Thread Unworthy 1L fears, inquiries, and rants welcome here

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
mythosopher
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 2:42 am

Re: Thread Unworthy 1L fears, inquiries, and rants welcome here

Postby mythosopher » Thu Mar 24, 2011 4:27 am

snowpeach06 wrote:but, I lost a ton of points on stupid stuff like grammar

:lol: :roll:


beach_terror wrote:
mythosopher wrote:I never understood why people think so many cases are judicial activism. It's not activism if there is law and legal reasoning to back the holding, even if some of it is more abstract and principles-based. For example, I don't understand how Lawrence v. Texas is activism?

There's no textual support that there's a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sex. The judiciary steps into the legislative area by saying there is, and it's a huge stretch to say that the founders actually intended something so specific to be a fundamental right (plus, where do you draw the line? Brown? Homosexual sex? Abortion? you can't draw a line)

The electoral process is where the Texas statute should have been overruled. The judges aren't accountable to the people, to allow their word to be the last and devoid of any true textual support is a huge usurpation of power from the States.

I agree that there's no explicit text that says "GAY SEX. DO IT." But there was a long history of case law that established privacy in the bedroom between consenting adults. Because the legislature/prosecutor did not provide a compelling state interest to invade on that privacy, the Court determined that it was infringed upon inappropriately. (I'm fairly certain they make all this clear in the opinion if you actually read it.)

User avatar
beach_terror
Posts: 7256
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 pm

Re: Thread Unworthy 1L fears, inquiries, and rants welcome here

Postby beach_terror » Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:21 am

mythosopher wrote:
snowpeach06 wrote:but, I lost a ton of points on stupid stuff like grammar

:lol: :roll:


beach_terror wrote:
mythosopher wrote:I never understood why people think so many cases are judicial activism. It's not activism if there is law and legal reasoning to back the holding, even if some of it is more abstract and principles-based. For example, I don't understand how Lawrence v. Texas is activism?

There's no textual support that there's a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sex. The judiciary steps into the legislative area by saying there is, and it's a huge stretch to say that the founders actually intended something so specific to be a fundamental right (plus, where do you draw the line? Brown? Homosexual sex? Abortion? you can't draw a line)

The electoral process is where the Texas statute should have been overruled. The judges aren't accountable to the people, to allow their word to be the last and devoid of any true textual support is a huge usurpation of power from the States.

I agree that there's no explicit text that says "GAY SEX. DO IT." But there was a long history of case law that established privacy in the bedroom between consenting adults. Because the legislature/prosecutor did not provide a compelling state interest to invade on that privacy, the Court determined that it was infringed upon inappropriately. (I'm fairly certain they make all this clear in the opinion if you actually read it.)

I read the opinion broseph. I don't believe fundamental rights should be defined as narrowly as the court decided to do so. Sure the majority didn't explicitly say it that way, but that's what the opinion amounts to. Read the dissents, it was "silly". People disagree, but activist courts overstep their constitutional bounds. The morality of the court shouldn't dictate the lawzz.

User avatar
GATORTIM
Posts: 1214
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 3:51 pm

Re: Thread Unworthy 1L fears, inquiries, and rants welcome here

Postby GATORTIM » Thu Mar 24, 2011 11:51 am

beach_terror wrote:There's no textual support that there's a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sex. The judiciary steps into the legislative area by saying there is


Lawrence doesn't say homosexual sex is a fundamental right, but rather consensual sex b/w adults is a private issue that cannot be stripped by the legislature.

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: Thread Unworthy 1L fears, inquiries, and rants welcome here

Postby keg411 » Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:26 pm

dailygrind wrote:awesome. you wanna let me know how that works out for you? if i listen to them first, i'll do the same.


No prob :). Though I probably won't listen to it until closer to finals.

User avatar
Helmholtz
Posts: 4394
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:48 pm

Re: Thread Unworthy 1L fears, inquiries, and rants welcome here

Postby Helmholtz » Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:46 pm

Trying to decide whether barbri would be worth it to me....

(Unpaid judicial internship + living off residual student loans for the summer = super, super money-conscious)

User avatar
Wholigan
Posts: 763
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 4:51 pm

Re: Thread Unworthy 1L fears, inquiries, and rants welcome here

Postby Wholigan » Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:54 pm

GATORTIM wrote:
beach_terror wrote:There's no textual support that there's a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sex. The judiciary steps into the legislative area by saying there is


Lawrence doesn't say homosexual sex is a fundamental right, but rather consensual sex b/w adults is a private issue that cannot be stripped by the legislature.


