My board is bigger than your board

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by WHTFH
Yeah, five posts in over a week. It's a great alternative.

You're just a veritable ray of sunshine whenever you post.

Originally posted by leagleaze
Actually, this week, we have had 620 posts so far. This morning we have had 55 so far. Just not on this particular board.

Which was my point over in the feedback section. It's hard to participate in a conversation when you can't find it. The "new post" flags help, but I don't have time to go through all the regional boards looking for something interesting to respond to. It's easy to tell where the fashion and politics conversations are, which is why there are so many hits on those boards. (OK, the sex helps, too.) It's a lot harder to get a flow going in a conversation about, oh, I don't know - law?

[evenodds]

Originally posted by Lexus Talionis
Which was my point over in the feedback section. It's hard to participate in a conversation when you can't find it. The "new post" flags help, but I don't have time to go through all the regional boards looking for something interesting to respond to. It's easy to tell where the fashion and politics conversations are, which is why there are so many hits on those boards. (OK, the sex helps, too.) It's a lot harder to get a flow going in a conversation about, oh, I don't know - law?

I usually check the active thread section on the home page to see what is happening as people create new threads. The new software upgrade should provide an easier way of finding new posts of interest.

In the meantime, are there any changes you suggest to make the site more user friendly?

Please see my post in the feedback forum.

Res ipsa loquitor.

Originally posted by janal
It is a good thing that lawtalkers is up and running. Infirmation is down and dead and has been for days.

There is no other board. Never! God willing,
your stomach will rot in hell should you ever mention
another board again. Saddam be praised.

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by Lexus Talionis
Which was my point over in the feedback section. It's hard to participate in a conversation when you can't find it. The "new post" flags help, but I don't have time to go through all the regional boards looking for something interesting to respond to. It's easy to tell where the fashion and politics conversations are, which is why there are so many hits on those boards. (OK, the sex helps, too.) It's a lot harder to get a flow going in a conversation about, oh, I don't know - law?

Try clicking on View New Posts, which is a link on the home page.

That might help you. It will give you a list of all the new posts since you last read the board, it will also tell you the subject name and where they are located.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
You're just a veritable ray of sunshine whenever you post.

I've only recently become embittered. I used to be just pedantic, and mildly amusing in rare instances. Why is it that the more I get paid, the more I realize how much this job sucks?

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally posted by WHTFH
I've only recently become embittered. I used to be just pedantic, and mildly amusing in rare instances. Why is it that the more I get paid, the more I realize how much this job sucks?

For some reason, I recall you being embittered as "goldycuffs" as far back as 2000.

I see the Heisman sock caught up.

not7yS

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by WHTFH
I've only recently become embittered. I used to be just pedantic, and mildly amusing in rare instances. Why is it that the more I get paid, the more I realize how much this job sucks?

Before you thought you would be happier if you just made more money. Now you know that's not it.

I liked the pedantic Heisman better. Self-medicate, or get therapy, or -- better yet -- a new job.

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
For some reason, I recall you being embittered as "goldycuffs" as far back as 2000.

I see the Heisman sock caught up.

not7yS

Well, I changed jobs right about then, so maybe that's what caused a schism. Maybe I should just get a new job, or a new moniker.

So, do you know of any mid-level corporate generalist positions that are open? Shouldn't be too tough to find a new job, what do you think?

WHTF_(poster formerly known as goldencuffs, formerly known as '40Acter)_Heisman

[leagleaze]

the state court decides a case based on that law anyway?



New York High Court Declares It Is Not Bound by 'Spargo'
New York Law Journal


If there was any question whether the New York Court of Appeals considered itself bound by a federal district court ruling striking down some Code of Judicial Conduct provisions, that issue was quashed Thursday. The court unanimously rejected arguments that it's tied by the Spargo v. Commission ruling and upheld charges against a Brooklyn Supreme Court judge that were based on sections of the code struck in Spargo.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1051121821721


This is an interesting case. I haven't had a chance to read it yet so I can only judge it from the article, but it looks like it could raise all sorts of interesting issues about how much power a federal district court has versus the high court of a state.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by leagleaze
I haven't had a chance to read it yet so I can only judge it from the article, but it looks like it could raise all sorts of interesting issues about how much power a federal district court has versus the high court of a state.

Zero, I believe. Stare decisis only applies to decisions of courts of superior appellate jurisdiction. A state supreme court does not violate principles of stare decisis when it flouts the decisional law of the federal circuit in which it sits, because neither the district nor circuit court of appeals has a right of review, while there is a cert petition remedy available from the state supreme court. If a state supreme court started flouting SCOTUS decisions on federal law matters, then we have a problem.

If the same issue is presented to a state supreme court and a federal district court, the district court is not bound at all by the state supremes on federal law, and the state court is not bound by the district court on any matter except as persuasive authority.

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Zero, I believe. Stare decisis only applies to decisions of courts of superior appellate jurisdiction. A state supreme court does not violate principles of stare decisis when it flouts the decisional law of the federal circuit in which it sits, because neither the district nor circuit court of appeals has a right of review, while there is a cert petition remedy available from the state supreme court. If a state supreme court started flouting SCOTUS decisions on federal law matters, then we have a problem.

If the same issue is presented to a state supreme court and a federal district court, the district court is not bound at all by the state supremes on federal law, and the state court is not bound by the district court on any matter except as persuasive authority.

I was thinking along the same lines of you when my boss came and asked me what I thought. I told him I wasn't really sure, but it seems to me that the lower level courts wouldn't have the authority to force the highest level court in a state to disregard a state law.

He said well what if the court says it violates the federal constitution? I said I am not sure, because it has been a while since I studied anything in this area, but it seems to me the Supreme Court would have to do that.

It tends to be bad when your boss walks in and says hey, you are a professor, here's an academic question. I should have just said, well you know, I don't teach con law or federal courts...

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by leagleaze
I was thinking along the same lines of you when my boss came and asked me what I thought. I told him I wasn't really sure, but it seems to me that the lower level courts wouldn't have the authority to force the highest level court in a state to disregard a state law.

He said well what if the court says it violates the federal constitution? I said I am not sure, because it has been a while since I studied anything in this area, but it seems to me the Supreme Court would have to do that.

If it's a federal court interpreting state law, then all it's doing is "predicting" what course the state's courts would take. Obviously a state court is in a better position to determine what course the state's courts will take. Hence the certified question procedures (or whatever they're called).

But as I understand this case, the fed'l court ruled that federal law barred enforcement of the state judicial code. At most, such a determination is persuasive. It's certainly not binding authority. Heck, in many districts, even another district court judge's rulings aren't binding, but are only persuasive. For the most part only circuit courts (fed.) establish precedent. Even then, that precedent is no more binding on a state court than on another circuit court. Ultimately, the Supremes would have to resolve any conflict.

[leagleaze]

Good, I figured that was right.

There are interesting issues over all though in any potential constitutional crisis if a state should decide its law is ok when the Supreme Court has ruled something is unconstitutional. Obviously not the case here since it was just a district court.

I am thinking of brown v board and the fact that a number of states didn't want to desegregate the schools. Timely issue given there is at least one school in Georgia holding a white only prom, or rather the students are holding it on their own. Extraordinary.

Leaving that issue aside though have there been a lot of instances when the President has had to get involved and enforce a decision in the way that happened with Brown?

Do you folks know?