Top Law Schools

I like anyone who quotes "an uncommonly silly law," at least temporarily

Kennedy, without a doubt. I fall in love with him every time I read Lawrence v. Texas.

the lantern wrote:Kennedy, without a doubt. I fall in love with him every time I read Lawrence v. Texas.

Scalia's dissent in Lawrence and also in Romer v. Evans are probably the two most offensive modern legal opinions I've encountered. Hate that guy.

Thurexcellent Marshall, Brennan.

My Ks prof got me to appreciate Ellen Peters, but she's not SCOTUS.

Flips88 wrote:

the lantern wrote:Kennedy, without a doubt. I fall in love with him every time I read Lawrence v. Texas.

Scalia's dissent in Lawrence and also in Romer v. Evans are probably the two most offensive modern legal opinions I've encountered. Hate that guy.

Agreed. I'm not following the Scalia love. I understand he writes with more clarity than the rest of the judges, but his opinions are just insufferable. More often than not it seems that he decides based upon his emotions and then will construct a seemingly plausible reason for why he's right rather than the other way around. Like in DC v. Heller, if you read both the opinion and dissent, you realize that for a person who hammers away at "This is not specifically stated in the Constitution!" he will nitpick and make things where they aren't when his personal opinion wants it that way. I understand that all Justices do so to an extent, but it's just insufferable because he uses such vitriol in his writings and is positively socially regressive.

crossarmant wrote:

Flips88 wrote:

the lantern wrote:Kennedy, without a doubt. I fall in love with him every time I read Lawrence v. Texas.

Scalia's dissent in Lawrence and also in Romer v. Evans are probably the two most offensive modern legal opinions I've encountered. Hate that guy.

Agreed. I'm not following the Scalia love. I understand he writes with more clarity than the rest of the judges, but his opinions are just insufferable. More often than not it seems that he decides based upon his emotions and then will construct a seemingly plausible reason for why he's right rather than the other way around. Like in DC v. Heller, if you read both the opinion and dissent, you realize that for a person who hammers away at "This is not specifically stated in the Constitution!" he will nitpick and make things where they aren't when his personal opinion wants it that way. I understand that all Justices do so to an extent, but it's just insufferable because he uses such vitriol in his writings and is positively socially regressive.

Maybe it's just me, but I've always thought that Souter had some of the most lucid prose. The ones I've had to read have always been pretty clear, but they could be the anomaly for all I know.

Flips88 wrote:

the lantern wrote:Kennedy, without a doubt. I fall in love with him every time I read Lawrence v. Texas.

Scalia's dissent in Lawrence and also in Romer v. Evans are probably the two most offensive modern legal opinions I've encountered. Hate that guy.

dunno. Posner's idea that preventing same-sex sexual harassment might give men license to run around in high-heels is pretty bad.

Warren.

the lantern wrote:Kennedy, without a doubt. I fall in love with him every time I read Lawrence v. Texas.

Kennedy's an interesting guy. I find it interesting when people say he has too much power-he is a swing voter but I don't think that's accurate or fair just because he doesn't have as easily identifiable an ideology as other justices. I guess what I mean is-it is descriptively true, but when people make a normative statement on this it doesn't make sense. He has too much power because he doesn't have a wrought-iron ideology? That says more about the Court than it does about him.

reformed calvinist wrote:

the lantern wrote:Kennedy, without a doubt. I fall in love with him every time I read Lawrence v. Texas.

Kennedy's an interesting guy. I find it interesting when people say he has too much power-he is a swing voter but I don't think that's accurate or fair just because he doesn't have as easily identifiable an ideology as other justices. I guess what I mean is-it is descriptively true, but when people make a normative statement on this it doesn't make sense. He has too much power because he doesn't have a wrought-iron ideology? That says more about the Court than it does about him.

Exactly. A court that should be ruling with an unbiased mind is quite predictable in almost all of their decisions depending on their ideology (aka political-party association).

Seeing a lot of ideologically based Scalia-hate

I'm a big fan of Jackson. You can literally read his opinions as recreational prose

jd20132013 wrote:Seeing a lot of ideologically based Scalia-hate

I'm a big fan of Jackson. You can literally read his opinions as recreational prose

Well he typically contorts his ridiculous constitutional framework to meet some end. Like how he wants to limit federal power under the commerce clause, except where something like completely localized marijuana is involved. Then the commerce power gives them the power to regulate it.

Flips88 wrote:

jd20132013 wrote:Seeing a lot of ideologically based Scalia-hate

I'm a big fan of Jackson. You can literally read his opinions as recreational prose

Well he typically contorts his ridiculous constitutional framework to meet some end. Like how he wants to limit federal power under the commerce clause, except where something like completely localized marijuana is involved. Then the commerce power gives them the power to regulate it.

Yeah... his opinions are littered with hypocritical bullshit like that.

People think Thomas is an idiot, and sometimes he is, but he's not the hypocrite that Scalia is.

NYC Law wrote:Louis Brandeis and it isn't even close.

+1

Douglas called him "a militant crusader for social justice." He invented the right to privacy; advocated for government transparency ("sunshine is the best disinfectant"); was a vigorous defender of freedom of speech, and has been driving law students insane for 75 years by inventing the Eire doctrine.

Dozo. solid ass writer.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg ftw.

also:

eliekedourie wrote:

bartleby wrote:learned hand

I'm hoping that this is just ignorance or an innocent troll and not an attempt to sabotage the OP's future interview.

That's funny, because I was hoping for the exact opposite.

Justice Derpington

Current: Scalia by far.

All-time: I like Harlan (the younger, though the older wasn't bad either) a lot, as well as Frankfurter. Those two and Scalia would probably be top 3.

Flips88 wrote:

the lantern wrote:Kennedy, without a doubt. I fall in love with him every time I read Lawrence v. Texas.

Scalia's dissent in Lawrence and also in Romer v. Evans are probably the two most offensive modern legal opinions I've encountered. Hate that guy.

Scalia's dissent in Lawrence is one of my favorite opinions of all time (though it is not nearly as good as his concurrence in judgment in part/dissent in part in Casey). The majority opinion in Romer v. Evans is one of the most poorly reasoned ever. Scalia was totally right to tear it apart.

Note, this has nothing to do with my personal feelings towards homosexuals. The decisions in Lawrence and Romer are just wrong, regardless of ideology.

McReynolds was quite the character.

ndirish2010 wrote:The majority opinion in Romer v. Evans is one of the most poorly reasoned ever. Scalia was totally right to tear it apart.

I have yet to read a SCOTUS opinion worse than Eldred v. Ashcroft.

Even though I might have an IP bias, that decision was just awful.

ndirish2010 wrote: Note, this has nothing to do with my personal feelings towards homosexuals. The decisions in Lawrence and Romer are just wrong, regardless of ideology.

So was Brown v. Board wrong also? It was overturning policies implemented by a political majority based on animus toward a specific group?

I thought Shady Grove was a complete OUTRAGE

Flips88 wrote:

ndirish2010 wrote: Note, this has nothing to do with my personal feelings towards homosexuals. The decisions in Lawrence and Romer are just wrong, regardless of ideology.

So was Brown v. Board wrong also? It was overturning policies implemented by a political majority based on animus toward a specific group?

No because I think the separate but equal doctrine was an erroneous application of the Equal Protection Clause. I'm not sure how any interpretation of the Due Process Clause can invalidate state laws like the one in Lawrence. It's obviously, as Justice Stewart would say, an "uncommonly silly law." But it's not unconstitutional.