\
  The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
BackRefresh Options Favorite

IPGunner: "There is a federal common law, despite ERIE

...
Chest-beating Travel Guidebook Market
  05/01/06
Date: May 1st, 2006 3:56 AM Author: 174 Subject: Not from ...
Chest-beating Travel Guidebook Market
  05/01/06
As I said in the other thread - every one of these quotes fr...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
where did he go?
Chest-beating Travel Guidebook Market
  05/01/06
Here's the wikipedia definition of 'federal common law' h...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
Actually, I think you meant to use "that," not &qu...
domesticated windowlicker depressive
  05/01/06
Yes, I posted a couple of law review articles below.
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
OMFG! I posted law review articles that discuss the exist...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
Here's another law review article: http://ilr.lls.edu/HOF...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
GOATSE ALERT!
domesticated windowlicker depressive
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
Although the United States Supreme Court has effectively bar...
comical church police squad
  05/01/06
This is what I've been saying all along - Erie said the fede...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
“Although it is much too late to deny that there is a signif...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
Dood you're wrong, face it and move on, and stop talking out...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
SCOTUS generally writes opinions, not articles.
domesticated windowlicker depressive
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
http://www.harrietmiers.blogspot.com/
blue piazza
  05/01/06
ACCEPT YOUR PWNAGE! there remain several areas of law whe...
comical church police squad
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
Maybe not yet, but in the meantime, can we get Alito to stop...
domesticated windowlicker depressive
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
Yeah, but unfortunately I can't find the citation right now....
domesticated windowlicker depressive
  05/01/06
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&...
comical church police squad
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
wtf? ipgunner said "there's federal common law" ...
comical church police squad
  05/01/06
Thanks for the backup. Funny that they created this thread ...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
yea, it's the best REVERSEPWNAGE this board has seen in quit...
comical church police squad
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&for...
comical church police squad
  05/01/06
LOL dood we didn't prove your point, unless you were trying ...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
Ok I will start posting SCOTUS cases that refer to federal c...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
"A number of District Courts nonetheless held that, alt...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
Corrected Quote
domesticated windowlicker depressive
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
I don't give a mother fucking rats ass what YOU call it, if ...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
where does he say the judiciary can make whatever law it wan...
comical church police squad
  05/01/06
"you take this to mean that hte judiciary can make what...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
"much of the confusion here seems to lie in the fact th...
blue piazza
  05/01/06
" Indeed, for federal common law to [**393] apply in t...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
Guess I could have ripped that chapter out of my Fed Courts ...
coral diverse hell
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
You used to study? Hard to tell from your posts. Did you s...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
A+
Tantric lodge quadroon
  05/01/06
I haven't been to Dom's in a few weeks. Probably won't make...
coral diverse hell
  05/01/06
"the individual's ATS claim did not meet the requiremen...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
Wow, the Z, 4, Q, Q, Q, Batman Symbol douchebag really got P...
sable deep volcanic crater
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
And what point was that?
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
*Bashes you over the head with a bat as you bow*
sable deep volcanic crater
  05/01/06
"there are perhaps some miniscule areas of the federal ...
nofapping mischievous area
  05/01/06
Why is the Z, 4, Q, Q, Q, Batman Symbol guy such a stupid ni...
sable deep volcanic crater
  05/01/06
What I want to know is why he continues to humiliate himself...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
that would be a great point if it even remontely captured th...
nofapping mischievous area
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
HOOHOO this is rich! Just when I think you can't get any du...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
You can take all the time you want, you aren't going to come...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
Dood, you're an idiot.
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
if this is how you define federal common law, then pretty mu...
Soul-stirring resort
  05/01/06
Exactly.
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
posner has made this precise observation
Out-of-control Point
  05/02/06
At this point, you are compounding your humiliation by demon...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
he seems to follow the same patterns of stupidity as "s...
nofapping mischievous area
  05/01/06
My first instinct was to suggest that they are the same post...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
What about federal common law that isn't based on statute at...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
Ummm, that is a far cry from your original position that fed...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
Not really. See Grokster and Sony copyright cases regarding...
mauve hospital
  05/01/06
Citing examples to him won't work. I actually gave several ...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
Not to mention patent law. The concept of patent misuse, do...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
I was thinking of Bivens actions as the example, but I think...
coral diverse hell
  05/01/06
I don't even see the point of the thread.
sable deep volcanic crater
  05/01/06
"While Bivens stands,the ground supporting it has erode...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
I think fed common law generally exists.
aromatic walnut center wrinkle
  05/01/06
Was it all the quotes from recent SCOTUS cases that convince...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
not a great showing for redsox7. LOL he has been completely ...
aromatic walnut center wrinkle
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
i'm rather disappointed in you. you've certainly been wrong ...
aromatic walnut center wrinkle
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
i'm sure you'll try.
aromatic walnut center wrinkle
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
(Scalia) : Although in one respect, the Law Lords seem less ...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
I'm not reading all this, but really, does anyone serious di...
orchid dilemma tattoo
  05/01/06
(Scalia) : Although in one respect, the Law Lords seem less ...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
Virtually no; few, very minor exceptions; these sound like c...
orchid dilemma tattoo
  05/01/06
Yeah, see what I mean? There he goes again. Why don't yo...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
Scalia was comparing the US federal courts with the British ...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
Dood, he never said there isn't any federal common law. Loo...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
Seriously dood you need to learn to read. Scalia did not sa...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
Z, 4, Q, Q, Q, Batman Symbol tried really hard to say it doe...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
Like interstate disputes? Federal common law. Congressiona...
orchid dilemma tattoo
  05/01/06
Patent doctrines of licensee estoppel, doctrine of equivalen...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
on a related note, patent law really isn't that complicated....
aromatic walnut center wrinkle
  05/01/06
LOL So you're saying it IS complicated, because judges an...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
i'm pretty sure it has something to do with activist federal...
aromatic walnut center wrinkle
  05/01/06
"Funny, why haven't lawyers and judges in other areas c...
aromatic walnut center wrinkle
  05/01/06
I'm laughing all the way to the bank. Hooray for patent law...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
Court review of a jury's award as one that "shocks the ...
orchid dilemma tattoo
  05/01/06
ah, ruminations of 1L civil procedure. i rather enjoyed that...
aromatic walnut center wrinkle
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
GENERAL federal common law =/= ALL TYPES of federal common l...
orchid dilemma tattoo
  05/01/06
This is a DISSENT.
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
Are you guys fucking serious? This is a real debate? Havent ...
plum haunting box office
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
As far as I can tell you were heavily involved in refusing t...
plum haunting box office
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
Then why are you even involved in this "debate"? D...
plum haunting box office
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
I find it hard to fucking believe that you've been on this t...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
GENERAL federal common law =/= ALL TYPES of federal common l...
orchid dilemma tattoo
  05/01/06
Don't forget Customary International Law. See Sosa v. Alv...
wonderful forum
  05/01/06
Machain is a hilarious case, who cant get behind abduction? ...
plum haunting box office
  05/01/06
Of course there's federal common law.
mahogany theatre
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
Just stop. Seriously. You are way out of your league here. A...
plum haunting box office
  05/01/06
GENERAL federal common law =/= ALL TYPES of federal common l...
orchid dilemma tattoo
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
I am saying that there exists one or more sets of common law...
mahogany theatre
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
I was actually speaking as someone who just spent a year cle...
mahogany theatre
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
By "spoken like a true corporate attorney" do you ...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
Hey guys, I think if you just keep kicking the air, Z, 4,...
Aquamarine hairy legs
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
I like when people start threads to bash someone and wind up...
concupiscible infuriating sweet tailpipe marketing idea
  05/01/06
Act of State Doctrine is entirely a federal common law creat...
Razzle-dazzle gas station
  05/01/06
We've mentioned dozens of others in the course of debating t...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
No, you don't. You really, really, really don't.
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
OMFG Ok legal assistant, thanks for educating us all on w...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
Somewhere in the other thread someone mentioned that you onc...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
This is my only moniker. So is it true? Do you really ...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/01/06
"This is my only moniker." stupid fuck. everyon...
Bespoke Mind-boggling Corner Affirmative Action
  05/01/06
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=397405&mc=46...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
See: Marbury v. Madison.
Passionate heaven headpube
  05/01/06
First of all, citing anything before Erie won't convince him...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
I never really thought law school could be hard for anyone u...
thriller ticket booth
  05/01/06
Don't waste your breath - no matter how many people call him...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
in theory, there is supposed to be no federal common law exc...
Soul-stirring resort
  05/01/06
admiralty
Glittery metal turdskin
  05/01/06
IPGunner = Patent Troll. why does he lie?
Bespoke Mind-boggling Corner Affirmative Action
  05/01/06
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=397405&mc=47...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
that doesn't answer why you lie. well? why do you lie? and s...
Bespoke Mind-boggling Corner Affirmative Action
  05/01/06
He's right, there's federal procedural common law and some c...
narrow-minded spot preventive strike
  05/01/06
what do you mean by fed procedural common law? like "la...
Soul-stirring resort
  05/01/06
Oddly, I'm going to be doing a huge project on procedural co...
narrow-minded spot preventive strike
  05/01/06
the real point is that federal common law exists in areas th...
Soul-stirring resort
  05/01/06
I actually don't think antitrust is a common law area, altho...
narrow-minded spot preventive strike
  05/01/06
Antitrust law is almost entirely federal common law. A cour...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
even ttt 1ls that just read the fucking glannon E&E know...
motley useless station
  05/01/06
people act like this stuff is so complicated or arcane. See ...
Bespoke Mind-boggling Corner Affirmative Action
  05/01/06
Titcr.
thriller ticket booth
  05/01/06
Please note that I did not start this thread it was started ...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/01/06
This Court has recently discussed what one might call “feder...
Curious hot base
  05/02/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/04/06
In case you didn't notice, all of those arguments are normat...
thriller ticket booth
  05/04/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/04/06
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 creates substantive federal comm...
pea-brained pit
  05/02/06
Such a beautiful one-sided nerd fight...
Underhanded Multi-colored Mad-dog Skullcap
  05/02/06
this thread was really quite tragic.
aromatic walnut center wrinkle
  05/04/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/04/06
as you should. give up now and you look worse.
aromatic walnut center wrinkle
  05/04/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/04/06
law students aren't misconceiving the existence of a fcl. th...
aromatic walnut center wrinkle
  05/04/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/04/06
i am NOT about to get into this with you right now. O'Melven...
aromatic walnut center wrinkle
  05/04/06
Bump, because the idiocy displayed herein must be preserved ...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/05/06
See, e.g., Fed. R. Evid. 501.
Exciting rough-skinned national digit ratio
  05/05/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/05/06
No, it still is. FRE 501 preserves all privileges at COMMON ...
Razzmatazz telephone nibblets
  05/05/06
I agree - it is extremely frustrating to have to suffer thes...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/05/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/05/06
I posted a response below - check it out.
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/05/06
Hold on a second here. "the statute plainly states t...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/05/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/05/06
Wow, you really are determined to become one of the dumbest ...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/05/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/05/06
I assume that the history of the FRE is similar to that of t...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/05/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/05/06
And the courts promulgate the federal rules of civil procedu...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/05/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/05/06
I never said any court was empowered to enact any statute. ...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/05/06
END OF THREAD
Razzmatazz telephone nibblets
  05/05/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/05/06
We've cited recent supreme court cases that all acknowledge ...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/05/06
you're kidding, right? of course it's not just a/c privilege...
Exciting rough-skinned national digit ratio
  05/05/06
This is truly the most horrifying self-pwn4ag3 of all time. ...
Provocative Indirect Expression
  05/05/06
Z4QQQ - I'm starting to get the idea that you don't really k...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/05/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/05/06
Starting with O'Melveny & Myers: You are taking that...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/05/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/05/06
It said that is limited when it comes to crafting federal co...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/05/06
can you let this thread die now? this doesn't really look go...
aromatic walnut center wrinkle
  05/05/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/05/06
he thinks courts enact statutes?
aromatic walnut center wrinkle
  05/05/06
No that is a boldfaced lie.
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/05/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/05/06
Yes, what I wrote is correct. I didn't edit it and I don't ...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/05/06
I never said that the court can enact statutes, that is a li...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/05/06
Check out this website explaining the process: http://www...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/05/06
Authority The Congress has authorized the federal judici...
aromatic walnut center wrinkle
  05/05/06
That is exactly what I'm talking about. And I was right t...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/05/06
sounds about right. Congress creates the right. there isn'...
White Bisexual Set
  05/05/06
OMG you are a total idiot. This part has nothing to do ...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/05/06
yeah, courts enact statutes!! you're right. good job! ma...
White Bisexual Set
  05/05/06
No, the courts do NOT enact statutes. I have never, ever sa...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/05/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/05/06
Wrong. SH said it well: http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/05/06
I don't get why you keep bumping this thread.
aromatic walnut center wrinkle
  05/05/06
Because it is one of the best threads ever.
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/05/06
You can read all about federal rulemaking here: http://ww...
slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit
  05/05/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  05/23/06
XOXO: A Pretty Fucking Shitty Souce of Information. This th...
red toaster
  10/11/06
Thanks for the bump. I ignored this hooknose asshole's argu...
Bateful high-end hominid
  10/11/06
Definitely a good course of action--IPGunner was just pourin...
red toaster
  10/11/06
I DETECT SOME RACIAL INSENSITIVITY MISTER.
Beady-eyed incel ape
  10/11/06
Still funny
red toaster
  10/26/06
...
White Bisexual Set
  10/26/06
...
Medicated startling lettuce
  05/01/07
1 year anniversary!
Supple immigrant feces
  05/01/07
2 years after graduation, I dont even remember what common l...
Talented charcoal idiot tank
  05/01/07
anyone remember AK47's old moniker?
laughsome awkward partner
  05/01/07
*giggles* i'll never tell
Chest-beating Travel Guidebook Market
  05/01/07
so basically you're Bull Connor? http://attention-there-i...
laughsome awkward partner
  05/01/07
i'm amazed at your detective skills. you should get a medal.
Chest-beating Travel Guidebook Market
  05/01/07
what about 10b-5? Isnt the private right of action judicial...
Frisky startled school
  05/01/07
After just 3 weeks of law school, this thread gives me a lol...
Odious chapel
  09/13/07
Its too bad someone took out some of the posts in here. Thi...
marvelous embarrassed to the bone location
  06/27/08


