississippi if the federal govt and judiciary had not gotten involved. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 11:36 AM Author: silver university tank he said it would have "eventually ended," not that it would have ended on its own. there is a very substantial argument that says the Civil Rights Act 10 years later did a lot more to end segregation than Brown did. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4882517) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 11:38 AM Author: Effete irate house halford It was a coupling effect.
I stand by my previous statement. The Civil Rights Act grew out of the climate created by Brown.
|
|
Date: January 21st, 2006 11:53 PM Author: adventurous cowardly digit ratio main people Wrong. Scott v. Sandford. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879681) |
|
Date: January 21st, 2006 11:57 PM Author: drunken faggot firefighter Hey felix: shut the fuck up and don't ever post on my fucking threads in your life. I told you this before but you obviously don't know how to fucking listen. Go post on one of pensive's psycho threads you pathetic TTT joke. Because of your complete stupidity and irrelevance, every post you make is followed by an awkward silence where everyone kind of looks at each other and shakes their heads. Shut the fuckity fuck up (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879709) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:04 AM Author: adventurous cowardly digit ratio main people You mean you and your four other monikers?
http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=298272&mc=16&forum_id=2 |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:06 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter ? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879754) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:09 AM Author: Fishy Juggernaut This seems plausible (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879779) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 8:30 PM Author: beady-eyed opaque gay wizard After Marbury, yes, this is the most important decision. It, more than anything else, pushed the slavery question into the fore and started the process of southern secession. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4886913) |
|
Date: April 16th, 2006 12:04 PM Author: Purple mewling office philosopher-king I would disagree...the slavery issue was "in the fore" for most of the 1850's. Of course the decision outraged the northern abolitionists, but no more than the Kansas-Nebraska Act. In short, the issue would've bubbled over either way. Also, it had a constitutional shelf-life of nine years. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#5592087) |
Date: January 21st, 2006 11:53 PM Author: Bespoke National it's coming...Marshall v. Marshall (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879683) |
|
Date: January 21st, 2006 11:59 PM Author: drunken faggot firefighter You + felix need to stop posting on my threads (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879716) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:00 AM Author: supple aqua azn antidepressant drug If you banned everyone that disagreed with you, you'd only have your other monikers to talk to. :) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879721) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:05 AM Author: adventurous cowardly digit ratio main people 174 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879746) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:08 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter Oh shut the hell up you nerd. Just because a lot of people routinely pwn you doesn't mean they're all the same person. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879765) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:09 AM Author: supple aqua azn antidepressant drug Routinely pwn me? I've only posted a few times. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879777) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:10 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter (If you can't tell by now, I don't give a fuck who the hell you are. Please take this opportunity to STFU.) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879788) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:12 AM Author: adventurous cowardly digit ratio main people Wow. You're fucking stupid.
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:08 AM Author: SH
Oh shut the hell up you nerd. Just because a lot of people routinely pwn you doesn't mean they're all the same person.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879765)
|
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:12 AM Author: supple aqua azn antidepressant drug I'm willing to bet you don't have many friends. :( (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879799) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:21 AM Author: onyx floppy stage hissy fit "i would certainly put my money on it."
|
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:13 AM Author: green multi-colored casino background story 176 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880346) |
|
Date: January 21st, 2006 11:55 PM Author: exciting aggressive library toaster upcoming one about weed (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879691) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:09 AM Author: onyx floppy stage hissy fit i would certainly put my money on it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879780) |
|
Date: January 21st, 2006 11:55 PM Author: Garnet hominid Bush v. Gore (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879694) |
|
Date: January 21st, 2006 11:59 PM Author: drunken faggot firefighter Interesting. Why do you think that? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879713) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:06 AM Author: Garnet hominid 1. Stole election from Dem, let Bush be president. This leads to Iraq war, 2 right wing appointments (maybe more if souter / stevens leave), domestic spying, and a lot of other junk. (to be fair, it also probably saved the country from a lot of stupid crap Gore would have done)
2. Forced the court to become super-political and basically destoryed the notion of an "impartial" court. given that vote was 5-4, conservatives v. libs - you can argue about who was right, but the court lost a lot of its idealism that day. Now more than ever people just look at it as an elected body.
3. Super-charged the liberal academy, and made the repub / liberal split even more vicious, probably beyond the point of no return. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:08 AM Author: Electric sick property I think its too early to tell. Right now its pretty important, but its hard to tell right now just how huge of an impact its going to ahve over the course of future history. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879769) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:09 AM Author: Garnet hominid dood, the iraq war is here already, and has redefined our role in the world (for the worse). That was Bush's creation (YOU TRIED TO KILL MY PA! FUCKER!) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879772) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:10 AM Author: Electric sick property yeah, but if the war can manage to end relatively soon I think it will just go down as a relatively minor deal. I'm also not sure how different things on that front would have been with gore. I think probably a good deal better, but its not like we wouldn't have had a problem at all. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879783) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:12 AM Author: Garnet hominid True, Gore would have done dumb shit too, but I think it would have been different dumb shit.
Whenever a court elects a president, that changes the country more than any other case could. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:15 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter I think the BvG decision made everyone realize how deeply divided the court is and how willing they are to decide political questions. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879821) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:15 AM Author: Electric sick property some cases have changed the way that the country operates for hundreds of years. That's a lot bigger effect than having a different president. I mean if the court had appointed whoever the fuck truman ran against, would we really be able to tell the difference now? But if the court had taken a more limited view of the govt's role in gibbons, the nation could feasibly be radically different. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879822) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 11:42 AM Author: Chocolate aphrodisiac mood internal respiration " if the war can manage to end relatively soon "
it WON'T, you idiot and even if it does it CAN not and WILL not go down as minor deal.
you idiot. |
|
Date: April 16th, 2006 6:15 AM Author: curious khaki forum dopamine Saddam Hussein's removal was plainly necessary, as was the introduction of democratic refom in the middle east. Anyone who doesn't recognize this, despite the clear evidence of Hussein's pursuit of WMD's, is a complete retard. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#5591599) |
|
Date: April 16th, 2006 6:35 AM Author: crawly brindle location You are quite possibly the worst poster ever. I hope you are a flame. LOG OFF. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#5591633) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:50 AM Author: Cracking coiffed ticket booth friendly grandma LOL! SCOTUS was impartial before Bush v. Gore. Hilarious. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880103) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 11:43 AM Author: trip hyperactive abode trust fund "Stole election from Dem, let Bush be president. "
More accurately, the Supreme Court prevented the Florida Supreme Court from improperly handing the election to Gore. There was no stealing. Subsequent recounts by media outlets have tended almost without exception to find that Bush would've won Florida. You can't steal something that wasn't rightfully yours.