Didn't expect to find a Lawrence debate here.... But this is correct. In fact, Lawrence said that Bowers (which it explicitly overruled) misstated the issue in saying the issue was whether there is a fundamental right to homosexual sex. It is about our notions of liberty in an ordered society.

Also - don't you really think everyone is an "activist" when whatever is being challenged goes against their own beliefs? The conservative bloc has struck down plenty of affirmative action statutes and policies in recent years. Isn't that "activism?"

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: Thread Unworthy 1L fears, inquiries, and rants welcome here

Postby keg411 » Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:01 pm

Helmholtz wrote:Trying to decide whether barbri would be worth it to me....

(Unpaid judicial internship + living off residual student loans for the summer = super, super money-conscious)


You only have to give BarBri $50 for access to the 1L materials. But I'm in your spot, plus I'm going to have a commute this summer. Going to have to hustle for some type of nights/weekends paying job this summer (I'm pretty much going to apply for hostess jobs at every single bar and restaurant in my hometown and the surrounding areas starting in May).

User avatar
beach_terror
Posts: 7256
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 pm

Re: Thread Unworthy 1L fears, inquiries, and rants welcome here

Postby beach_terror » Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:27 pm

Wholigan wrote:
GATORTIM wrote:
beach_terror wrote:There's no textual support that there's a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sex. The judiciary steps into the legislative area by saying there is


Lawrence doesn't say homosexual sex is a fundamental right, but rather consensual sex b/w adults is a private issue that cannot be stripped by the legislature.


Didn't expect to find a Lawrence debate here.... But this is correct. In fact, Lawrence said that Bowers (which it explicitly overruled) misstated the issue in saying the issue was whether there is a fundamental right to homosexual sex. It is about our notions of liberty in an ordered society.

Also - don't you really think everyone is an "activist" when whatever is being challenged goes against their own beliefs? The conservative bloc has struck down plenty of affirmative action statutes and policies in recent years. Isn't that "activism?"

I'm too busy to have the time to respond right now, but read Scalia's Lawrence dissent (namely III). - I'll back to this though.

And Lawrence doesn't go against "my beliefs". The court just overstepped its bounds for something that the people of Texas should have decided.

Justice Thomas wrote:Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a Member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to “decide cases ‘agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.’ “ Id., at 530, 85 S.Ct. 1678. And, just like Justice Stewart, I “can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy,” ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the “liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions,” ante, at 2475.

User avatar
solotee
Posts: 481
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:20 pm

Re: Thread Unworthy 1L fears, inquiries, and rants welcome here

Postby solotee » Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:16 pm

Anyone else become more cynical in the past year?

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: Thread Unworthy 1L fears, inquiries, and rants welcome here

Postby keg411 » Thu Mar 24, 2011 4:14 pm

solotee wrote:Anyone else become more cynical in the past year?


No, but TBF, I think the reason I like lawl skool is because I was already both cynical and soulless :lol:.

User avatar
beach_terror
Posts: 7256
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 pm

Re: Thread Unworthy 1L fears, inquiries, and rants welcome here

Postby beach_terror » Thu Mar 24, 2011 4:42 pm

solotee wrote:Anyone else become more cynical in the past year?

If by cynical you mean conservative, then yeah.

User avatar
snowpeach06
Posts: 2426
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:32 am

Re: Thread Unworthy 1L fears, inquiries, and rants welcome here

Postby snowpeach06 » Thu Mar 24, 2011 4:55 pm

On a daily basis, I'm quite cynical. But, I still have this voice in the back of my head that tells me everything's gonna be ok in the long run.

bzsmith
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:09 pm

Re: Thread Unworthy 1L fears, inquiries, and rants welcome here

Postby bzsmith » Thu Mar 24, 2011 4:57 pm

beach_terror wrote:
Wholigan wrote:
GATORTIM wrote:
beach_terror wrote:There's no textual support that there's a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sex. The judiciary steps into the legislative area by saying there is


Lawrence doesn't say homosexual sex is a fundamental right, but rather consensual sex b/w adults is a private issue that cannot be stripped by the legislature.


Didn't expect to find a Lawrence debate here.... But this is correct. In fact, Lawrence said that Bowers (which it explicitly overruled) misstated the issue in saying the issue was whether there is a fundamental right to homosexual sex. It is about our notions of liberty in an ordered society.

Also - don't you really think everyone is an "activist" when whatever is being challenged goes against their own beliefs? The conservative bloc has struck down plenty of affirmative action statutes and policies in recent years. Isn't that "activism?"

I'm too busy to have the time to respond right now, but read Scalia's Lawrence dissent (namely III). - I'll back to this though.