Poast new message in this thread





Date: May 1st, 2006 3:56 AM
Author: Chest-beating Travel Guidebook Market



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692578)





Date: May 1st, 2006 3:58 AM
Author: Chest-beating Travel Guidebook Market

Date: May 1st, 2006 3:56 AM

Author: 174

Subject: Not from Google, but here's some from Westlaw:

There is no federal general common law and Congress has no power to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a state, whether they be local or general in nature, be they commercial law or apart of the law of torts.

Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817 (U.S. 1938)

_________

Except in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state. And whether the law of the state shall be declared by its Legislature in a statute or by its highest court in a decision is not a matter of federal concern. There is no federal general common law.

Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64, *78, 58 S.Ct. 817, **822 (U.S. 1938)

____________

The fallacy underlying the rule declared in Swift v. Tyson is made clear by Mr. Justice Holmes.FN23 The doctrine rests upon the assumption that there is ‘a transcendental body of law outside of any particular State but obligatory within it unless and until changed by statute,’ that federal courts have the power to use their judgment as to what the rules of common law are; and that in the federal courts ‘the parties are entitled to an independent judgment on matters of general law’

Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64, *79, 58 S.Ct. 817, **823 (U.S. 1938)

______________

The phrase “laws of the several states,” as used in statute requiring federal courts to apply laws of the several states except in matters governed by federal Constitution or statutes, held to include not only state statutory law, but also state decisions on questions of general law, in absence of any constitutional provision purporting to confer upon federal courts power of declaring substantive rules of common law applicable in a state. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1652.

Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817 (U.S. 1938)

__________________

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408848&forum_id=2#5692579)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692582)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:13 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

As I said in the other thread - every one of these quotes from Erie refers to federal common law regarding STATE law matters. Erie said that federal courts must apply state statutes and common law in deciding state law matters.

This does NOT mean that there is no federal common law!

Here's a link describing a Yale law review article about federal common law:

http://www.yalelawjournal.org/107/107-2.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692615)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:00 AM
Author: Chest-beating Travel Guidebook Market

where did he go?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692587)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:16 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

Here's the wikipedia definition of 'federal common law'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_common_law

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692625)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:18 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692632)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:19 AM
Author: domesticated windowlicker depressive

Actually, I think you meant to use "that," not "which."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692635)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:20 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

Yes, I posted a couple of law review articles below.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692640)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:20 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692642)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:22 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

OMFG!

I posted law review articles that discuss the existence of it. Why would they discuss the existence of it if it didn't exist???

Obviously I'm not saying that it exists because they SAY it exists.

Man you prove yet again that you are a supreme idiot.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692649)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:18 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

Here's another law review article:

http://ilr.lls.edu/HOFFMAN.pdf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692630)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:18 AM
Author: domesticated windowlicker depressive

GOATSE ALERT!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692631)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:20 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692641)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:19 AM
Author: comical church police squad

Although the United States Supreme Court has effectively barred the creation of federal common law in areas traditionally under the authority of state courts, there are several areas where federal common law continues to govern.

PWN3D!



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692639)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:21 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

This is what I've been saying all along - Erie said the federal courts can't create common law regarding STATE law matters but they still create common law regarding FEDERAL law matters. What do people think a circuit split is anyway??

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692643)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:22 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set

“Although it is much too late to deny that there is a significant body of federal law that has been fashioned by the federal judiciary in the common-law tradition, it remains true that federal courts, unlike their state counterparts, are courts of limited jurisdiction that have not been vested with open-ended lawmaking powers.” Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers, 451 U.S. 77, 95 (1981).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692650)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:23 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

Dood you're wrong, face it and move on, and stop talking out of your ass.

FINE I will go find a scotus opinion.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692653)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:24 AM
Author: domesticated windowlicker depressive

SCOTUS generally writes opinions, not articles.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692655)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:25 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692658)





Date: May 1st, 2006 8:03 AM
Author: blue piazza

http://www.harrietmiers.blogspot.com/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692990)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:25 AM
Author: comical church police squad

ACCEPT YOUR PWNAGE!

there remain several areas of law where federal common law is allowed to continue, particularly where the Constitution of the United States gives the U.S. Congress power to make laws in an area, such as admiralty law, antitrust, bankruptcy law, and civil rights.

Congress often lays down broad mandates with vague standards, which are then left to the courts to interpret, and these interpretations eventually give rise to complex understandings of the original intent of Congress, informed by the courts' understanding of what is just and reasonable.

Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has also determined that federal courts are allowed to fashion common law rules where a significantly important federal interest exists. The case of Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943), the court set forth three criteria for determining whether the court should create a federal common law rule:

Is there a federal competence to create law in this area—i.e. would Congress be able to adopt a law in such an area?

If there is federal competence, should state or federal law govern?

If federal law governs, should courts borrow state law or create a new federal rule?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_common_law"



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692656)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:26 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692659)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:28 AM
Author: domesticated windowlicker depressive

Maybe not yet, but in the meantime, can we get Alito to stop citing dictionary.com?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692661)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:29 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692662)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:34 AM
Author: domesticated windowlicker depressive

Yeah, but unfortunately I can't find the citation right now. D'oh.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692681)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:29 AM
Author: comical church police squad

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=318&page=363

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692663)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:33 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692675)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:37 AM
Author: comical church police squad

wtf? ipgunner said "there's federal common law"

you said, "it doesn't exist"

you = wrong

you = PWN3D!



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692689)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:39 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

Thanks for the backup. Funny that they created this thread to try to humiliate me for being wrong. When all they did is prove how stupid they are for failing to grasp such an elementary concept.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692693)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:41 AM
Author: comical church police squad

yea, it's the best REVERSEPWNAGE this board has seen in quite some time!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692697)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:43 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692702)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:45 AM
Author: comical church police squad

http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692699

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692710)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:47 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

LOL dood we didn't prove your point, unless you were trying to make the point that you're an IDIOT.

What 'point' are you referring to? Your link made no sense.

You're an idiot, you got PWN3D, now go crawl off somewhere.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692718)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:31 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

Ok I will start posting SCOTUS cases that refer to federal common law.

"In County of Oneida v Oneida Indian Nation (1985) 470 U.S. 226, 84 L. Ed. 2d 169, 105 S. Ct. 1245, the United States Supreme Court (1) held that the Oneidas could maintain a claim to be compensated for violation of their possessory rights on the basis of federal common law, but (2) reserved the question whether equitable considerations ought to limit the relief available."

City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, 544 U.S. 197



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692667)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:32 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

"A number of District Courts nonetheless held that, although CERCLA did not mention the word "contribution," such a right arose either impliedly from provisions of the statute, or as a matter of federal common law."

Cooper Indus. v. Aviall Servs., 543 U.S. 157 (2004)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692670)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:34 AM
Author: domesticated windowlicker depressive
Subject: Corrected Quote

"A number of District Courts nonetheless held that, although CERCLA did not mention the word 'contribution,' such a right arose either impliedly from provisions of the statute, or as a matter of federal common law."

Cooper Indus. v. Aviall Servs., 543 U.S. 157 (2004).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692680)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:35 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692683)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:38 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

I don't give a mother fucking rats ass what YOU call it, if you call it the wrong thing it is your fault and not mine. You're a fucking retard, you have trouble wrapping your mind around the most basic concepts in thread after thread. YOU'RE WRONG, ADMIT IT, GROW UP, AND MOVE ON.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692690)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:38 AM
Author: comical church police squad

where does he say the judiciary can make whatever law it wants?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692691)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:41 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

"you take this to mean that hte judiciary can make whatever law it wants. that i do not understand. "

You completely fabricated this. I never said any such thing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692698)





Date: May 1st, 2006 8:05 AM
Author: blue piazza

"much of the confusion here seems to lie in the fact that we are referring to the same words to mean two different things."

This is how 90% of genuine fights on this board get started.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692994)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:33 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

" Indeed, for federal common law to [**393] apply in these circumstances, this suit must also be sustainable under the admiralty jurisdiction."

Norfolk Southern Ry. v. James N. Kirby, Pty Ltd., 543 U.S. 14 (2004)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692679)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:35 AM
Author: coral diverse hell

Guess I could have ripped that chapter out of my Fed Courts casebook.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692684)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:49 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692729)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:51 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

You used to study? Hard to tell from your posts. Did you suffer brain damage in a terrible accident?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692734)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:52 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692741)





Date: May 1st, 2006 3:31 PM
Author: Tantric lodge quadroon

A+

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5694934)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:51 AM
Author: coral diverse hell

I haven't been to Dom's in a few weeks. Probably won't make it there ever again. Eh, too bad.