The Democrats get caught trying to fix an election, and now the Republicans are accused of stealing. |
|
Date: April 16th, 2006 6:15 AM Author: curious khaki forum dopamine Exactly.
It's hilarious how people spin this shit. |
|
Date: April 16th, 2006 6:13 AM Author: curious khaki forum dopamine How did it steal the election from the Dems? The media outlets deterimined later that the recounts would have given Bush an even bigger margin in Florida. All it did was (correctly) hasten this outcome, and take the decision out of the hands of the corrupted Florida Supreme Court.
You guys live in complete fantasyland. |
|
Date: January 21st, 2006 11:59 PM Author: Bespoke National now, wasnt it actually Gore v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879719) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:06 AM Author: Garnet hominid I think it was Bush v. Gore when it got to the S.Ct.
Our casebook in con law referred to it as such. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:08 AM Author: Bespoke National hmm weird. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879768) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:10 AM Author: adventurous cowardly digit ratio main people Not really, I think Bush requested the SC intervene. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879785) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:10 AM Author: Garnet hominid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
Whole case name thing is always weird, because some parties can fall out on the appeal. |
|
Date: January 21st, 2006 11:59 PM Author: Jet Slippery Trailer Park Boistinker Baker v. Carr is more important than Brown in terms of race.
Chevron is fundamental -- the regulatory state is the basis for modern government.
Gibbons v. Ogden -- the power of the federal government to regulate everything. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:03 AM Author: Electric sick property yeah, chevron was my #2. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879735) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:04 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter 1) The political question case? If I remember correctly, all that case stood for was that reapportionment questions aren't "textually" commited to other branches of government. I'm sure there were race issues involved, but Brown was more relevant and on point in terms of race.
2) Chevron deference is almost entirely an administrative agency matter; the case doesn't extend much beyond that
3) Not on par with Marshall or Brown |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:07 AM Author: Electric sick property 3 - are you fucking kidding? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879760) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:08 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter Whoa whoa calm the fuck down. Do you know who I am? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879770) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:11 AM Author: onyx floppy stage hissy fit you're SH? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879795) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:14 AM Author: adventurous cowardly digit ratio main people He's Sean Hannity/Schadenfreude/Freud/SH
He's XoXo's resident idiot.
http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=298272&mc=16&forum_id=2 |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:18 AM Author: onyx floppy stage hissy fit oh god, he's such a clown. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879834) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:35 AM Author: Electric sick property I read this as "don't you know I don't have a fucking clue what I'm talking about?" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879993) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:57 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter You probably shouldn't have read it like that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880169) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:14 AM Author: Jet Slippery Trailer Park Boistinker Are you concerned with the long-term impact of the decision, or what the case itself says? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879813) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:20 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter Both are good measures. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879850) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:01 AM Author: Amethyst roommate rigor Wickard
That decision is the biggest piece of shit ever. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:08 AM Author: Garnet hominid BUT DOOD, the WHEAT was grown and sold in MY FUCKING FARM! IT NEVER GOES ANYWHERE! How the FUCK is that INTERSTATE!
This IS AN OUTRAGE! |
|
Date: April 16th, 2006 6:17 AM Author: curious khaki forum dopamine It really was. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#5591605) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:09 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter It was a pretty big decision but maybe not the most important. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879778) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:11 AM Author: Electric sick property it wasn't particularly important over the long run. how can you think wickward was "pretty big" but not realize gibbons? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879794) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:26 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter It permeates all modern commerce clause cases. And I never said Gibbons wasn't "pretty big," NASC, all I said was it wasn't on par with Brown or Marshall. Gibbons is on par with McCulloch (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879909) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:29 AM Author: Electric sick property if anything permeates all modern commerce clause cases, gibbons does, since its the very basis for how we interpret the commerce clause.
|
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:35 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter Raich was a recent commerce clause case (and a pretty big one). I don't recall having read any significant mention of Gibbons there. (There might have been a conclusory reference to Gibbons somewhere in there, though.) Nor did I see any significant mention of Gibbons in Printz, New York, Lopez, Morrison, et al; although I'll readily concede that Printz and NY had more to do with state sovereignty than commerce. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879990) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:37 AM Author: Electric sick property that's because gibbons is so fundamental to the commerce clause that it doesn't get mentioned in commerce clause cases anymore, it would fucking be like citing marbury v madison for every SCOTUS decision. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880007) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:45 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter I guess you could think of it like that. But, taking that logic, you could say that EVERY commerce case NOT mentioned in recent cases is "fundamental to the commerce clause," because it wasn't cited. It's a bit of a straw man but it follows logically.
I think the better reason is this: Gibbons was an important case, sure, but it settled the law of time, and it was all that was needed to dispel the confusion and concerning how to interpret the commerce clause and supremacy clauses. That confusion doesn't necessarily persist today; everyone knows that positive federal interstate commerce regulation pre-empts concurrent state regulation. The modern confusion and debate concerns *what* suffices as federally regulable (that ain't a word) "instrumentalities" of commerce; not *if* federal interstate commerce regulation trumps conflicting state regulation |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:48 AM Author: Electric sick property the point is that had gibbons been decided differently than it was, the effective nature of the commerce clause would have been radically different. Just like how if mar v mad had been decided differently the power of the supreme court would be vastly different (unless, of course, it had been overturned). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880084) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:55 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter I don't think that's the point. Gibbons was an easy case. The result was obvious. The commerce and supremacy clauses essentially required it. New York was just being a bunch of renegades by regulating whatever it was they were regulating in direct contravention of federal legislation. It was almost as easy a case as McCulloch, and deserves no more prestige than that. Brown was no where near as clear as Gibbons or McCulloch. Sure, the 14th amendment prohibited blatant inequality among the races, but did it really prohibit separate but equal? I mean, the ratifiers themselves most likely thought not. And indeed, I'm sure we could all imagine that there are some cases where separate can indeed be tangibly equal. The common criticism, then, is that the Brown court's "separate but equal is inherently unequal" pronouncement was based not on the inherent inequality of separating the races, but rather the DEMONSTRATED inequality of it. Some of the importance of the Brown decision thus lies in its difficulty. Gibbons however was more than obvious. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880152) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:00 AM Author: Electric sick property I think you're underestimating how "obvious" the result was at the time. From what I've read about the case Marshall basically did his normal domineering spirit trick to get the court to seem as together as it was. In the beginning I think the court was somewhat split. Gibbons goes to the very heart of state's rights vs. federal rights. Its a battle that has been waged since the very inception of this country and continues to rage on today.
