My board is bigger than your board

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by leagleaze


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 school..

Well, that's Cooper v. Aaron. A state nor its courts can refuse to follow federal law as ruled upon by the S. Ct.

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?

The civil war?

Didn't they do the same in Mississippi with the college/law school equivalent?

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Well, that's Cooper v. Aaron. A state nor its courts can refuse to follow federal law as ruled upon by the S. Ct.



The civil war?

Didn't they do the same in Mississippi with the college/law school equivalent?

Yeah I guess that would have been the ultimate constitutional crisis huh, the civil war that is.

A quick search online only pulls up information about the 2000 election as a constitutional crisis. Leaving aside the politics of the situation, since lord knows that was probably discussed ad nauseum on the old board, I never really thought of it as a constitutional crisis.

Some people might not have liked the result, but it seems to me a constitutional crisis would have happened had people refused to let it rest with the final word from the Supreme Court, or if it somehow damaged the reputation of the Supreme Court so greatly that most americans were unwilling to respect its decisions. That didn't happen though, it pretty much seems to have settled down, Michael Moore aside.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by leagleaze
Yeah I guess that would have been the ultimate constitutional crisis huh, the civil war that is.

A quick search online only pulls up information about the 2000 election as a constitutional crisis. Leaving aside the politics of the situation, since lord knows that was probably discussed ad nauseum on the old board, I never really thought of it as a constitutional crisis.

Some people might not have liked the result, but it seems to me a constitutional crisis would have happened had people refused to let it rest with the final word from the Supreme Court, or if it somehow damaged the reputation of the Supreme Court so greatly that most americans were unwilling to respect its decisions. That didn't happen though, it pretty much seems to have settled down, Michael Moore aside.

I agree. The only potential crisis was if Florida had certified results with Gore winning, after the S. Ct. said it could not. And even if that had happened, the mess would have been decided by Congress one way or the other in dealing with the electors.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
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.

I think there are circumstances where you could get the question in front of a federal district court by seeking a writ of habeas corpus. But you maybe have to be in prison to do that.

Otherwise, if you have a federal question you can seek a writ of certeriorari from the U.S. Supreme Court from a state's highest court. This is what just happened in the Kasky v. Nike Co. (sp?) case that the Supreme Court just heard. Kasky brought a claim against Nike under a California state statute. Nike tried to dismiss, raising its First Amendment rights as a defense. The case went up to the California Supreme Court, which ruled for Kasky, so Nike sought (and got) review in the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the constitutional question. I believe SCOTUS's jurisdiction is limited in such cases to the federal questions (i.e., it can't avoid the First Amendment question in Kasky by ruling that the Cal. Supreme Court misapplied Cal. law).

Hope no one here's taking the MBE this time 'round...

http://www.shortdaddy.com/archives/2...07.html#000305

[andViolins]

I note that new member number 667 is Saddam Hussein.

aV

[blueballs]

Originally posted by andViolins
I note that new member number 667 is Saddam Hussein.

aV

I'm 701, that's 34 better.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

What is the single biggest marketing expense at many large law firms? Not hip, computer-animated television commercials. Not bold, full-page ads in The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal. Certainly not pens and tote bags handed out to clients and law students.

Surprisingly, the largest single item on many firms' marketing budget is their entry in the venerable Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory. A large firm that merely lists its lawyers' names and educational credentials can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on its Martindale-Hubbell profile. And, of course, some partners insist on going a lot further, listing everything from decades-old law review articles to memberships in Mensa, the "genius" society.

Who'd have thought Martindale cost that much? Not me.

See http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1052440783989.

[Anne Elk]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Who'd have thought Martindale cost that much? Not me.

See http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1052440783989.

With all the biographical information available on firm's websites, and the web in general are Martindale's days numbered? I used to use it all the time, now I just surf the web and firm's sites for info on opposing counsel.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1052440819671

I know nothing's going on, but let's get some chatter going on this board anyway.


ps-i really need a nap.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by hellakewl13
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1052440819671

I know nothing's going on, but let's get some chatter going on this board anyway.


ps-i really need a nap.

There's been some discussion on the FB. The consensus is that Heather Smith is a lazy pinhead who let herself be the stooge of West Publishing's corporate interests, notwithstanding the copious and unstinting efforts of people like leagl to tell her what was really going on, efforts that you would not know had been made had you only the article there to go on.

[SEC_Chick]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/920131.asp?0cv=CB20

A 60% bar passage rate for the 10 member class. I would have preferred to attend law school naked in my living room, so that may not have been too bad a deal. Unfortunately I live in a state that requires you to go to an accredited school.

[Anne Elk]

Martha Stewart indicted.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SEC_Chick
http://www.msnbc.com/news/920131.asp?0cv=CB20

A 60% bar passage rate for the 10 member class. I would have preferred to attend law school naked in my living room, so that may not have been too bad a deal. Unfortunately I live in a state that requires you to go to an accredited school.

And I would have preferred to be in your living room with you, but who knew that I'd end up in California?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I have never had a conversation like this with anyone bringing boxes to my office.

(spree: words)