Thanks for the congrats. I'm definitely ready to be done.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692736)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:36 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

"the individual's ATS claim did not meet the requirement that federal courts ought not to recognize private claims, under federal common law, for violations of any international-law norm with less definite content and acceptance among civilized nations than the historical paradigms familiar when the ATS had been enacted in 1789, as:"

Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692685)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:41 AM
Author: sable deep volcanic crater

Wow, the Z, 4, Q, Q, Q, Batman Symbol douchebag really got PIZOWN3D on this thread. HAHA read the cases slowly you stupid niggers. This shit isn't that hard.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692699)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:43 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692706)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:48 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

And what point was that?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692723)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:49 AM
Author: sable deep volcanic crater

*Bashes you over the head with a bat as you bow*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692727)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:44 AM
Author: nofapping mischievous area

"there are perhaps some miniscule areas of the federal law made in the common law tradition,"

like copyright? that's one of several examples, already noted. the majority of what would be regarded as "copyright law" is not codified in any of the copyright acts, but rather has evolved as what is generally referred to as "common law." federal courts aren't filling trivial interstices in hightly specific statutes; they're doing exactly what state courts do when they make tort law.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692707)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:45 AM
Author: sable deep volcanic crater

Why is the Z, 4, Q, Q, Q, Batman Symbol guy such a stupid nigger?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692711)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:50 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

What I want to know is why he continues to humiliate himself. Doesn't he have any self respect?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692730)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:48 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692726)





Date: May 1st, 2006 5:05 AM
Author: nofapping mischievous area

that would be a great point if it even remontely captured the essence of what common law is, or is not. all common law has as its "source" either some general edict or pronouncement that's indistinguishible from a statute, or what is formally a statute. with copyright, again, the statute says, e.g., only that "fair use" is permitted, much as there are (state) statutes that say little more than "unconscionable contracts are not to be enforced." from there, it is the courts -- entirely -- that define what fair use and unconscionable contracts are, through a succession of (mostly appellate) decisions.

and if you go to a trial court seeking relief that has neither a statutory basis nor precdential case law to support it, that's an action that will be dismissed on the pleadings. there is no sense in which either modern state courts regard themselves as being empowered to make whatever law they please, or fedral courts are merely "interpreting" extensive statutory codifications at the margins. as a matter of degree federal statutes might generally be more detailed. but in those areas of law where there is federal preemption, federal courts are doing exactly what state courts are doing, even if you can cite some isolated bits of puffery that suggest they shouldn't be doing so,

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692769)





Date: May 1st, 2006 5:22 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692795)





Date: May 1st, 2006 5:25 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

HOOHOO this is rich! Just when I think you can't get any dumber you come out with something like this!

There is NO STATE PERIOD where caselaw trumps a later-in-time state statute (assuming the statute is constitutional and otherwise valid). Just suggesting such a thing is preposterous.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692805)





Date: May 1st, 2006 5:28 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692811)





Date: May 1st, 2006 5:30 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

You can take all the time you want, you aren't going to come up with a state.

And I guarantee that whatever you eventually post to try to counter what I said, it will be something you misunderstood and are posting completely out of context.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692813)





Date: May 1st, 2006 5:42 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692825)





Date: May 1st, 2006 5:44 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

Dood, you're an idiot.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692830)





Date: May 1st, 2006 5:47 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692833)





Date: May 1st, 2006 12:00 PM
Author: Soul-stirring resort

if this is how you define federal common law, then pretty much all of antitrust is federal common law.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693644)





Date: May 1st, 2006 12:02 PM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

Exactly.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693660)





Date: May 2nd, 2006 2:51 PM
Author: Out-of-control Point

posner has made this precise observation

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5700603)





Date: May 1st, 2006 5:07 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

At this point, you are compounding your humiliation by demonstrating to one and all that you really don't even get what common law is in the first place. Wow, just, wow.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692771)





Date: May 1st, 2006 5:18 AM
Author: nofapping mischievous area

he seems to follow the same patterns of stupidity as "stonewall jackson," perhaps the dumbest person ever to post here.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692789)





Date: May 1st, 2006 5:21 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

My first instinct was to suggest that they are the same poster, but then I remembered that there is no shortage of retarded posters here. He also didn't switch accounts to give SJ a chance to post in his defense.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692792)





Date: May 1st, 2006 5:24 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692802)





Date: May 1st, 2006 5:11 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

What about federal common law that isn't based on statute at all? See for example The Charming Betsy (which is still good law) where the supreme court used the 'law of nations' to construe a statute. The 'law of nations' was unwritten 'law' that had developed through centuries of accepted practice. The 'law of nations' is still used even today as federal common law.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692774)





Date: May 1st, 2006 5:23 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692798)





Date: May 1st, 2006 5:27 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

Ummm, that is a far cry from your original position that federal common law doesn't exist at all.

And then you tried to make some lame excuse that common law is derived from statute and really isn't different from statute.

And now, when I point out that some common law has NO basis in statute, you just note that it is the exception - you don't even try to argue that I'm wrong anymore.

Wow - your position is just crumbling to nothing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692809)





Date: May 1st, 2006 11:21 AM
Author: mauve hospital

Not really. See Grokster and Sony copyright cases regarding contributory infringement and inducement. Basically pulled straight from common law without a statutory hook.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693439)





Date: May 1st, 2006 11:24 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

Citing examples to him won't work. I actually gave several cites to recent SCOTUS cases where they specifically discussed federal common law. He still doesn't get it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693456)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:49 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

Not to mention patent law. The concept of patent misuse, doctrine of equivalents, licensee estoppel - all of these are FEDERAL COMMON LAW.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692728)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:52 AM
Author: coral diverse hell

I was thinking of Bivens actions as the example, but I think that is just because I am fond of the case name.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692740)





Date: May 1st, 2006 4:53 AM
Author: sable deep volcanic crater

I don't even see the point of the thread.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692743)





Date: May 1st, 2006 5:27 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set

"While Bivens stands,the ground supporting it has eroded. For the past 25 years, we have consistently refused to extend Bivens liability to any new context.; Correctional Services Corp., supra, at 68. Bivens is a relic of the heady days in which this Court assumed common-law powers to create causes

of action. 534 U. S., at 75 (SCALIA, J., concurring)." (scalia)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692810)





Date: May 1st, 2006 5:13 AM
Author: aromatic walnut center wrinkle

I think fed common law generally exists.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692778)





Date: May 1st, 2006 5:14 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

Was it all the quotes from recent SCOTUS cases that convinced you?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692780)





Date: May 1st, 2006 5:25 AM
Author: aromatic walnut center wrinkle

not a great showing for redsox7. LOL he has been completely disgraced.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692807)





Date: May 1st, 2006 5:32 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692818)





Date: May 1st, 2006 5:38 AM
Author: aromatic walnut center wrinkle

i'm rather disappointed in you. you've certainly been wrong before, but never hilariously wrong like this.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692822)





Date: May 1st, 2006 5:43 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692826)





Date: May 1st, 2006 5:44 AM
Author: aromatic walnut center wrinkle

i'm sure you'll try.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692828)





Date: May 1st, 2006 5:48 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692836)





Date: May 1st, 2006 5:47 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set

(Scalia) : Although in one respect, the Law Lords seem less potent than the Supreme Court of the United States, in that they are not operating under a written constitution, so they can't just disregard an act of Parliament, but in another respect, they are MORE potent than the Supreme Court of the United States, because they are a common law court, which we are not. There is virtually no Federal common law, my court is always dealing with a text, either with a Federal statute, or with the text of the Constitution...By and large - with few, very minor exceptions - there is no federal common law, so we can't make it up. Or at least, we're not supposed to be making it up.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692834)





Date: May 1st, 2006 6:08 AM
Author: orchid dilemma tattoo

I'm not reading all this, but really, does anyone serious dispute this, flame aside?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692864)





Date: May 1st, 2006 6:09 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set

(Scalia) : Although in one respect, the Law Lords seem less potent than the Supreme Court of the United States, in that they are not operating under a written constitution, so they can't just disregard an act of Parliament, but in another respect, they are MORE potent than the Supreme Court of the United States, because they are a common law court, which we are not. There is virtually no Federal common law, my court is always dealing with a text, either with a Federal statute, or with the text of the Constitution...By and large - with few, very minor exceptions - there is no federal common law, so we can't make it up. Or at least, we're not supposed to be making it up.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692868)





Date: May 1st, 2006 6:11 AM
Author: orchid dilemma tattoo

Virtually no; few, very minor exceptions; these sound like caveats to that are entirely consistent with the OP and entirely inconsistent with what you think.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692875)





Date: May 1st, 2006 6:12 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

Yeah, see what I mean? There he goes again.