The thing about Brown, as I mention above, is that its HIGHLY unlikely we'd still have segregation today. It was on its way out at the time, although too slowly. Obviously it was important, but there will probably come a point where, if brown had been decided differently, that the nation would be any different than it now is. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:09 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter I never said it was obvious AT THAT TIME. I never disputed that; and hell, without paring through my prior posts, I'm sure I was probably the first to bring it up. But that confusion does not persist today, as it pretty much goes without saying that constitutionally appropriate federal commerce clause regulation trumps conflicting state regulation. Was it obvious at the time? To many it was, but to many others, it may not have been. But the confusion and dispute was eliminated immediately after the decision. But look at how extensively Wickard was discussed in Raich, or in practically EVERY commerce case since then. Raich may have validated Wickard to an extent, but the mere fact that they had to do that (and remember, many people still think we should overturn Wickard) demonstrates how important that decision really was. Sure, there's a possibility that Gibbons may not have been decided the way it was. But given how that case has been treated by subsequent cases, and how widely and presumptively it has been accepted -- not to mention the clear rules laid out by the supremacy and commerce clauses, there's really no way it would not have been overruled shortly thereafter. The case was big, sure. But don't mischaracterize it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880297) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:11 AM Author: Electric sick property your logic seems to be that only cases that people, by and large, don't like are important then?
Also, by your logic, Brown wasn't obvious at the time, but it is now. Thus it isn't important.
Also, by your logic marbury isn't a significant case.
This is the dumbest line of thinking ever. Just because a case is decided well and people largely agree with it in retrospect its unimportant. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:14 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter Funny, I never said ANY of those things. (Indeed, I made sure to give Gibbons its due prestige.) Please DEMONSTRATE how and where I did. Thanks! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880349) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:18 AM Author: Electric sick property your first mention of gibbons said it wasn't even on par with marshall. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880398) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:22 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter Yeah, NASC, that's what I thought. Don't make me ban you like I had to ban felix. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880444) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:24 AM Author: Electric sick property then how the fuck am I supposed to interpret this?
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:04 AM Author: SH
1) The political question case? If I remember correctly, all that case stood for was that reapportionment questions aren't "textually" commited to other branches of government. I'm sure there were race issues involved, but Brown was more relevant and on point in terms of race.
2) Chevron deference is almost entirely an administrative agency matter; the case doesn't extend much beyond that
3) Not on par with Marshall or Brown
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879743)
where #3 is in referrence to Gibbons. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 11:26 AM Author: Maize Garrison Tattoo survey says - you're an idiot! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4882457) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:54 AM Author: Cracking coiffed ticket booth friendly grandma wickard IS extremely important over the long run. See Raich. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880135) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:55 AM Author: Electric sick property I'd say its somewhat important, but we're comparing a case that has implications in a few random cases vs. a case that is the bedrock for the commerce clause's current power. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880149) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:56 AM Author: Cracking coiffed ticket booth friendly grandma i think you should read or re-read Raich. there's a plausible argument that it, coupled with Wickard now forms the "bedrock for the commerce clause's current power." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880162) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:58 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter Exactly. He apparently thinks Gibbons >>>>>>>>>>> Wickard >> Raich (and presumably Lopez, Morrison, Heart of Atlanta, and the others). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880180) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:59 AM Author: Cracking coiffed ticket booth friendly grandma i'll give him that the meaning of Raich vis a vis Wickard is still fairly unsettled, but Raich confirms that Wickard's very much alive. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880191) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:04 AM Author: Electric sick property yeah, I'm not saying its dead, just not on par with gibbons. Things could change and SCOTUS could use raich by way of wickward to control everything we do. Then obviously wickward would probably be more important than gibbons.
But you also have to ask yourself if we would have had wickward without gibbons. If the court had taken a more restrictive view in gibbons, I seriously doubt we get wickward in the first place. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:13 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter It's impossible that Gibbons could have come out any other way. It was essentially a unanimous decision (there was a tepid concurrence), and there's no way in hell an opposite decision in Gibbons could have coexisted with the Supremacy and commerce clauses. One of them would have to be immediately killed (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880337) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:16 AM Author: Electric sick property not really, the definition of what constituted commerce could have just been severely limited and therefore the commerce clause would have mainly been important as it applies to dealing with foreign countries in their exchanges with the us. In fact this is how many at the time thought it should be. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880368) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:29 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter What?
The commerce clause says that the federal government is given the power to "To regulate Commerce ... among the several States." (The power to regulate interstate commerce.)
The supremacy clause says that "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be Supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." (Basically, that appropriate federal legislation pwns all state legislation to the contrary.)
Ok. NY passed INTERSTATE COMMERCE legislation that DIRECTLY CONFLICTED with a federal INTERSTATE COMMERCE law. How in the fuck do you think these things could have coexisted? (And stop trying to avoid the Supremacy Clause.) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:32 AM Author: Electric sick property it could have been the case that federal commerce licenses only grant one the ability to conduct commerce in states where they also hold a commerce license for that state. The wording of the commerce clause doesn't, on its face, discount the ability of states to ban things which the federal government merely doesn't explicitly ban.
|
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:34 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter Holy fuck shit you're stretching. See the dormant commerce clause. Just stop already man. You're tiring me. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880597) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:36 AM Author: Electric sick property there are two possiblities here:
1) every text on constitutional law is wrong about gibbons importance on the commerce clause
2) you are wrong
|
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:39 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter AGAIN, PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THAT GIBBONS WAS NOT IMPORTANT. PLEASE. PLEASE. DO IT. NOW. GO AHEAD, NASC. DO IT. I'M WAITING. STILL WAITING. GO. NOW. DIE. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880672) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:40 AM Author: Electric sick property http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&mc=118&forum_id=2#4880470 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880685) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:42 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter HEY NASC: "NOT ON PAR" DOES NOT MEAN "NOT IMPORTANT."