And Lawrence doesn't go against "my beliefs". The court just overstepped its bounds for something that the people of Texas should have decided.

Justice Thomas wrote:Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a Member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to “decide cases ‘agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.’ “ Id., at 530, 85 S.Ct. 1678. And, just like Justice Stewart, I “can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy,” ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the “liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions,” ante, at 2475.



On what grounds do you claim that the people of Texas should have the say over regulating people's sexual behavior?

Your argument proceeds by making the claim that somehow the court overstepped it's bounds by narrowly defining a "right to gay sex." The holding, however, makes no narrow claim. Rather, it appeals to a well established precedent.

It seems that the holding includes gay sex in the constellation of sexual acts that include "consensual sexual acts between adults." Now, one could make a consistent argument (a wrong-headed, but consistent) that gay sex is not included in that constellation, but I really don't think that the argument that the court overstepped it's bounds is compelling, no matter how loudly or repeatedly you repeat the claim.

User avatar
beach_terror
Posts: 7256
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 pm

Re: Thread Unworthy 1L fears, inquiries, and rants welcome here

Postby beach_terror » Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:12 pm

bzsmith wrote:On what grounds do you claim that the people of Texas should have the say over regulating people's sexual behavior?

Your argument proceeds by making the claim that somehow the court overstepped it's bounds by narrowly defining a "right to gay sex." The holding, however, makes no narrow claim. Rather, it appeals to a well established precedent.

It seems that the holding includes gay sex in the constellation of sexual acts that include "consensual sexual acts between adults." Now, one could make a consistent argument (a wrong-headed, but consistent) that gay sex is not included in that constellation, but I really don't think that the argument that the court overstepped it's bounds is compelling, no matter how loudly or repeatedly you repeat the claim.

On what grounds does the court have the ability to regulate the people's sexual behavior?

Scalia: “Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best ... But persuading one’s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. . . What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should be stayed through the invention of a brand-new "constitutional right" by a Court that is impatient of democratic change"

To be frank, you don't have to find the argument persuasive. However, it's certainly there. I don't think this discussion needs to much go further in a thread where I was just venting about getting tallywhacked for taking an unpopular position.

User avatar
Helmholtz
Posts: 4394
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:48 pm

Re: Thread Unworthy 1L fears, inquiries, and rants welcome here

Postby Helmholtz » Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:13 pm

keg411 wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:Trying to decide whether barbri would be worth it to me....

(Unpaid judicial internship + living off residual student loans for the summer = super, super money-conscious)


You only have to give BarBri $50 for access to the 1L materials. But I'm in your spot, plus I'm going to have a commute this summer. Going to have to hustle for some type of nights/weekends paying job this summer (I'm pretty much going to apply for hostess jobs at every single bar and restaurant in my hometown and the surrounding areas starting in May).


Yeah, I think I've started measuring all of my spending in how many bags of beans, rice, or pasta that same money could buy. After suffering through the hell of waitering/bartending, I vowed never to return, but now I'm starting to panic, and think that might have to be at least an option.

It feels weird. On one hand, I managed to snag a highly sought-after federal judicial internship in a competitive market, but on the other hand, I'm trying to figure out how I'm going to make money to eat and afford other COL things.

bzsmith
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:09 pm

Re: Thread Unworthy 1L fears, inquiries, and rants welcome here

Postby bzsmith » Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:19 pm

beach_terror wrote:
bzsmith wrote:On what grounds do you claim that the people of Texas should have the say over regulating people's sexual behavior?

Your argument proceeds by making the claim that somehow the court overstepped it's bounds by narrowly defining a "right to gay sex." The holding, however, makes no narrow claim. Rather, it appeals to a well established precedent.

It seems that the holding includes gay sex in the constellation of sexual acts that include "consensual sexual acts between adults." Now, one could make a consistent argument (a wrong-headed, but consistent) that gay sex is not included in that constellation, but I really don't think that the argument that the court overstepped it's bounds is compelling, no matter how loudly or repeatedly you repeat the claim.

On what grounds does the court have the ability to regulate the people's sexual behavior?

Scalia: “Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best ... But persuading one’s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. . . What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should be stayed through the invention of a brand-new "constitutional right" by a Court that is impatient of democratic change"

To be frank, you don't have to find the argument persuasive. However, it's certainly there. I don't think this discussion needs to much go further in a thread where I was just venting about getting tallywhacked for taking an unpopular position.


It's not a compelling argument because of the "parade of horribles" that follows. If the people of Texas possess the power to control people's private sexual behavior, then why should they not have the power to re-segregate schools or to disenfranchise women or non-land owners? If it's the will of the people then it's the will of the people...right? Who needs pesky "activist judges" when re-instituting a poll tax would be "well within the range of traditional democratic action."