Why don't you give us a link for that quote so we can explain to you what it means in context?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692876)





Date: May 1st, 2006 6:13 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692881)





Date: May 1st, 2006 6:19 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

Scalia was comparing the US federal courts with the British system. England has no constitution - its law is far more based on common law than our own. Compared to the Brit system, we have less federal common law, but he was going a little over the top and overgeneralizing a bit.

Now go back at the other posts I've given by OTHER supreme court justices who were writing OPINIONS and not interviews. And stop acting like an idiot.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692888)





Date: May 1st, 2006 6:21 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692892)





Date: May 1st, 2006 6:25 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

Dood, he never said there isn't any federal common law. Look at all of the SCOTUS cases I posted.

He DID say 'with very minor exceptions there is no federal common law' - but 'minor exceptions' is a relative term.

He was comparing it to the English system, and compared to it, our system has a lot less. That doesn't mean to say that we don't have any. And in fact we have quite a lot.

Scalia is probably confusing you because according to HIM there isn't much federal common law because judges are supposed to construe the constitution very strictly. In his view, judges shouldn't be making federal common law. But even he acknowledges that they do.

Seriously man give it a rest, read some SCOTUS cases that talk about it in depth.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692903)





Date: May 1st, 2006 6:27 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692907)





Date: May 1st, 2006 6:29 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

Seriously dood you need to learn to read. Scalia did not say that there is no federal common law.

When you read a passage, remember to read the few words BEFORE and AFTER it as well to really get the full meaning. Pulling a few words out of context will only confuse your feeble mind.

I know you like to read as few words as possible, but try not to.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692912)





Date: May 1st, 2006 6:33 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692920)





Date: May 1st, 2006 6:11 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

Z, 4, Q, Q, Q, Batman Symbol tried really hard to say it doesn't exist. He pulled his usual routine - quote a bunch of irrelevant stuff out of context that he clearly doesn't understand, etc.

He likes to find a passage that has the words he wants to see all together in one place, but doesn't have any understanding of what those words mean in relation to each other and the other words in the passage.

One dumb fuck.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692874)





Date: May 1st, 2006 6:12 AM
Author: orchid dilemma tattoo

Like interstate disputes? Federal common law. Congressional delegation of common law? Federal common law. Proprietary interests of the United States? Implied right of action?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692879)





Date: May 1st, 2006 6:14 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

Patent doctrines of licensee estoppel, doctrine of equivalents, patent misuse? All federal common law.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692883)





Date: May 1st, 2006 6:16 AM
Author: aromatic walnut center wrinkle

on a related note, patent law really isn't that complicated. patent lawyers and judges only make it complicated to keep fees high.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692885)





Date: May 1st, 2006 6:20 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

LOL

So you're saying it IS complicated, because judges and lawyers make it complicated to keep fees high right?

Funny, why haven't lawyers and judges in other areas caught on? Must all be dumb I guess.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692890)





Date: May 1st, 2006 6:24 AM
Author: aromatic walnut center wrinkle

i'm pretty sure it has something to do with activist federal judges, justice scalia, federal common law, raines v byrd, festo v shoketsu, the hard science requirement, and the USPTO.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692900)





Date: May 1st, 2006 6:28 AM
Author: aromatic walnut center wrinkle

"Funny, why haven't lawyers and judges in other areas caught on? Must all be dumb I guess."

well, other areas don't really lend themselves to needless complexity. for example, in tort law, duty is duty. and in the criminal law, intent is intent. only patent law gives you room to maneuver and inject needless complexity where it doesn't belong.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692909)





Date: May 1st, 2006 6:30 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

I'm laughing all the way to the bank. Hooray for patent law! SUCKAZ!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692915)





Date: May 1st, 2006 6:35 AM
Author: orchid dilemma tattoo

Court review of a jury's award as one that "shocks the conscience," per Gasperini?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692921)





Date: May 1st, 2006 6:37 AM
Author: aromatic walnut center wrinkle

ah, ruminations of 1L civil procedure. i rather enjoyed that course.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692922)





Date: May 1st, 2006 6:57 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692928)





Date: May 1st, 2006 6:58 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692930)





Date: May 1st, 2006 7:45 AM
Author: orchid dilemma tattoo

GENERAL federal common law =/= ALL TYPES of federal common law

Take a class. This thread is CLOSED.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692967)





Date: May 1st, 2006 10:49 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

This is a DISSENT.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693293)





Date: May 1st, 2006 8:24 AM
Author: plum haunting box office

Are you guys fucking serious? This is a real debate? Havent any of you ever taken fed cts? Dont you understand that what this IP fellow is referring to is completely seperate from what Erie stands for? Holy Christ this may be the most retarded "debate" on the law Ive seen on this board. All thats missing is plucot.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693014)





Date: May 1st, 2006 8:29 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693018)





Date: May 1st, 2006 8:31 AM
Author: plum haunting box office

As far as I can tell you were heavily involved in refusing to understand what he was referring to, instead preferring to pound on ERIE ERIE ERIE over and over again, like a simpleton.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693022)





Date: May 1st, 2006 8:34 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693028)





Date: May 1st, 2006 8:34 AM
Author: plum haunting box office

Then why are you even involved in this "debate"? Dont tell me youre a pre law

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693030)





Date: May 1st, 2006 8:37 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693034)





Date: May 1st, 2006 10:53 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

I find it hard to fucking believe that you've been on this thing all through the night while I was asleep - yet here you are.

You really need to get some therapy. Staying up all night, refusing to give up on this hopless crusade after EVERYONE has told you you're out of your mind - that must be indiciative of some kind of mental illness. Please get help - it actually isn't funny to crucify you any more. It is becomming absolutely tragic and pathetic.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693308)





Date: May 1st, 2006 8:37 AM
Author: orchid dilemma tattoo

GENERAL federal common law =/= ALL TYPES of federal common law

Take a class. This thread is CLOSED.

http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692967

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693035)





Date: May 1st, 2006 8:31 AM
Author: wonderful forum

Don't forget Customary International Law.

See Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (2004) a/k/a the "Bivens" of International Law. Also known to Justice Scalia as the epitomy of the Court's "never say never" jurisprudence.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693024)





Date: May 1st, 2006 8:32 AM
Author: plum haunting box office

Machain is a hilarious case, who cant get behind abduction? The reasoning by Rehnquist really brings a smile to my face from a detached observer perspective. And I cant wait till someone starts arguing there is no customary international law.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693026)





Date: May 1st, 2006 8:33 AM
Author: mahogany theatre

Of course there's federal common law.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693027)





Date: May 1st, 2006 8:34 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693029)





Date: May 1st, 2006 8:35 AM
Author: plum haunting box office

Just stop. Seriously. You are way out of your league here. Anyone who is not brain dead and in LS knows what hes referring to.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693032)





Date: May 1st, 2006 8:38 AM
Author: orchid dilemma tattoo

GENERAL federal common law =/= ALL TYPES of federal common law

Take a class. This thread is CLOSED.

http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5692967

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693036)





Date: May 1st, 2006 8:38 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693037)





Date: May 1st, 2006 8:40 AM
Author: mahogany theatre

I am saying that there exists one or more sets of common law promulgated by the federal courts. I don't know what "two different things" you mean and I don't care. I am aware that there is no general federal common law of contracts or property or whatever.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693039)





Date: May 1st, 2006 8:44 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693041)





Date: May 1st, 2006 8:48 AM
Author: mahogany theatre

I was actually speaking as someone who just spent a year clerking on a federal appellate court MAKING AND INTERPRETING FEDERAL (COMMON) LAW, but think what you want.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693044)





Date: May 1st, 2006 8:49 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693047)





Date: May 1st, 2006 10:59 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

By "spoken like a true corporate attorney" do you mean that he just said a bunch of stuff you don't understand? Because I understood it just fine.