sOrRY, g0OD Try, tH0UgH. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:43 AM Author: Electric sick property not on par with marshall, which I have no idea who thinks that's even remotely as important as gibbons. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880731) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:45 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter Oh shit I think I just found out why you're confused. By "Marshall" I meant "Marbury v. Madison" (Marshall authored the opinion.) Is this what this is all about? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880754) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:48 AM Author: Electric sick property wtf? by that naming marshall would refer to gibbons as well as 2398702456234 other landmark cases. You really are dumb. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880805) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:53 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter Whew!! *sigh of relief*
Ok, I guess we're cool now. Where I typed "Marshall," I should have typed "Marbury" or "Marbury v. Madison." (It's peculiar, though, that you weren't able to immediately pick up on this mistake. Kinda makes you wonder, no? Check out my earlier posts where I referenced "Marbury v. Madison." LOL)
So, I guess we're now in agreement. I've been talking about Marbury v. Madison this whole time, and you've been talking about some mysterious case named "Marshall" (but again, you were confused by my earlier error; an error which immediately brought into your mind this mystical "Marshall" case. An innocent error, though; and I don't blame you.)
Are we cool? Or, as my little brother might say, "are we COO?" |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:55 AM Author: Electric sick property I think you still vastly overestimate wickward and don't see how easily we could have a weak commerce clause and defacto strong states, leading to a vastly different country.
You are almost comical about brown. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:56 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter Could you tell me a little bit about this "Marshall" case you've been talking about THIS ENTIRE TIME? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880896) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:01 AM Author: Electric sick property it has to do with whether or not the government can rule on probate issues (obviously a states rights issue) that involve issues (like bankruptcy) where the commerce clause holds sway.
|
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:05 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter And how did you know I was talking about THAT PARTICULAR "Marshall" case, as opposed to the countless others bearing that name? AND WHY IS THAT CASE GERMANE TO WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT? And howcome no one else, besides YOU, was talking about that case? And how come EVERY ONE ELSE knew exactly what I meant by "Marshall"? And since when has this "Marshall decision" -- a case for which you provide no citation -- been thought of as the most IMPORTANT CASE IN US HISTORY (i.e., the POINT OF THE FUCKING THREAD?) What casebook or treatise treats this PROBATE case as the MOST IMPORTANT CASE IN HISTORY? NONE? Well, then why did you think that that was what I meant? WHY? WHY NASC? HUH? TELL ME? WHY?
I have a lot more questions, when you get done with these. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:07 AM Author: Electric sick property because barzini specifically mentioned it right before you posted what you posted. I thought for some reason you took what he said at face value, I don't know, its often hard to follow your logic.
That I can see nobody else really knew what you meant by marshall anyway. I doubt they thought you were talking about marbury since you specifically said "besides marbury" in the op. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:11 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter When I said "besides Marbury" in the OP, what did I mean? In other words, take the thread title, my OP, and the post where I referenced "Marshall." What is it about those three posts that would make you think I was talking about this mysterious "Marshall" PROBATE LAW decision?
HAHAHHAHAHhahaa (You see that? Every thing you say automatically works against you because you're in a very fucked up position right now. There's really no way out, except to STOP POSTING. I don't accept apologies.) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:14 AM Author: Electric sick property sean, the fucking thing is that I assumed you were saying what you mean. The thing about words is that they actually mean things. I'm sorry that I connected marshall to the case of that name isntead of making some vague connection to the most important chief justice of all time and picked that case out of the many that could be inferred from "marshall" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4881056) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:19 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter Ok, now that we have that settled (it is settled between us now that it was an absolutely stupid fuck inference to draw, given the circumstances. It's not like the thread title was "THE MOST IMPORTANT PROBATE LAW DECISION IN HISTORY" or something like that. Also, where is the citation for this case? HAHAHAH), I think there's a very, very important lesson to be learned here.
SO YOU MADE A DUMB FUCK STUPID IDIOT INFERENCE, AND ROYALLY PWN3D YOURSELF IN THE PROCESS (admittedly, I didn't really pwn you here; you heroically pwn3d yourself). What does that tell you about yourself? What does that tell you about your ability to think critically and with reason?
NASC, you're done. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:22 AM Author: Electric sick property so my "dumb fuck stupid inferrence" was that you can actually name a case by its correct name?
|
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:28 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter No, that's not an inference; that's an assumption. Your cockamay stupid dork inference came by way of your misapprehending and TOTALLY disregarding the import of the thread title and my OP.
Check out what happened:
1) I made a thread asking for the most IMPORTANT SCOTUS decision in history.
2) My OP stated that MARBURY was the MOST IMPORTANT SCOTUS DECISION IN HISTORY.
3) Everyone who has taken a high school civics course knows that Marshall authored Marbury.
4) Everyone on this thread not only knows that Marshall authored it, but they also know that, by mentioning "Marshall," I meant "Marbury." This is because the pronunciation and, I dare say, etymologies, of all three names (Marshall, Marbury, and, to an extent, Madison) are remarkably similar.
5) AND THEN NASC COMES IN AND THINKS I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT A PROBATE CASE NAMED "MARSHALL" THIS ENTIRE TIME, A CASE FOR WHICH HE REFUSES TO PROVIDE A CITATION. HE THINKS THIS DESPITE FACTS 1) - 4).
NASC IS NOT LIKE ANY OF US. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:33 AM Author: Electric sick property sean, you are fucking dumb and assuming rationality for you is a step I've learned not to take. This time I tried interpeting your words by their literal meanings, I'm sorry that did not work. Next time I will resort to reading a word you write, opening a dictionary blindly, pointing to a word and then assuming that is what you actually meant. This may be more accurate.
and marshall is fairly important because it has implications outside of probate law as does any case that deals with overlapping federal and state jurisdictions. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:38 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter 1) Provide a citation to this mysterious PROBATE LAW case.
2) Provide a citation to any article, treatise, casebook, or other quote where an author considers this PROBATE LAW decision the most IMPORTANT DECISION IN US HISTORY.
3) And if you really knew how to read, or understood the MEANINGS OF BASIC WORDS AND PHRASES, you wouldn't have consistently CONFUSED "on par" with "unimportant."
4) I know I asked you this before, but I think I should ask you again: Do you know who I am?
