The Supreme Law of the Land

by Farkel 65 Replies latest jw friends

Band on the Run

"Ham and eggs" is in quotes because it is an actual school. Millions of pages of law reviews and political scientists write on this topic. It is very philosophical.
I raise to Columbia, magna cum laude with Distinction in Politcal Science, and NYU Law, full merit scholarship and published member of law review. Clerkships with the U.S. Attorney's Office in Manhattan, N.O.W. Legal Defense Fund and the United States Senate. Practice with Dewey, LeBoeuf, a Wall Street titan. My expertise is in civil rights and constitutional law. I've read extensively concerning the court and the individual justices.
So Hastings doesn't make me dissolve at all. NYU Law is ranked higher.
I expect your friend said what she said in suggestion b/c only simpleton lawyers actually believe it. I exclaimed something similar after Bush v. Gore and a myriad of other cases. Calming down, though, the Court does not function in this manner. The Court is insulated from politics but not immune. Just b/c an opinion is unpopular, and let me remind you that the whole range of equal protection cases that exploded with Brown V. Board of Ed. Loving v. VA.,etc were extremely unpopular, does not mean they vote on a whim. Roe v. Wade broght them death threats. The integration cases brought them a 1,000 times death threats, particularly school desegregation.
They are decent men. I can see someone who has never read opinions to think that they use ouija boards or something. Note that for every Bush v. Gore or similar case that set me spinning, other will of good will were delighted by the opinion. I have met some of the justices in fleeting circumstances. They devote much time to legal education and it is not in their job specs.
A Guest always has to be vicious. I feel sorry that you need to compete with them. You can't know all things under the sun. This is my area of expertise. It is a narrow one but I chose it. Jefferson and John Marshall were cousins who grew to hate each other. John Marshall came away from those arguments as a towering Americna figure and Jefferson was diminished. Jefferson incurred so much debt with foreign governments (Personal debt,not US debt) that it compromised American foreign policy. Jefferson is a complex character. He had great stengths and great weaknesses.
m
JeffT

Justitia, I thought it was scathing, but I don't get paid big bucks to argue with people. I can see where lawyers may not think so.
BOTR, I think Jefferson is one of the most interesting characters in our history. He owned slaves at the time he wrote the words "all men are created equal." Go figure.
A funny story for both of you:
Working in real estate I've had to spend some time with lawyers on various subjects. A few years ago one of my employers clients got in a court fight with a tenant and I was copied on all the legal paperwork. So I get this "brief" the first line of which was "This is simple case involving interpretation of a commercial real estate lease." That sentence was followed by 54 pages legal verbage.
Band on the Run

I am sorry that I omitted something. Justice Brennan was joking with his clerks. Never in serious conversation, thousands of opinioins, many law school appearances, judicial conferences did he ever set forth that a crude majority makes a law constitutional. Any lawyer who believes the idea should leave the profession b/c all would be a joke. He was the great liberal architect, the grand thinker. He was the liberal briliant mind. Unfortunately from my view point, he was succeeded by Justice Rehnquist, an exceptional mind on the conservative side. Justice Brennan was to write the opinion in Roe v. Wade but his colleagues were afraid he would be excommunicated, He was an active Catholic. If he wrote the opinion, it would stand on much better ground.
The ACLU, incidentally, was a great admirer of Rehnquist's legal mind. A chief lawyer told my seminar to respect REhnquist. All times come to an end. Brown v. Board of Ed, ..a slew of great civil rights and civil liberties decisions were possible b/c of Justice Brennan. Sadly, he was not immortal. So we, progressive lawyers had to suck it up, and go to other venues. They totally disagreed with REhnquist's decisions but his legal acumen was completely appreciated.
A few cases do not a Supreme Court make. The enitre body of work should be judged. Two cases, Dred Scott, upholding slavery, and Korematsu, upholding the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII (govt testimony proved they were no security threat) are infamous. Strangely, the language and reasoning of Korematsu are used in every civil rights case today.
AGuest