User avatar
beach_terror
Posts: 7256
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 pm

Re: Thread Unworthy 1L fears, inquiries, and rants welcome here

Postby beach_terror » Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:25 pm

bzsmith wrote:
beach_terror wrote:
bzsmith wrote:On what grounds do you claim that the people of Texas should have the say over regulating people's sexual behavior?

Your argument proceeds by making the claim that somehow the court overstepped it's bounds by narrowly defining a "right to gay sex." The holding, however, makes no narrow claim. Rather, it appeals to a well established precedent.

It seems that the holding includes gay sex in the constellation of sexual acts that include "consensual sexual acts between adults." Now, one could make a consistent argument (a wrong-headed, but consistent) that gay sex is not included in that constellation, but I really don't think that the argument that the court overstepped it's bounds is compelling, no matter how loudly or repeatedly you repeat the claim.

On what grounds does the court have the ability to regulate the people's sexual behavior?

Scalia: “Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best ... But persuading one’s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. . . What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should be stayed through the invention of a brand-new "constitutional right" by a Court that is impatient of democratic change"

To be frank, you don't have to find the argument persuasive. However, it's certainly there. I don't think this discussion needs to much go further in a thread where I was just venting about getting tallywhacked for taking an unpopular position.


It's not a compelling argument because of the "parade of horribles" that follows. If the people of Texas possess the power to control people's private sexual behavior, then why should they not have the power to re-segregate schools or to disenfranchise women or non-land owners? If it's the will of the people then it's the will of the people...right? Who needs pesky "activist judges" when re-instituting a poll tax would be "well within the range of traditional democratic action."

Well the benchmark to being opposed to judicial activism is to say that Brown was wrongly decided.

bzsmith
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:09 pm

Re: Thread Unworthy 1L fears, inquiries, and rants welcome here

Postby bzsmith » Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:27 pm

beach_terror wrote:
bzsmith wrote:
beach_terror wrote:
bzsmith wrote:On what grounds do you claim that the people of Texas should have the say over regulating people's sexual behavior?

Your argument proceeds by making the claim that somehow the court overstepped it's bounds by narrowly defining a "right to gay sex." The holding, however, makes no narrow claim. Rather, it appeals to a well established precedent.

It seems that the holding includes gay sex in the constellation of sexual acts that include "consensual sexual acts between adults." Now, one could make a consistent argument (a wrong-headed, but consistent) that gay sex is not included in that constellation, but I really don't think that the argument that the court overstepped it's bounds is compelling, no matter how loudly or repeatedly you repeat the claim.

On what grounds does the court have the ability to regulate the people's sexual behavior?

Scalia: “Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best ... But persuading one’s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. . . What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should be stayed through the invention of a brand-new "constitutional right" by a Court that is impatient of democratic change"

To be frank, you don't have to find the argument persuasive. However, it's certainly there. I don't think this discussion needs to much go further in a thread where I was just venting about getting tallywhacked for taking an unpopular position.


It's not a compelling argument because of the "parade of horribles" that follows. If the people of Texas possess the power to control people's private sexual behavior, then why should they not have the power to re-segregate schools or to disenfranchise women or non-land owners? If it's the will of the people then it's the will of the people...right? Who needs pesky "activist judges" when re-instituting a poll tax would be "well within the range of traditional democratic action."

Well the benchmark to being opposed to judicial activism is to say that Brown was wrongly decided.


Which, in my opinion, makes the entire enterprise of "being opposed to Judicial Activism" wrong-headed.

User avatar
beach_terror
Posts: 7256
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 pm

Re: Thread Unworthy 1L fears, inquiries, and rants welcome here

Postby beach_terror » Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:31 pm

bzsmith wrote:Which, in my opinion, makes the entire enterprise of "being opposed to Judicial Activism" wrong-headed.

Which is entirely dependent on the morality of the observer :wink: ... I don't think Marbury stated "it is emphatically the province of the court to define and enforce emerging trends in public morality"

Let me put it this way. The SCOTUS has done well to decide things in accordance with public opinion, but what if they suddenly fuck up? They're not accountable to anyone, so.. uh, yeah. They can't enforce their opinions so we don't have to follow it, but that doesn't strike me as a fantastic idea.
Last edited by beach_terror on Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

bzsmith
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:09 pm

Re: Thread Unworthy 1L fears, inquiries, and rants welcome here

Postby bzsmith » Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:33 pm

beach_terror wrote:
bzsmith wrote:Which, in my opinion, makes the entire enterprise of "being opposed to Judicial Activism" wrong-headed.