Oh, I just realized that I never answered the question. I'm Sean Hannity. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:45 AM Author: Electric sick property like I said its currently under review and I took what you said to mean that it will eventually be a very important case after its ruled on, which I found odd, as evidenced by my "WTF?" I'm not saying I thought it made sense to think it was an important scotus case, but it came from you, so being senseful is not necessarily a requirement, I've found.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0256002p.pdf
|
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:47 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter THE ANNA NICOLE SMITH CASE?!?!?!
HOLY FUCK. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:48 AM Author: Electric sick property again, I'm not saying I thought it made sense, which is why I kept saying that's why you were saying gibbons was unimportant. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4881390) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:51 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter Keep telling yourself that. I think both of us know exactly what has gone on here.
Both of us.
Have a nice night,
Sean Hannity |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:54 AM Author: Electric sick property sean, if you really want to believe I was pwn3d by incorrectly assuming that by "marshall" you meant "marshall" and that I should have inferred you meant "marbury" out of the context (despite the fact that in the op you discluded marbury) then go ahead. There, I admit you inferrencepwn3d me with your clever renaming of cases to that of a case which is currently being reviewed by the court. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4881430) |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2006 10:05 PM Author: drunken faggot firefighter And the thread title said: "SCOTUS DECISION," YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT. Since when does "decision" mean "pending decision"? HUH? ANSWER THAT SHIT. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4896426) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:48 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter NASC THOUGHT THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE ANNA NICOLE SMITH PROBATE CASE IN A THREAD TITLED: "THE MOST IMPORTANT SCOTUS DECISION IN HISTORY." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4881380) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:49 AM Author: Electric sick property you could have made this easier by calling marbury marbury. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4881393) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:02 AM Author: Electric sick property that's IF raich takes hold. I think, like you say below, its pretty unsettled. I think the court will eventually come to a more reasonable opinion on raich. Although alito scares me in this regard.
I have a feeling that roberts is anti-raich. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:53 AM Author: Histrionic pink scourge upon the earth I want to go back to the good old days right before Lopez-Morrison. I hate fucking state governments. Federalism is a TTT idea. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880855) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:56 AM Author: clear offensive kitty cat messiness raich now is more or less equivalent to dred scott in its day. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880890) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:03 AM Author: Cracking coiffed ticket booth friendly grandma explain this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880957) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:04 AM Author: clear offensive kitty cat messiness legally sound, but based on such fundamentally immoral values that future americans will only be embarassed at the mockery of justice it represents. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880971) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:09 AM Author: Cracking coiffed ticket booth friendly grandma what "values," exactly? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4881018) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:12 AM Author: clear offensive kitty cat messiness life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
not legally enshrined, of course, but obviously core to the american identity and any larger sense of human rights.
in 'raich', a desperately sick woman was trying to grow the only medicine which helped her. the two cancer survivors on the court unsurprisingly felt sympathy for her plight and ruled accordingly. ironically, only the justice most pilloried for a variety of reasons recognized the obvious overreach of federal power involved.
|
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:16 AM Author: Cracking coiffed ticket booth friendly grandma it's a questionable decision, but i don't follow your reliance on the sympathetic facts.
your point about thomas is true, but he'd overrule Wickard. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:19 AM Author: clear offensive kitty cat messiness do you think it was incidental that a 'conservative' like rehnquist ruled the way he did?
'raich' isn't just the case's name - she's a profoundly sick woman, and only marijuana worked for her as medicine.
the case, much like dred scott, put the inhumanity of the law front-and-center. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:04 AM Author: Electric sick property I'd guess he's referring to a badly made decision that si chiefly political in its aims and oversteps the boundaries of solid jurisprudence. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880974) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:09 AM Author: Cracking coiffed ticket booth friendly grandma is this from The Nation? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4881019) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:12 AM Author: Electric sick property no. in fact I'm all for the result of raich specifically. I just don't like that the govt can do whatever the fuck it wants based on interstate commerce now. If Raich takes over we might as well do away with states entirely. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4881039) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:14 AM Author: Histrionic pink scourge upon the earth am I the only person who thinks it was a decent decision? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4881062) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:15 AM Author: clear offensive kitty cat messiness no, the good folks at pfizer, bayer, roche, anheuser-bush, miller, and everyone in the correctional business would agree with you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4881073) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:15 AM Author: clear offensive kitty cat messiness i don't know that dred scott was a badly made decision. it was the concept that a human being was property which was problematic. the court was simply protecting property rights. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4881065) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:20 AM Author: Electric sick property DS was a bad decision because the court went much farther than it had to in the decision. Taney didn't need to say that missouri compromise was unconstitutional when all he needed to say was just that travelling between states didn't make scott freed. Its a basic canon of scotus jusrisprudence that declaring an act of congress unconstitutional should only been done when the case at hand absolutely needs it, whereas in this case it didn't. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4881114) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:22 AM Author: clear offensive kitty cat messiness if the compromise represented a basic violation of property rights, wasn't it unconstitutional?
isn't that what the federal government is for - the protection of exactly such rights? isn't that why the supremacy clause is still used, and insterstate commerce still referenced? |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:28 AM Author: Electric sick property but the compromise didn't necessarily represent a basic violation of property rights, since none of the states of the missouri compromise had slaves that were property in the us to begin with. Taney didn't strike it down because he believed that it violated property rights, but because he just didn't think the congress had that kind of power.
And the commerce clause was enough, since under it scott would still be a slave since merely being in another state didn't take away his status as property.
Taney ruled that even with the missouri compromise scott was still property AND then, on top of that, he said that the missorri compromise was unconstitutional anyway, which was unnecessary. Going all the way back to marshall, the power to consider an act of congress unconstitutional has been deemed SCOTUS's greatest power and should only be used when the issue is absolutely paramount ot the specific case and the national at large as well. In this case it didn't. Declaring the mi comp unconstitutional didn't even come up as an issue until relatively late in the proceedings. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:08 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter Damn it will you shut the fuck up already? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4881011) |
|
Date: April 16th, 2006 6:18 AM Author: curious khaki forum dopamine If not for Wickard, they probably wouldn't have been able to apply the 1964 Civil Rights Act to private actors. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#5591608) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:11 AM Author: lake cruel-hearted crackhouse This would be the case I'd claim. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4881030) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:03 AM Author: Electric sick property Gibbons v. Ogden (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879734) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 11:45 AM Author: silver university tank this is my pick, too. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4882582) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:13 AM Author: Garnet hominid International Shoe!!! Don't You all care about civ pro? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879807) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:21 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter Shoe's only importance is to confuse 1st year law students. The most important "civ pro" case would be Erie. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879860) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:22 AM Author: wild heaven masturbator (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879866) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:23 AM Author: Smoky mind-boggling corn cake public bath Pennoyer is the conventional wisdom, but its not confusing in the slightest. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879883) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:27 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter There's no debate about the confusion that pennoyer and its "progeny" usually engenders. Good job not being confused by it, though; you have always struck me as a very bright poster.