You are an idiot, you have no credibility, and every time I see you post from now on I am going to post a link to this thread so that you can relive your humiliation over and over.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693338)





Date: May 1st, 2006 11:33 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693487)





Date: May 1st, 2006 8:51 AM
Author: Aquamarine hairy legs

Hey guys,

I think if you just keep kicking the air, Z, 4, Q, Q, Q, Batman Symbol will keep ramming his head into it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693048)





Date: May 1st, 2006 8:52 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693050)





Date: May 1st, 2006 10:41 AM
Author: concupiscible infuriating sweet tailpipe marketing idea

I like when people start threads to bash someone and wind up getting utterly PWN3D like you and the OP did. Thank you for entertaining me this morning.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693260)





Date: May 1st, 2006 10:55 AM
Author: Razzle-dazzle gas station

Act of State Doctrine is entirely a federal common law creation and it still exists and is alive and well. HTH.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693319)





Date: May 1st, 2006 11:00 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

We've mentioned dozens of others in the course of debating this - and the debate has been raging in other threads too. He still doesn't get it. He probably never will.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693344)





Date: May 1st, 2006 11:09 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693391)





Date: May 1st, 2006 11:11 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

No, you don't. You really, really, really don't.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693404)





Date: May 1st, 2006 11:15 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693416)





Date: May 1st, 2006 11:16 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

OMFG

Ok legal assistant, thanks for educating us all on what the law is.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693420)





Date: May 1st, 2006 11:15 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

Somewhere in the other thread someone mentioned that you once argued like in this pathetic manner, saying that the president can overrule the supreme court. Is that true?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693414)





Date: May 1st, 2006 11:17 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693422)





Date: May 1st, 2006 11:23 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

This is my only moniker.

So is it true? Do you really believe the president can overrule the Supreme Court?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693445)





Date: May 1st, 2006 11:35 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693498)





Date: May 1st, 2006 3:01 PM
Author: Bespoke Mind-boggling Corner Affirmative Action

"This is my only moniker."

stupid fuck. everyone knows. why do you lie?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5694734)





Date: May 1st, 2006 3:03 PM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=397405&mc=46&forum_id=2#5554377

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5694750)





Date: May 1st, 2006 11:30 AM
Author: Passionate heaven headpube

See: Marbury v. Madison.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693476)





Date: May 1st, 2006 11:35 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

First of all, citing anything before Erie won't convince him because he thinks Erie put an end to federal common law.

Second, I tried citing to recent cases from the last couple years, and even that doesn't do it.

He has this thing where, if he sees a few words strung together in a case that appears to agree with what he's saying, he just clings to it, refusing to read the words BEFORE and AFTER it in order to put them in context.

Truly one of the worst posters ever.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5693497)





Date: May 1st, 2006 2:51 PM
Author: thriller ticket booth

I never really thought law school could be hard for anyone until I started seeing the substantive law debates on this board. No federal common law? How the fuck do you dumbshits come up with this stuff?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5694671)





Date: May 1st, 2006 2:54 PM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

Don't waste your breath - no matter how many people call him an idiot, he's just going to keep coming back for more.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5694697)





Date: May 1st, 2006 5:27 PM
Author: Soul-stirring resort

in theory, there is supposed to be no federal common law except in very limited circumstances. so, for example, you should never see a federal court declare something void for public policy reasons even though the defendant's actions literally comply with the requirements of the law. federal courts are supposed to merely interpret federal statutes and the constitution. however, you do see instances (though they are controversial) where the court will declare an action invalid because it is contrary to public policy (i'm thinking mostly of tax here)...generally it's done under the guise of interpretation. in other instances, such as antitrust, congress has basically delegated the power to the courts to develop the law using the common law method of adjudication.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5695682)





Date: May 1st, 2006 2:58 PM
Author: Glittery metal turdskin

admiralty

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5694718)





Date: May 1st, 2006 3:37 PM
Author: Bespoke Mind-boggling Corner Affirmative Action

IPGunner = Patent Troll. why does he lie?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5694966)





Date: May 1st, 2006 3:38 PM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=397405&mc=47&forum_id=2#5554377

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5694974)





Date: May 1st, 2006 3:41 PM
Author: Bespoke Mind-boggling Corner Affirmative Action

that doesn't answer why you lie. well? why do you lie? and since you lie, how can we take anything you say seriously?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5694985)





Date: May 1st, 2006 5:28 PM
Author: narrow-minded spot preventive strike

He's right, there's federal procedural common law and some common law in other areas as well, despite statements to the contrary. You'll learn all about it in fed courts.

1Ls are cute, they think they know everything.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5695688)





Date: May 1st, 2006 5:32 PM
Author: Soul-stirring resort

what do you mean by fed procedural common law? like "laches" doctrine?

and, though i've not taken fed courts, i think the scope of federal common law is much greater than what's normally taught as being fed common law. entire branches of law, like antitrust (and according to renada, certain areas of copyright law) are federal common law.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5695711)





Date: May 1st, 2006 5:38 PM
Author: narrow-minded spot preventive strike

Oddly, I'm going to be doing a huge project on procedural common law soon, so I can get back to you with more details later. Although it's painfully tedious and boring, trust me.

There's common law in maritime law and other areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction. There's also common law w/r/t procedural issues in suits b/t states and in some other areas, I think with contract issues involving the US as a party. It's all esoteric shit, don't worry about it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5695760)





Date: May 1st, 2006 5:40 PM
Author: Soul-stirring resort

the real point is that federal common law exists in areas that are not esoteric, and is much more pervasive than is usually recognized.

edit: i mean, christ - we might as well consider constitutional law as an area of federal common law.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5695776)





Date: May 1st, 2006 5:45 PM
Author: narrow-minded spot preventive strike

I actually don't think antitrust is a common law area, although I don't know much about antitrust law, just about federal jurisdiction.

It's mostly stuff you wouldn't really care about, like suits between states.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5695807)





Date: May 1st, 2006 5:51 PM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

Antitrust law is almost entirely federal common law. A course in antitrust basically consists of Sherman act ss 1 and 2 and clayton 7, and a shitload of case law.

All combinations in restraint of trade, rule of reason, per se, price fixing, group boycott - all of this stuff is federal common law and it all changes over time.

Patent law also has a good many doctrines that are based entirely on federal common law - docrine of equivalents, licensee estoppel, inequitable conduct, prosecution laches, blah blah blah blah.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5695845)





Date: May 1st, 2006 5:36 PM
Author: motley useless station

even ttt 1ls that just read the fucking glannon E&E know there is fucking fed common law

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5695739)





Date: May 1st, 2006 6:14 PM
Author: Bespoke Mind-boggling Corner Affirmative Action

people act like this stuff is so complicated or arcane. See the poster above, and how he characterizes it as "esoteric."

um, it's not.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5696003)





Date: May 1st, 2006 6:42 PM
Author: thriller ticket booth

Titcr.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5696191)





Date: May 1st, 2006 6:45 PM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

Please note that I did not start this thread it was started be someone who was trying to humiliate me for saying there was federal common law.

He turned out to be the one who was humiliated. But don't flame me for thinking this was such a difficult concept that it deserved its own thread - like I said I didn't start it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5696208)





Date: May 2nd, 2006 2:35 PM
Author: Curious hot base

This Court has recently discussed what one might call “federal common law” in the strictest sense, i.e., a rule of decision that amounts, not simply to an interpretation of a federal statute or a properly promulgated administrative rule, but, rather, to the judicial “creation” of a special federal rule of decision. See Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc., 451 U.S. 630, 640-643, 101 S.Ct. 2061, 2066-2068, 68 L.Ed.2d 500 (1981). The Court has said that “cases in which judicial creation of a special federal rule would be justified ··· are ··· ‘few and restricted.’ ” O'Melveny & Myers v. FDIC, 512 U.S. 79, 87, 114 S.Ct. 2048, 2055, 129 L.Ed.2d 67 (1994) (quoting Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 373 U.S. 647, 651, 83 S.Ct. 1441, 1445, 10 L.Ed.2d 605 (1963)). “Whether latent federal power should be exercised to displace state law is primarily a decision for Congress,” not the federal courts. Wallis v. Pan American Petroleum Corp., 384 U.S. 63, 68, 86 S.Ct. 1301, 1304, 16 L.Ed.2d 369 (1966). Nor does the existence of related federal statutes automatically show that Congress intended courts to create federal common-law rules, for “ ‘Congress acts ··· against the background of the total corpus juris of the states····' ” Id., at 68, 86 S.Ct., at 1304 (quoting H. Hart & H. Wechsler, The Federal Courts and the Federal System 435 (1953)). Thus, normally, when courts decide to fashion rules of federal common law, “the guiding principle is that a significant conflict between some federal policy or interest and the use of state law ··· must first be specifically shown.” 384 U.S., at 68, 86 S.Ct., at 1304. Indeed, such a “conflict” is normally a “precondition.” O'Melveny, supra, at 87, 114 S.Ct., at 2055. See also *219 United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc., 440 U.S. 715, 728, 99 S.Ct. 1448, 1458-1459, 59 L.Ed.2d 711 (1979); Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc., 500 U.S. 90, 98, 111 S.Ct. 1711, 1717, 114 L.Ed.2d 152 (1991).

