Page 1 of 1
McCardle/Boumedeine
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:59 pm
by dreman510
For Conlaw
Im not really clear on what the rule is coming from these two cases.
From Ex-parte McCardle-basically, Congress can strip SCOTUS appellate review, BUT only if there are other avenues in place? Is it just me or does that basically mean that it accomplishes nothing?
Boumedeine-not really clear on it at all
Re: McCardle/Boumedeine
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:35 pm
by Ignatius J. Reilly
All I will say is that even though I took ConLaw last year, there basically is no "rule" coming from those cases, as is the case with many ConLaw cases. Sorry I can't be more specific about the cases, but the bottom line is that in many ConLaw cases there is no "rule" per se.
Re: McCardle/Boumedeine
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:39 pm
by dreman510
Re: McCardle/Boumedeine
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:11 pm
by pandacot
dreman510 wrote:For Conlaw
Im not really clear on what the rule is coming from these two cases.
From Ex-parte McCardle-basically, Congress can strip SCOTUS appellate review, BUT only if there are other avenues in place? Is it just me or does that basically mean that it accomplishes nothing?
Boumedeine-not really clear on it at all
Have you looked up the cases in the Chemerinsky supplement? Might be helpful...might not.
Re: McCardle/Boumedeine
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:12 pm
by dreman510
pandacot wrote:dreman510 wrote:For Conlaw
Im not really clear on what the rule is coming from these two cases.
From Ex-parte McCardle-basically, Congress can strip SCOTUS appellate review, BUT only if there are other avenues in place? Is it just me or does that basically mean that it accomplishes nothing?
Boumedeine-not really clear on it at all
Have you looked up the cases in the Chemerinsky supplement? Might be helpful...might not.
looked up McCardle...not really helpful.
Boumedeine isnt in there, its too new
Re: McCardle/Boumedeine
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:13 pm
by pandacot
dreman510 wrote:pandacot wrote:dreman510 wrote:For Conlaw
Im not really clear on what the rule is coming from these two cases.
From Ex-parte McCardle-basically, Congress can strip SCOTUS appellate review, BUT only if there are other avenues in place? Is it just me or does that basically mean that it accomplishes nothing?
Boumedeine-not really clear on it at all
Have you looked up the cases in the Chemerinsky supplement? Might be helpful...might not.
looked up McCardle...not really helpful.
Boumedeine isnt in there, its too new
Try calling Chemerinsky. I think he's still Dean of whereeverthefuck.
Re: McCardle/Boumedeine
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:14 pm
by dreman510
pandacot wrote:dreman510 wrote:pandacot wrote:dreman510 wrote:For Conlaw
Im not really clear on what the rule is coming from these two cases.
From Ex-parte McCardle-basically, Congress can strip SCOTUS appellate review, BUT only if there are other avenues in place? Is it just me or does that basically mean that it accomplishes nothing?
Boumedeine-not really clear on it at all
Have you looked up the cases in the Chemerinsky supplement? Might be helpful...might not.
looked up McCardle...not really helpful.
Boumedeine isnt in there, its too new
Try calling Chemerinsky. I think he's still Dean of whereeverthefuck.
Will do, anyone have his cellphone number?
Do they put it on UC-Irvine apps?