HAHAHHAHHAHHAhahahHAH |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:29 AM Author: adventurous cowardly digit ratio main people "HAHAHHAHHAHHAhahahHAH"
Another Sean Hannity breakdown coming? |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:30 AM Author: Smoky mind-boggling corn cake public bath "usually" meh. what ttt do you go to? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879953) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:24 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter Very true. Pennoyer is completely irrelevant today, but gets taught in every 1st year civ pro course. I guess the law has its foundations, and it's important in some sense to know what those foundations are, but there's no real need to teach that case other than to maintain the "law school mystique" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879886) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:56 AM Author: Histrionic pink scourge upon the earth We/I never had to read it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880887) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:20 AM Author: wild heaven masturbator (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879849) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:28 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter Slaughterhouse gave us some very important lessons. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879932) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:29 AM Author: adventurous cowardly digit ratio main people You are so full of shit. Admit it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4879948) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:38 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter Slaughterhouse gave us very important lessons. Here's one: http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=295407&mc=73&forum_id=2 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880016) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:34 AM Author: violent hell generalized bond Brown?
You're an impossibly dim 1L. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:45 AM Author: Electric sick property Gideon seems pretty important too. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880061) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:47 AM Author: Soul-stirring swollen rigpig chevron (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880081) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:17 AM Author: green multi-colored casino background story definitely not. it merely stated the directoin the court was heading towards regardless. further, the court generally does not heed it's own precedents-- chevron is only occasionally followed by the s ct. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880388) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:45 AM Author: Soul-stirring swollen rigpig chevron is settled law. it is followed when the agency has the power to make rules w/the force of law and has done so.
it was a glib response though, anyway. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:46 AM Author: wild heaven masturbator (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880785) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:53 AM Author: green multi-colored casino background story or General Dynamics v. Cline.
despite all the hullaballoo, Chevron is largely meaningless, at least at the supreme court. however, the lower courts seem to heed it, so that salvages it from irrelevancy. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:55 AM Author: Soul-stirring swollen rigpig i think it was rather clear that congress did not intend for tobacco to be w/in the meaning of the term 'drug' when they wrote the statute. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880883) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:06 AM Author: green multi-colored casino background story " when they wrote the statute."
what controls? the meaning at the time of drafting? or the contemporary meaning?
i favor the latter, though there is authority for both positions. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:04 AM Author: Histrionic pink scourge upon the earth agency law is to narrow a body of law to make Chevron the MOST important case. It would have to be a "rights" case. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880969) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:49 AM Author: Electric sick property without texas v. johnson, xoxo may not exist. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880100) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:50 AM Author: Smoky mind-boggling corn cake public bath uh....what? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880104) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:51 AM Author: Electric sick property "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. . . ."
—Justice William Brennan, speaking for the majority
|
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:52 AM Author: Smoky mind-boggling corn cake public bath It wasn't the first time offensive "speech" was upheld. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880119) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:53 AM Author: Electric sick property it was a joke.....
edit: and it was the first offensive speech case that came to my mind. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:54 AM Author: Smoky mind-boggling corn cake public bath *slaps forehead* (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880138) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:41 AM Author: Cracking coiffed ticket booth friendly grandma your efforts on this thread are admirable, but if you bust out stuff like this during 1L conlaw, consider the possibility that people may launch balled up paper at your head. just a warning. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880713) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:44 AM Author: Electric sick property I don't talk in front of large groups unless I'm called on or have to make a speech. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880751) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:47 AM Author: Cracking coiffed ticket booth friendly grandma good good. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880796) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:47 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter LOL (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880795) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:13 AM Author: green multi-colored casino background story i'd guess whatever case dramatically expanded the scope of the "commerce" clause (any conlaw geeks know which case-or series of cases- is responsible?). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880335) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:13 AM Author: Electric sick property gibbons (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880342) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:15 AM Author: green multi-colored casino background story was that the NY boat one? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880359) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:19 AM Author: Electric sick property yeah. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880410) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:24 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter How did Gibbons EXPAND the scope of the commerce clause? I think RedSox was talking about Wickard. Wickard EXPANDED its scope; Gibbons merely reaffirmed its meaning. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880467) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:26 AM Author: green multi-colored casino background story well, whichever one it was...the fact that congress can use the commerce clause to do whatever it wants has completely changed the u.s.