I raise to Columbia, magna cum laude with Distinction in Politcal Science, and NYU Law, full merit scholarship and published member of law review. Clerkships with the U.S. Attorney's Office in Manhattan, N.O.W. Legal Defense Fund and the United States Senate. Practice with Dewey, LeBoeuf, a Wall Street titan. My expertise is in civil rights and constitutional law. I've read extensively concerning the court and the individual justices.
Ummmm... okaayyyyy...
So Hastings doesn't make me dissolve at all.
Ummmm... my posting that info wasn't intended to "make" YOU do ANYTHING, dear BOTR (peace to you!). I think you misstook me for addressing you (ooh, surprise!)... when I wasn't... at all.
NYU Law is ranked higher.
And Harvard and Yale rank higher than NYU. So what? Bill Gates "went" to Stanford. Didn't graduate. Rich... and revered... like heck. So... ???
A Guest always has to be vicious.
To the contrary... I was not vicious at all, here. I simply shared what a respected attorney friend of mine stated and I agreed with. You felt it necessary to state I was wrong... and bit "viciously"... as you tend to do (our respective comments to one another will show this). I am often at a loss as to why you comment/respond [as to] me as you do... other than perhaps you have some self-esteem issues which make you "feel" in [some kind of] competition with me... which I find absurd.
The OP is a dear friend of mine... and took no offense at my comment to him. Rather, he clarified his position. Even further, dear Beks (the greatest of love and peace to you, dear one!) vehemently agreed with me - yet, for some reason you've refrained from addressing her. But me? Well, I'm not so lucky, am I?
I feel sorry that you need to compete with them.
Compete with who? Supreme Court justices? Seriously?? The only person here that feels their being "competed" with is you. Again, absolutely absurd. Step away from your keyboard, girl. Go have a cup of tea (or wine - whatever gets you there)... and quit trying to "keep up" with "AGuest," please. You'll sleep better, truly...
You can't know all things under the sun.
Ooh, Lordy, you KNOW this, man! Indeed, I don't know ANYTHING. I certainly don't know as much as you [think you] do. I mean, my average 65 posts per month, to your average, what, 284 per month... should show this...
This is my area of expertise.
Of course... and you haven't refrained from letting us know this on many occasions. Therefore, the rest of us should just go sit down, shut up, and keep our thoughts, opinions, experiences, and "knowledge" about it to ourselves. Yes, ma'am...
It is a narrow one but I chose it.
Well, that makes it official, then. Oh, no, wait...
only simpleton lawyers actually believe it. I exclaimed something similar after Bush v. Gore and a myriad of other cases.
So,did that make you an official "simpleton"? Methinks perhaps it did. I won't poll the board on it, though...
Peace, dear BOTR ('cause my Lord knows I'm trying to maintain it with you)...
A slave of Christ,
SA
dgp

Farkel:
de Tocqueville was a very young (French) man when he wrote his famous "Democracy in America" in what, the 1830's?

Politically incorrect Latin Americans read Alexis de Tocqueville as well, for several reasons. One is that he foresaw that the United States, small and poor and even backwards at the time, would one day be way above Latin America (incidentally, this was also noticed by the Count of Aranda, but that is a different story). One of the reasons for such preeminence was democracy and a way of living that fostered people's freedom and gave them an opportunity to prosper for and by themselves. The kind of things that you can lose if you're not vigilant.

The only worry we should have is if some law is passed that violates the powers given by the Constitution and no one does anything about it. If that happens enough times, the Constitution is just a piece of paper, and our Liberties are lost.

Yep. We know a thing or two about this.

I mention de Tocqueville only because I am in agreement with you about the point I just copied. I know you're right, and many others would agree. We do not usually stand up for what American founding fathers would call "inalienable rights". You see the results in evil clowns such as Chávez or evil evil evil such as Castro.

Journey-on said it better than I:

Amen, Brother Farkel! But just like hundreds of so-called Christian religions take the same book, the Bible, and interpret it according to what they think it says, the Constitution is played with by lawyers, activist judges, AND policymakers. THE PEOPLE have to stay vigilant.

Ever heard about "The Road to Serfdom", by Friedrich von Hayek?

http://www.amazon.com/Road-Serfdom-Documents---Definitive-Collected/dp/0226320553/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317413897&sr=8-1
botchtowersociety

Politically incorrect Latin Americans read Alexis de Tocqueville as well, for several reasons. One is that he foresaw that the United States, small and poor and even backwards at the time, would one day be way above Latin America (incidentally, this was also noticed by the Count of Aranda, but that is a different story). One of the reasons for such preeminence was democracy and a way of living that fostered people's freedom and gave them an opportunity to prosper for and by themselves. The kind of things that you can lose if you're not vigilant.
Any people that controlled the land area that is now the United States was almost destined to become a great and wealthy power in the world with the kind of technology developed over the last 300 years. The US land mass is one of the greatest on the planet for economic development. Nothing in Latin America comes close, not even Brazil.
Not to take away anything from the political and cultural foundations of the country which allowed the natural wealth to be used efficiently and to the greatest extent, but in terms of navigable rivers, arable land near those rivers, ports, distance from aggressor nations, and so on, the US is hard to top.
A fascinating analysis on the subject.
Ever heard about "The Road to Serfdom", by Friedrich von Hayek?
Yes, great book.
Justitia Themis