Atherton v. F.D.I.C. 519 U.S. 213, *218-219, 117 S.Ct. 666,**670 (U.S.N.J.,1997)



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5700530)





Date: May 4th, 2006 6:24 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5712257)





Date: May 4th, 2006 6:49 AM
Author: thriller ticket booth

In case you didn't notice, all of those arguments are normative.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5712291)





Date: May 4th, 2006 6:52 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5712300)





Date: May 2nd, 2006 3:59 PM
Author: pea-brained pit

Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 creates substantive federal common law.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5700823)





Date: May 2nd, 2006 4:30 PM
Author: Underhanded Multi-colored Mad-dog Skullcap

Such a beautiful one-sided nerd fight...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5700923)





Date: May 4th, 2006 6:21 AM
Author: aromatic walnut center wrinkle

this thread was really quite tragic.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5712253)





Date: May 4th, 2006 6:23 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5712255)





Date: May 4th, 2006 6:26 AM
Author: aromatic walnut center wrinkle

as you should. give up now and you look worse.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5712260)





Date: May 4th, 2006 6:28 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5712262)





Date: May 4th, 2006 6:45 AM
Author: aromatic walnut center wrinkle

law students aren't misconceiving the existence of a fcl. that motherfucker exists.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5712281)





Date: May 4th, 2006 6:47 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5712287)





Date: May 4th, 2006 6:50 AM
Author: aromatic walnut center wrinkle

i am NOT about to get into this with you right now. O'Melveny is a good firm, though.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5712296)





Date: May 5th, 2006 2:24 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

Bump, because the idiocy displayed herein must be preserved for posterity.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5717946)





Date: May 5th, 2006 9:04 AM
Author: Exciting rough-skinned national digit ratio

See, e.g., Fed. R. Evid. 501.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5718819)





Date: May 5th, 2006 9:18 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5718854)





Date: May 5th, 2006 10:22 AM
Author: Razzmatazz telephone nibblets

No, it still is. FRE 501 preserves all privileges at COMMON LAW, not from the day of its enactment, but evolving from federal court decisions CREATING FEDERAL COMMON LAW.

I am starting to believe very strongly that it is impossible to intelligently comment on semi-esoteric legal topics (Erie and its aftermath isn't exactly super complex) unless you have gone to law school. You sound like someone trying to have a conversation in Italian with native speakers by using Babelfish.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5719203)





Date: May 5th, 2006 11:20 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

I agree - it is extremely frustrating to have to suffer these pointless debates with the non-law types.

The problem on this board is that a lot of posters are imposters - they think they can pretend to go/have gone to law school by spewing the stuff they learn on Law and Order.

Of course, anyone who has been to law school for one semester can point these people out in a heartbeat. And yet they still refuse to admit that they know nothing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5719507)





Date: May 5th, 2006 11:26 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5719539)





Date: May 5th, 2006 11:38 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

I posted a response below - check it out.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5719589)





Date: May 5th, 2006 11:46 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

Hold on a second here.

"the statute plainly states the congress can override the privilege."

How does that have anything to do with it being federal common law?

Congress can most definitely override federal common law, unless it is otherwise prevented.

For example - take antitrust law. The statutes don't say 'this fact pattern will be decided under a rule of reason' and 'this one will be per se illegal.' Whether something is per se illegal or rule of reason is entirely a matter of FEDERAL common law.

That said, Congress is completely free to pass a statute saying 'all cases and controversies arising under the Sherman Act shall be tried under a rule of reason.' If Congress did that, they would be 'overriding' the federal common law.

Congress can pass statutes overriding prior statutes AND common law.

The fact that you don't understand this concept is Exhibit 4785873 in your campaign to earn the status of 'most retarded poster of all time.'

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5719633)





Date: May 5th, 2006 11:25 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5719533)





Date: May 5th, 2006 11:38 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

Wow, you really are determined to become one of the dumbest posters ever, aren't you?

"...shall be governed by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in the light of reason and experience."

That's federal common law.

As for this part you referred to:

"Except as otherwise required by the Constitution of the United States or provided by Act of Congress..."

This merely invokes a limitation on the reach of the rule so that it doesn't become void for being unconstitutional, etc.

The Federal Rules of Evidence, like the FRCP, are promulgated by the Court persuant to its authority. A rule is invalid if it is unconstitutional or contrary to some other federal statute, however. Therefore this clause is included as an express disclaimer to anything under the rule that could be unconstitutional etc, ensuring that the rule will be construed in a way that doesn't violate it.

It is a constitutionality preserving clause.

The fact that you make so much of such a common clause clearly demonstrates that you know nothing about the law. These clauses are ubiquitous.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5719586)





Date: May 5th, 2006 11:44 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5719622)





Date: May 5th, 2006 12:03 PM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

I assume that the history of the FRE is similar to that of the FRCP - ie that the court was charged with promulgating a set of rules. The fact that congress gives effect to the rules via statute doesn't have anything to do with it.

I could be wrong about how the FRE were created, but it doesn't matter. The clause you pointed out is a constitutonality-preserving clause only, it is ubiquitous in the law.

It merely says that the law shall not be construed in a way that would make it unconstitutional and therefore invalid.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5719729)





Date: May 5th, 2006 11:46 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5719632)





Date: May 5th, 2006 11:50 AM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

And the courts promulgate the federal rules of civil procedure.

And the name is IPGunner.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5719656)





Date: May 5th, 2006 11:54 AM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5719677)





Date: May 5th, 2006 12:06 PM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

I never said any court was empowered to enact any statute. Give a link to where I said that.

I said that the court PROMULGATED the RULES of civil procedure. This is not at all the same thing as enacting statutes.

I'm not really sure how the federal rules of evidence came into being.

In any case, it really isn't at all relevant to whether or not there is federal common law. Clearly there is, and clearly you're an idiot.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5719738)





Date: May 5th, 2006 12:11 PM
Author: Razzmatazz telephone nibblets
Subject: END OF THREAD

Congress can overrule common law by statute- ask anyone who has studied Owen v. Kroger and the Finley case. Congress subsequently codified one of them in the USC and overruled the other in the USC by statute.

GO HOME IDIOT.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5719768)





Date: May 5th, 2006 2:06 PM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5720534)





Date: May 5th, 2006 2:11 PM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

We've cited recent supreme court cases that all acknowledge federal common law. Why can't you just accept that and get on with your life? What else do we have to do to prove it to you?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5720571)





Date: May 5th, 2006 10:23 AM
Author: Exciting rough-skinned national digit ratio

you're kidding, right? of course it's not just a/c privilege. did you not take evidence?

"Except as otherwise required by the Constitution of the United States or provided by Act of Congress or in rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority, the privilege of a witness, person, government, State, or political subdivision thereof shall be governed by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in the light of reason and experience. However, in civil actions and proceedings, with respect to an element of a claim or defense as to which State law supplies the rule of decision, the privilege of a witness, person, government, State, or political subdivision thereof shall be determined in accordance with State law."

see Jaffee, In re Judith Miller, and tons of other cases.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5719216)





Date: May 5th, 2006 10:39 AM
Author: Provocative Indirect Expression

This is truly the most horrifying self-pwn4ag3 of all time. It's almost breathtaking.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5719294)





Date: May 5th, 2006 2:12 PM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

Z4QQQ - I'm starting to get the idea that you don't really know what 'common law' is. For example you said something wasn't common law if a statute could modify it, and that simply isn't true.