the civil rights cases, etc. merely hastened changes which were already nearing...it's not like the supreme court outlawed slavery in 1805 or caused integration in 1902...they merely fit their decisions to the sentiments of the times (but admittedly pushed things up by a few years i'm sure). |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:34 AM Author: Electric sick property its probably the trio of gibbons, swift and wallace and to a lesser extent raich and wickward you are referring to. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880599) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:36 AM Author: green multi-colored casino background story raich is relatively recent...the cases in the earlier part of the last century that let the feds go crazy were the real impetus. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880625) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:39 AM Author: Electric sick property okay, you are talking about swift (allowed the federal government to stop meatpackers from colluding to fix prices and thus gave them the ability to regulate just about anything economical they wanted) and stafford. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880674) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:43 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter HE WAS TALKING ABOUT WICKARD. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880732) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:47 AM Author: Electric sick property 1942 is hardly "the earlier part of last century" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880792) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:48 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter Again, I *assumed* that RedSox knew what he was talking about, and that he merely misspoke. He's a tax guy. He probably hasn't read a con law case in years. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880807) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:53 AM Author: Electric sick property again, you are fucking dumb. wickward is only just now beginning to have applications and only in a handful of cases here and there. Pick up any conlaw book and gibbons, swift and stafford will be called the foundation of the modern commerce clause interpretation. And the later two all happened to be at exactly the time he was referring to, which is sort of a coincidence I guess. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880847) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:01 AM Author: green multi-colored casino background story isn't it wickard, and not wickward? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880943) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:02 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH THE GUY DOESN'T EVEN FUCKING KNOW WHAT THE NAME OF THE CASE IS. WHO THE FUCK IS THIS NASC MOTHERFUCKER? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880949) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:05 AM Author: Electric sick property me: added a w in the middle
you: called it an etnirely different name that actually refers to a case that is being considered now. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:07 AM Author: green multi-colored casino background story it didn't really strike me as a fatal error (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880998) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:15 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter Hahahah. You can protect your dear buddy NASC all youwant, but he will eventually be executed for his transgressions today against common sense, reason, and the commerce and supremacy clauses, and the constitution. He has to learn, you'll agree. He's a grown up now, let him be a man and take it like a man. Stop coddling the poor fella. Whatever happened to "personal responsibility" and "paying for your own mistakes"? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4881075) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:34 AM Author: Electric sick property um, i've talked to him maybe 10 times total, we are far from dear buddies. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4881265) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:02 AM Author: Electric sick property yeah. but at least there isn't a wickward to confuse ti with. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880951) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:40 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter HAHAHAH no it's not. I'm assuming RedSox knows a little bit about con law. (Again, this is my assumption.) If he does, then he was thinking about Wickard and the line of cases after it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880697) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:54 AM Author: green multi-colored casino background story i wasn't referring to any case in particular. i just vaguely know that the commerce clause was expanded dramatically. i haven't bothered to read a conlaw case in years-- they are all crap. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880872) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:01 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter Any book will tell you that Wickard dramatically EXPANDED the scope of the commerce clause when it was decided. Now, unless you don't mean what you say (in other words, you asked about the case that DRAMATICALLY EXPANDED the scope of the commerce clause, but you merely meant the case that clarified its meaning), you meant Wickard. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880939) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:29 AM Author: Electric sick property because up to that point the government had no basis for saying a state couldn't do things like give monopolies on transport on roads within a state that connect states or various other shit. Then marshall's wording was even more powerful than that. His wording in the majority for gibbons was the basis for the strong commerce clause we've had throughout the course of history in the united states.
"[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States" doesn't discount the possibility that a person might need both a state and federal license for acts of interstate commerce. For instance it is entirely possible that a federal license just allows a person to do whatever he is doing in state's where he has a license from that state. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:38 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter "because up to that point the government had no basis for saying a state couldn't do things like give monopolies on transport on roads within a state that connect states or various other shit."
What the hell? So up to that point the Supremacy and Commerce clauses didn't exist? Were these not "bases"? LOL
And stop already with the nonsensical hypos. This isn't a con law course. (Although I'd make a pretty good con law prof, were it not for my absolute impatience.) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:42 AM Author: Electric sick property they existed, but they had not really been tested like this yet. Again, you seem to be confusing a correct decision with an unimportant one.
|
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:45 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter Show me where I said Gibbons was unimportant.
I'll give you a million bucks.
HAHAHAHHAHAAaaaaaaaa |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:50 AM Author: Electric sick property its not my fault that you called marbury "marshall" which is the name of another supreme court case.
And it doubly doesn't make sense because the marshall court was the authors of so many landmark cases. I could see if it was some obscure justice who only ruled on one case and there are no other cases that are commonly called by that name. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:54 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter HAHAHAHH I'm soooo glad you're latching on to this. Excellent work man!! See above where I referenced "Marbury v. Madison." ACTUALLY, I DID IT IN THE OP. HAhahahahah excellent work man!
(Are you mad yet? Yes? GOOD.) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:56 AM Author: Electric sick property No, I don't really care that you are comically stupid and know next to nothing about conlaw. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880894) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:58 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter Hey NASC: could you tell me a bit more about this "Marshall" case you've been talking about THIS WHOLE TIME? (And, if possible, could you explain why you were confused as to what I meant by "Marshall," when everyone else clearly knew what I meant, and even though I referenced Marbury v. Madison in the OP? Could you tell me why you weren't able to IMMEDIATELY pick that up? And why you've wasted the last 30 minutes of my life?) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880919) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:10 AM Author: Electric sick property you referrenced marbury in the op for the sole purpose of excluding it as the obvious answer, why you would then remention it later is beyond me and is in fact the root of my confusion as to your incorrect naming of a case by another case that is currently up and that another poster had jsut mentioned. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4881022) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 11:48 AM Author: silver university tank iirc, Darby was the beginning of the bootstrapping, Wickard was just a big extension of it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4882608) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:23 AM Author: clear offensive kitty cat messiness 'brown' is a joke.
schools in major cities are as segregated as ever. an abandoned public sector versus a well-funded private institution amounts to an even worse standard than 'seperate but equal' as far as public policy goes. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:35 AM Author: green multi-colored casino background story well then let's let the poor blacks attend the same schools as the upper class whites.
oh, wait, the teachers' union and the libs will never let that happen. never mind. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:45 AM Author: clear offensive kitty cat messiness the unfortunate reality is that the interests of the teachers' union fit in elegantly with the interests of the correctional officers' union. they're all in the same racket, the same racket as the evangelicals - the business of ignorance and mental slavery. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880760) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:47 AM Author: drunken faggot firefighter RedSox is an moron, sure, but are you ever *not* cynical? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880789) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:49 AM Author: clear offensive kitty cat messiness i'm just a californian.
we grow our social problems and entrenched interest groups big around here. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:50 AM Author: Histrionic pink scourge upon the earth ha! Its real simple, nobody gives a shit about the poors and rightly so. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880817) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:53 AM Author: clear offensive kitty cat messiness they DO care when warehousing them is their business.
also, does everyone born after 1980 say 'poors'? it strikes me as horrible english. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:57 AM Author: green multi-colored casino background story i'm sick of these fucking unions. i've spent a fair amount of time tutoring black teens who have been in legal trouble, and most of them could do well if they were placed in the right environment. however, the liberals/teacher's unions are staunchly opposed to giving them vouchers to get to the environment they need to be in. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880910) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:00 AM Author: violent hell generalized bond Why are liberals and teachers unions opposed to the vouchers? Trying to preserve the mystique of inner city schools? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880931) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:05 AM Author: green multi-colored casino background story because vouchers cause them to be accountable. if the public school teachers/administrators do a bad job, students will leave, and some of them will have to be fired.