Justitia, I thought it was scathing, but I don't get paid big bucks to argue with people. I can see where lawyers may not think so.
He's just known for producing poorly written opinions with sloppy logic, but lawyers are more sensitive to that because of their work.
So I get this "brief" the first line of which was "This is simple case involving interpretation of a commercial real estate lease." That sentence was followed by 54 pages legal verbage.
...too funny. Of course, that would be a "simple" argument in lawyer-land.
BOTR...what a disappointing response from you, but it does give the board insight into the legal world, which is very heirarchical. Just because you attended NYU and the other attorney graduated from Hastings doesn't make your viewpoint correct and her's incorrect. You were attempting to intellectually bully the poster with your "credentials" instead of simply defending your position. You lost your argument at that point.
The fact that your responded by noting the "ham and eggs" school of jurisprudence documents that there are a plethora of lawyers who subscribe to it, so many that it has its own name. Conversely, there are many who feel as you, so why can't you just admit that there are two schools with divergent opinions and probably both views have some truth? It may be your "area of expertise," but there are plenty of lawyers who have that same "area of expertise" who make the opposite argument.
I asked you before, and I am asking you again...you're a law professor, aren't you?
BTS...the book you recommended presents only one side of the argument, so it's good if someone is interested in being fair-and-balanced in a Fox News/MSNBC sorta way.
botchtowersociety

BTS...the book you recommended presents only one side of the argument, so it's good if someone is interested in being fair-and-balanced in a Fox News/MSNBC sorta way.
It is still a good read, and I admire the author.
There are two sides to an argument:
The more correct one and the less correct one.
BTS
Band on the Run

Hastings prestige was not raised by me. Rather, I was told my thoughts could not be correct because a friend from Hastings made a comment. I find it unfathomable that anyone from an ABA accredited law school could believe that the Court just has a random approach, governed by what food they ate, the weather, or crass party politics. The reality is complex. Attempts to categorize any school as correct are silly IMO.
A Hastings graduate, as would any law graduate, would learn of the importance of precedent from their very first day of class. Justices don't write on clean slates. Very rarely is precedent overturned. In order for law to work, in general, it must provide reasonable expectations so that people can order their conduct and know the consequences. Few people have the opportunity to read entire cases in any field on a consistent basis. I do not always agree with Supreme Court justices. I rarely agree with Justice Thomas, which is stating the matter in very polite terms. I get frustrated when people think the Supreme Justices throw the i ching to decide cases.
I vehemently disagree with my present baliwick of expertise, the Establishment Clause, and the Roman Catholic majority. A majority whose religion I never refer to in any other field of law. The Federalist Society does not agree with my pet causes. Yet the Federalist Society's presence, as a definer and legitimizer of conservative law, enriches my progressive law by making ACLU lawyers leaner and meaner. Both groups members are geninuely welcome and do attend each other's conferences. There is one crucial difference between any justice and myself or any member of this forum. I am not a Supreme Court justice.
Justice are influenced by law schools, esp. elite ones. They are influenced by the New York Times and The Economist. Harvard Law Review and Yale Law Journal have clout. The civil rights movement lawyers emerged from Howard Law School, knowing that they had to be sharper than Harvard or Yale lawyers.
I can see a lawyer in frustration, cursing about some case. I've cursed. When I actually read all 80 or more pages of a decision, I often change my mind. Facts are crucial in law. The general press does not always report the facts in detail. So I don't believe someone from Hastings actually believed what was reported.
I saw the thread as an opportunity to try to explain the process so that people would understand venality is not a factor. Altho I majored in political science in college and took several civil rights courses, I knew llittle of the actual process until law school. People are free to like or dislike any result. The Founders made the court both protected from political process and yet part of it. If George Bush had a different fate in Bush v. Gore or Gore v. Bush, the votes would not be present to rip away many civil liberties and rights. The Court reflects the political philosophies of the party in which they were active.
Perhaps I should not try. There are so many common misconceptions on this forum which mirror those of American society. Teaching or explaining is not my forte.
Hayek is very interesting.
Justitia Themis

I saw the thread as an opportunity to try to explain the process so that people would understand venality is not a factor
Who said the Justices were corrupt? But get real. You know, and I know, and anyone who attends a law school that has professors with first-hand experience from having clerked for Justices knows the Justices trade votes with each other for their special projects--I will vote for your position on this case if you vote with me on my case. And the Hastings lawyer simply made the point that they can twist stare decisis with the best of us. BTW, my family law professor just today made the comment that judges' decisions are 10% law and 90% personal feelings...and I do attend an ABA acredited law school and he graduated Harvard Law, magna cum laude.
I think the point you're trying to make, albiet poorly, is that SC judgments are not always as random as they might seem to the average non-lawyer. THAT I can agree with; minor variances in the fact pattern are critical. Non-lawyers often do not understand their effects, which leads them to inaccurately conclude that similar cases with different decisions are due to SC whims.
Teaching or explaining is not my forte.
I agree, which is unfortunate because they are probably the number one and number two requirements of a good attorney. That's why I think you are a professor. ; )
For the rest of the board..that vast majority of professors at the highest ranked law schools have practiced law (by that I mean worked for a law firm--usually writing briefs) for two years or less. They are incredibly intelligent, but they lack the ability to stand and deliver in court, which why they react poorly (not mentioning names) when someone questions their conclusions. Now, they can write beautiful papers and articles; they just can't put two logical arguments together under pressure, nor can they communicate complex theory. That is why there is a booming market for law "supplements," and the vast majority of students self teach themselves from these.

The Supreme Law of the Land

Share this