Law School Discussion

ITT we list cases that we think were wrongly decided

Re: ITT we list cases that we think were wrongly decided
« Reply #20 on: May 07, 2007, 12:02:18 AM »
Yes, you're one of the tards that used your deep-seated knowledge of the cases and issues involved to render a meaningful decision.


Get the @#!* out of here.

what's your deal?  do you take pleasure in this.  She knows what she is talking about.  you, please, get the @#!* out of here.

Judge Smails

  • ****
  • 122
  • Nulli Secundus
    • View Profile
Re: ITT we list cases that we think were wrongly decided
« Reply #21 on: May 07, 2007, 12:02:30 AM »
kind of a big one though, huh?

and it involved many cases.

But thank you for enlightening us with your vast constitutional knowledge.

@#!* tard

==caI==

  • ****
  • 149
  • dog in a party hat
    • View Profile
Re: ITT we list cases that we think were wrongly decided
« Reply #22 on: May 07, 2007, 12:04:01 AM »
Marbury actually was kind of a wash.  I mean what was the deal with deciding the merits and then throwing it out on jurisdiction?  Politics.

And P, why do you bother?  :)

Re: ITT we list cases that we think were wrongly decided
« Reply #23 on: May 07, 2007, 12:05:07 AM »

Marbury v. Madison

Wow, for serious?

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish

Surprise me sometime, will you?

2. Using the power of eminent domain to transfer property from one private landholder to another; or
3. Using the power of eminent domain for projects that are not reasonably understood as "public uses."

I disagree with two and three, i think they go hand in hand.  Even though I don't like one, I understand that it is necessary in certain cases as long as the taking is for what I consider a public use. 

I disagree.  Given the extent to which essentially public functions are privatized in our economy, I can imagine lots of public uses that would involve transfers from one private landholder to another.  I am thinking primarily of hospitals and infrastructure (railroads, highways). 
[/quote]

i didn't think about railroads and hospitals, even though the hospital would have to meet some threshold (like having a free clinic or giving the same treatment to medicare/medicaid patients as to the rest) for me to think it "public use."  however, in general I agree with the takings power as long as it 1) isn't my property and 2) satisfies my conception of a "public use."

Re: ITT we list cases that we think were wrongly decided
« Reply #24 on: May 07, 2007, 12:06:33 AM »
kind of a big one though, huh?

and it involved many cases.

But thank you for enlightening us with your vast constitutional knowledge.

@#!* tard

Actually, it was discarded after one case, smarty pants.  And the approach that was used from then on was not "penumbras and emanations," it was Justice Harlan's approach.  If you haven't taken Con Law get, go play on the kiddie board, k?  Bye!

Hank Rearden

  • *****
  • 8243
  • Zurich is stained
    • View Profile
Re: ITT we list cases that we think were wrongly decided
« Reply #25 on: May 07, 2007, 12:06:54 AM »
Kelo v. City of New London.  July, 2005. 

I think public use is pretty much a dead letter.

can you say this differently.  its been a LONG weekend.  thank you.

Well, okay, briefly, because I have an exam in about nine hours.  Basically, if you disagree with Kelo, you're disagreeing with one of three things:

1. The notion of eminent domain power in general (that is, you value the sanctity of private property over government uses);
2. Using the power of eminent domain to transfer property from one private landholder to another; or
3. Using the power of eminent domain for projects that are not reasonably understood as "public uses."

Me, I disagree with Kelo because it basically trashes the public use requirement of the Takings Clause by shifting it to public purpose, and then again allowing a vague promise of economic benefits to stand in for a legitimate public purpose (Thomas wrote a decent dissent on this point).  My point, I guess, was that by taking this case up, the libertarian hacks at the Institute for Justice really screwed us over.  They should have known this court wouldn't do well on the public use question, and they made bad law.  At this point, I think it will be nearly impossible to challenge any proposed taking based upon the public use (as opposed to the just compensation) requirement.

 :D

Yes, what do they know?

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: ITT we list cases that we think were wrongly decided
« Reply #26 on: May 07, 2007, 12:07:30 AM »
Also, the idea of "penumbras and emanations" has been used ONCE in Constitutional Law history.

Err, maybe in the Supreme Court (though I'm not entirely sure about this).  Holmes, Cardozo, Hand, and Douglas all used it frequently.

Yes, you're one of the tards that used your deep-seated knowledge of the cases and issues involved to render a meaningful decision.

Actually, if you read the thread you'll notice that I didn't name a case.

Hank Rearden

  • *****
  • 8243
  • Zurich is stained
    • View Profile
Re: ITT we list cases that we think were wrongly decided
« Reply #27 on: May 07, 2007, 12:07:58 AM »

Marbury v. Madison

I once argued this in a debate round.  My partner and I thought we were so very bold.

Oh, you are a wild one!

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: ITT we list cases that we think were wrongly decided
« Reply #28 on: May 07, 2007, 12:08:24 AM »
And P, why do you bother?  :)

I'm not anymore.  I need to learn something before my exam tomorrow.  It sucks being a tard.

Re: ITT we list cases that we think were wrongly decided
« Reply #29 on: May 07, 2007, 12:09:35 AM »
Also, the idea of "penumbras and emanations" has been used ONCE in Constitutional Law history.

Err, maybe in the Supreme Court (though I'm not entirely sure about this).  Holmes, Cardozo, Hand, and Douglas all used it frequently.

Yes, you're one of the tards that used your deep-seated knowledge of the cases and issues involved to render a meaningful decision.

Actually, if you read the thread you'll notice that I didn't name a case.

Ok, well I was defending you.  And what do you mean in the Supreme Court?  That's all we're talking about!