for obvious reasons, teachers/admins would prefer zero accountability, even if it means worse education for kids. liberals strongly support this-- they sip their lattes and send their kids to fancy schools, but the second someone suggest that a negro attend those same schools, they recoil in horror. i just don't get it. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:01 AM Author: clear offensive kitty cat messiness ...thereby completing the abandonment of any kind of attempt at quality public education.
and, even better for 'conservatives', giving state subsidies to religious schools. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:03 AM Author: green multi-colored casino background story i'm an atheist. i don't give a shit about religion. however, i'd prefer that an inner city black teen get a high quality education at a religious school (with a dose of jeebus) than go to some school that will fail to do its job.
i still don't understnad how a liberal can look a family in the eye and say "Yeah, I know you want to send your kid to the upper class school in the other district, but we just don't want to see that happen. Stick with the crappy school." |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:08 AM Author: clear offensive kitty cat messiness personally, i think that public education below the university level is a failure, and should be closed down across the board. in post-prop13 california, it's like red-tagging a house where the foundation and roof are trashed.
but until that happens, punching holes in the roof is probably not the best approach to fixing the delapidated house.
sadly, that's the conservative answer to almost any government function - make the government's role so corrupt and incompetent that we'll have no choice but to simply destroy it in the future. whether it is education and research, foreign engagement, or basic infrastructure, the approach is the same - loot it and wreck it.
|
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:10 AM Author: green multi-colored casino background story "sadly, that's the conservative answer to almost any government function - make the government's role so corrupt and incompetent that we'll have no choice but to simply destroy it in the future. whether it is education and research, foreign engagement, or basic infrastructure, the approach is the same - loot it and wreck it."
perhaps in some other areas-- i don't proclaim to be an expert on every issue. however, in the field of education, an area which i have been involved in and try to follow, i find the liberal mentality repulsive, and i think the conservatives are spot-on.
no kid should be forced to attend a bad school. Period. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:14 AM Author: clear offensive kitty cat messiness do you not agree that vouchers would represent a defacto abandonment of public education in both principle and practice? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4881058) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:18 AM Author: green multi-colored casino background story it'd represent a defacto abandonment of the idea of public education for *everyone*, absolutely. i doubt that it will completely disappear. some public schools are on par with even the most elite private schools. they will not disappear.
note that we already have abandoned the notion of public education for *everyone*. right now the wealthy and privileged get to go to private schools. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:21 AM Author: clear offensive kitty cat messiness if lawmakers were clear about this, i think the debate would be entirely different. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4881119) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:29 AM Author: green multi-colored casino background story well, too many people get caught up in the fact that *some* students may elect to go to catholic schools.
in a perfect world, i'd prefer quality secular schools, but i'll take a good catholic school over a shitty public school anyday. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:44 AM Author: Histrionic pink scourge upon the earth Schenck but only because Im all in favor of putting liberals in prison for opening their mouths. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880752) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:55 AM Author: clear offensive kitty cat messiness you must love putin. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880875) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:57 AM Author: Histrionic pink scourge upon the earth His picture hangs on my wall, but only because I left my Stalin poster in NY. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880899) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:02 AM Author: clear offensive kitty cat messiness did you read the recent montefiore stalin book?
it is AWESOME. if you like history. it's in paperback now. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 2:06 AM Author: Histrionic pink scourge upon the earth I read a review of it. On a serious note, Schenck is a seriously scary case. Thank god the court has basically killed it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880997) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 3:20 AM Author: dark contagious patrolman wrinkle my con law professor was a clerk for warren at the time of brown v board. i went to every class, but unavoidably -- and regrettably -- missed the one day that he had anything to say about that case (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4881600) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 12:22 PM Author: green multi-colored casino background story don't worry, i'm sure he published some trite law review article on the topic. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4882766) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:02 PM Author: fuchsia toilet seat Roe not even worth a mention? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4883038) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 7:02 PM Author: green multi-colored casino background story is that a joke (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4886194) |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2006 8:22 PM Author: fuchsia toilet seat fuck if i know this topic. You tell me. |
|
Date: April 16th, 2006 6:09 AM Author: arousing black woman kitchen (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#5591588) |
|
Date: April 16th, 2006 6:10 AM Author: curious khaki forum dopamine Not Brown if only because it only affected a relatively small percentage of the population.
Probably McCulloch v. Maryland. |
|
Date: April 16th, 2006 10:34 AM Author: Odious avocado church building weed whacker Lawrence v. Texas, w00t! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#5591822) |
|
Date: April 16th, 2006 10:56 AM Author: Ruby codepig McCulloch v. Maryland. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#5591875) |
|
Date: April 16th, 2006 3:06 PM Author: laughsome ivory area milk Agreed (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#5593186) |
|
Date: April 16th, 2006 11:17 AM Author: ultramarine concupiscible dilemma West Coast Hotel v. Parrish / Carolene Products. Massive impact. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#5591929) |
|
Date: April 16th, 2006 11:19 AM Author: violent hell generalized bond Chevron USA
NOT! |
|
Date: April 16th, 2006 11:24 AM Author: ultramarine concupiscible dilemma Meadpwn3d AND Scaliapwn3d (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#5591960) |
|
Date: April 16th, 2006 11:26 AM Author: violent hell generalized bond Scalia = MeadPWN3D (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#5591967) |
|
Date: April 16th, 2006 12:18 PM Author: adventurous cowardly digit ratio main people hahaha, i just found this gem:
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:43 AM Author: NASC (http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=nascjacket)
not on par with marshall, which I have no idea who thinks that's even remotely as important as gibbons.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880731)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:45 AM Author: SH
Oh shit I think I just found out why you're confused. By "Marshall" I meant "Marbury v. Madison" (Marshall authored the opinion.) Is this what this is all about?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880754)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: January 22nd, 2006 1:48 AM Author: NASC (http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=nascjacket)
wtf? by that naming marshall would refer to gibbons as well as 2398702456234 other landmark cases. You really are dumb.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#4880805) |
|
Date: April 16th, 2006 12:35 PM Author: adventurous cowardly digit ratio main people Scott v. Sandford. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#5592195) |
|
Date: April 16th, 2006 3:35 PM Author: Gold Step-uncle's House Subject: Steel Seizure Steel Seizure Case (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#5593410) |
|
Date: April 16th, 2006 3:36 PM Author: adventurous cowardly digit ratio main people Important, of course. Most important, no way. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=343915&forum_id=2#5593413) |