Which is entirely dependent on the morality of the observer :wink: ... I don't think Marbury stated "it is emphatically the province of the court to define and enforce emerging trends in public morality"


Don't get me wrong. I am not a zealot for one "cause" or another. I respect a well thought out argument as to why a case is or is not wrongly decided.

I do, however, have a problem with the concept of "Judicial Activism" and "Originalism" as it relates to the former because both terms are used (cynically) to further the cause of the wielder.

The founders certainly did not conceive of a multinational corporation as a person deserving of the "free speech" right to utilize their well fed coiffers to fund campaigns. That did not stop Mr. Scalia, our bastion of anti-Judicial-activism-originalism from consenting in Citizen's United.

bzsmith
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:09 pm

Re: Thread Unworthy 1L fears, inquiries, and rants welcome here

Postby bzsmith » Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:37 pm

beach_terror wrote:
bzsmith wrote:Which, in my opinion, makes the entire enterprise of "being opposed to Judicial Activism" wrong-headed.

Which is entirely dependent on the morality of the observer :wink: ... I don't think Marbury stated "it is emphatically the province of the court to define and enforce emerging trends in public morality"


Marbury:
So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

User avatar
beach_terror
Posts: 7256
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 pm

Re: Thread Unworthy 1L fears, inquiries, and rants welcome here

Postby beach_terror » Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:41 pm

bzsmith wrote:
beach_terror wrote:
bzsmith wrote:Which, in my opinion, makes the entire enterprise of "being opposed to Judicial Activism" wrong-headed.

Which is entirely dependent on the morality of the observer :wink: ... I don't think Marbury stated "it is emphatically the province of the court to define and enforce emerging trends in public morality"


Marbury:
So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Yeah and for the rest of the Marbury quote to apply there must be constitutional support for homosexual sex. I don't think there is (Scalia and Thomas don't either). I think we're going in circles. This did at least help me flesh out a position I hadn't given a ton of thought to originally. I do think there's a 40% chance you might be my teacher though.

bzsmith
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:09 pm

Re: Thread Unworthy 1L fears, inquiries, and rants welcome here

Postby bzsmith » Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:43 pm

beach_terror wrote:
bzsmith wrote:

Let me put it this way. The SCOTUS has done well to decide things in accordance with public opinion, but what if they suddenly fuck up? They're not accountable to anyone, so.. uh, yeah. They can't enforce their opinions so we don't have to follow it, but that doesn't strike me as a fantastic idea.


Of course they are accountable. They are accountable to future courts which have the right and duty to either regard or disregard precedent, based on a myriad of factors...including changing cultural norms.

User avatar
beach_terror
Posts: 7256
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 pm

Re: Thread Unworthy 1L fears, inquiries, and rants welcome here

Postby beach_terror » Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:44 pm

bzsmith wrote:
beach_terror wrote:
bzsmith wrote:

Let me put it this way. The SCOTUS has done well to decide things in accordance with public opinion, but what if they suddenly fuck up? They're not accountable to anyone, so.. uh, yeah. They can't enforce their opinions so we don't have to follow it, but that doesn't strike me as a fantastic idea.


Of course they are accountable. They are accountable to future courts which have the right and duty to either regard or disregard precedent, based on a myriad of factors...including changing cultural norms.

Are you really making this argument? I want to know you're serious before I bother responding.

bzsmith
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:09 pm

Re: Thread Unworthy 1L fears, inquiries, and rants welcome here

Postby bzsmith » Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:47 pm

beach_terror wrote:
bzsmith wrote:
beach_terror wrote:
bzsmith wrote:Which, in my opinion, makes the entire enterprise of "being opposed to Judicial Activism" wrong-headed.

Which is entirely dependent on the morality of the observer :wink: ... I don't think Marbury stated "it is emphatically the province of the court to define and enforce emerging trends in public morality"


Marbury:
So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Yeah and for the rest of the Marbury quote to apply there must be constitutional support for homosexual sex. I don't think there is (Scalia and Thomas don't either). I think we're going in circles. This did at least help me flesh out a position I hadn't given a ton of thought to originally. I do think there's a 40% chance you might be my teacher though.



I would make the argument that the sanction comes from the "penumbra" that emanates from the explicit document. Sure, there is no explicit right to privacy or, even more, to sexual privacy. There is, however a statement that forbids the breach of one's home for unreasonable purposes which presumes, in my opinion, a base right to the expectation of privacy within the home to a reasonable degree.

And no...I am certainly not your teacher...just a lowly 0L waiting until 5:00 so that I can leave this God-awful office.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AnonUser777, cavalier1138, Yahoo [Bot] and 7 guests