Why don't you tell us what you think common law is, then we can take it from there.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5720581)





Date: May 5th, 2006 2:16 PM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5720605)





Date: May 5th, 2006 2:56 PM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

Starting with O'Melveny & Myers:

You are taking that brief quote out of context. You left out some extremely important qualifying language:

"In determining whether state law is to be displaced by federal law"

To take this and conclude that it applies to ALL federal common law is sheer nonsense.

As for Texas Instruments v. Radcliff - you neglected to cite this:

"A right to contribution may arise in either of two ways: first, through the affirmative creation of a right of action by Congress, either expressly or by clear implication; or, second, through the power of federal courts to fashion a federal common law of contribution. "

and this:

"Congress neither expressly nor implicitly intended to create a right to contribution. If any right to contribution exists, its source must be federal common law."



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5720936)





Date: May 5th, 2006 2:58 PM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5720953)





Date: May 5th, 2006 3:09 PM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

It said that is limited when it comes to crafting federal common law that is contrary to affirmative state law. It is NOT saying that it is limited GENERALLY.

The court says that TI is a narrow exception to THAT. You don't get the difference?

Just give it up man. You just don't get it.

I'll also note that initially you refused to believe that there was ANY federal common law. Even though you are reading these cases out of context, at least it is good to see that you admit you were wrong.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5721028)





Date: May 5th, 2006 3:12 PM
Author: aromatic walnut center wrinkle

can you let this thread die now? this doesn't really look good for you, because next time anyone gets the upper hand on you re con law, they're not going to let you forget about it, and you'll be forced to change your moniker -- yet again. these things tend to come full circle on xoxo.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5721045)





Date: May 5th, 2006 3:13 PM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5721054)





Date: May 5th, 2006 3:14 PM
Author: aromatic walnut center wrinkle

he thinks courts enact statutes?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5721065)





Date: May 5th, 2006 3:20 PM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

No that is a boldfaced lie.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5721121)





Date: May 5th, 2006 3:23 PM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5721143)





Date: May 5th, 2006 3:24 PM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

Yes, what I wrote is correct. I didn't edit it and I don't plan to.

You can read about the rule making process here:

http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5721152)





Date: May 5th, 2006 3:19 PM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

I never said that the court can enact statutes, that is a lie.

I said that the supreme court PROMULGATED the FRCP, which is true - and they are not statutes.

I also said they did the same for the FRE, which may or may not be true. I qualified that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5721114)





Date: May 5th, 2006 3:30 PM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

Check out this website explaining the process:

http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5721186)





Date: May 5th, 2006 3:30 PM
Author: aromatic walnut center wrinkle

Authority

The Congress has authorized the federal judiciary to prescribe the rules of practice, procedure, and evidence for the federal courts, subject to the ultimate legislative right of the Congress to reject, modify, or defer any of the rules. The authority and procedures for promulgating rules are set forth in the Rules Enabling Act. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2071-2077.

http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/proceduresum.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------

i don't really want to get into your little piss match, but isn't this what you guys are talking about

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5721194)





Date: May 5th, 2006 3:32 PM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

That is exactly what I'm talking about.

And I was right that the FRCP and FRE are both done the same way.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5721208)





Date: May 5th, 2006 3:36 PM
Author: White Bisexual Set

sounds about right. Congress creates the right. there isn't a "common law" right.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5721242)





Date: May 5th, 2006 3:39 PM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

OMG you are a total idiot.

This part has nothing to do with federal common law - this is a tangent you created when you started flaming me over the FRCP and FRE.

To make it unambiguously clear - the creation and amendment of the FRCP and FRE does not involve federal common law, and I never said it did. It is persuant to the Rules Enabling Act.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5721258)





Date: May 5th, 2006 3:51 PM
Author: White Bisexual Set

yeah, courts enact statutes!! you're right. good job!

make sure to lobby your local judge the next time you want to see a statute changed!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5721347)





Date: May 5th, 2006 3:54 PM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

No, the courts do NOT enact statutes. I have never, ever said that they did, and I defy you to link to a post where I said that.

The Rules Enabling Act gives authority under that statute to the court to PROMULGATE rules of civil procedure, etc. That's what I said then, and that's what I'm saying now. (I didn't give the name of the Rules Enabling Act in my original post in the subject tho.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5721368)





Date: May 5th, 2006 3:31 PM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5721202)





Date: May 5th, 2006 3:34 PM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

Wrong. SH said it well: http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&mc=222&forum_id=2#5721194

I never ever said that courts create statutes. I said that they promulgate the rules, and they do.

Thanks for taking your self-PWN3RSHIP to a whole new level. You really made my day.



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5721228)





Date: May 5th, 2006 2:58 PM
Author: aromatic walnut center wrinkle

I don't get why you keep bumping this thread.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5720950)





Date: May 5th, 2006 11:50 PM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

Because it is one of the best threads ever.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5724665)





Date: May 5th, 2006 3:22 PM
Author: slap-happy zombie-like garrison hissy fit

You can read all about federal rulemaking here:

http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5721136)





Date: May 23rd, 2006 4:21 PM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#5839084)





Date: October 11th, 2006 11:06 AM
Author: red toaster

XOXO: A Pretty Fucking Shitty Souce of Information.

This thread is hilarious.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#6767720)





Date: October 11th, 2006 11:12 AM
Author: Bateful high-end hominid

Thanks for the bump. I ignored this hooknose asshole's arguments and simply called him a dumbass douchebag yesterday because of his participation in threads like these.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#6767738)





Date: October 11th, 2006 11:16 AM
Author: red toaster

Definitely a good course of action--IPGunner was just pouring gas on the fire here.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#6767743)





Date: October 11th, 2006 11:28 AM
Author: Beady-eyed incel ape

I DETECT SOME RACIAL INSENSITIVITY MISTER.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#6767780)





Date: October 26th, 2006 10:13 PM
Author: red toaster

Still funny

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#6865631)





Date: October 26th, 2006 10:16 PM
Author: White Bisexual Set



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#6865665)





Date: May 1st, 2007 2:45 AM
Author: Medicated startling lettuce



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#8040603)





Date: May 1st, 2007 3:54 AM
Author: Supple immigrant feces

1 year anniversary!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#8040834)





Date: May 1st, 2007 4:15 AM
Author: Talented charcoal idiot tank

2 years after graduation, I dont even remember what common law is exactly. im pretty sure it has something to do with judges. which ones, i have no idea.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#8040909)





Date: May 1st, 2007 7:09 AM
Author: laughsome awkward partner

anyone remember AK47's old moniker?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#8041112)





Date: May 1st, 2007 7:23 AM
Author: Chest-beating Travel Guidebook Market

*giggles*

i'll never tell

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#8041120)





Date: May 1st, 2007 7:28 AM
Author: laughsome awkward partner

so basically you're Bull Connor?

http://attention-there-is-no-such-thing-as-federal-common-law.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=543290&mc=64&forum_id=2

LOLRZ!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#8041126)





Date: May 1st, 2007 7:41 AM
Author: Chest-beating Travel Guidebook Market

i'm amazed at your detective skills. you should get a medal.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#8041131)





Date: May 1st, 2007 12:22 PM
Author: Frisky startled school

what about 10b-5? Isnt the private right of action judicially crafted (thus akin to common law)?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#8041769)





Date: September 13th, 2007 1:57 PM
Author: Odious chapel

After just 3 weeks of law school, this thread gives me a lollergasm

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#8635906)





Date: June 27th, 2008 12:29 PM
Author: marvelous embarrassed to the bone location

Its too bad someone took out some of the posts in here. This thread was classic.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408876&forum_id=2#9925301)