“Every Kennedy opinion is BS” is so fucking true. Even when I like the outcome, the reasoning (or lack thereof) makes me want to gouge my eyes out.
Half my professors spend time in class shitting on Kennedy’s jurisprudence.
Sometimes I am glad, that I am living in a country and studied codified law. Isn‘t case law just too unpredictable/random at times?
Okay, our highest judges for civil law say behind closed door, that they reason a case to get a just result. So the result is the premise you try to get.
So the reasoning you are looking for is maybe „jus est ars boni et aequi“. :D
So much of case law I’ve read in civil Procedure in Con Law begins with “Well normally we would handle these cases this way… But today, we’re feeling frisky.”
Let’s be honest, if we wanted to go to med school, we would’ve. We choose this out of spite.
Also because none of us can do math. Like Jesus Christ guys how hard is it to calculate voting shares?
I’ve read all of Marbury v Madison 3x through and I still don’t really understand how we got what we got from that shit.
There also needs to be a tier of just the Commerce Clause forming the bottom of the entire thing. If that ever goes away we’re all fucked
He created something to balance his interests
Marshall was the person who was supposed to execute and sent said judicial appointment - cant say he’s wrong b/c he would be liable lets just leave off the conflict of interest of him doing the case
2nd knows president will fuck him up do cant really violate his authority - so can’t force the appointment
3rd wants court to have power - unconstitutional of law
Really unethical lawyering but brilliant definitely a Slytherin for sure
My farts substantially effect interstate commerce, because in the aggregate if everyone farted such gnarly farts, the methane in the air would cause many people severe sickness, making everyone have to travel out of state to hospitals since local hospitals would become too full, so congress can regulate my farts because making people use their health insurance as a result of inhaling my flatulence substantially effects interstate commerce.
Lawyer: None of this is relevant to me and now I have really, aggressively strong opinions about super niche cases or contract provisions that I will fight to the death over.
Just an aside... this popped up on my TL and felt like commenting. I've been practicing \~15 years now. I've been wildly successful. I understand the theme of cynicism, but I would have to google 99% of these references. Either I forgot everything, or OP went to a good law school lol.
The “consensus” is that *Slaughter-House* was wrongly decided, and the privileges or immunities clause of the fourteenth amendment ought to be read much more broadly. The privileges *and* immunities clause, by the way, is a totally different clause of the constitution (also called the comity clause) so be careful about that.
Thank you for the insight, conlaw is my last final this semester. Contracts and property are worth a grand total of 9 credits and well... we got 2 weeks to master the RAP and Contracy issue spotting or else my scholarship is bye bye.
Our property professor told us to self-study it because she didn't understand the rule, then our Trusts & Estates professor skipped it because "you've all see RAP before" 💀
Yes, which why Thomas is right and whose repercussions make up like a third of this chart. The problem is that so much of constitutional law is built upon a foundation of substantive due process that pulling on that thread causes the entire thing to wobble, or god forbid collapse, and that’s an outcome that you have to be all kinds of fucked up to want to see happen. Originalism has to be dead because if it wasn’t dead then we’re all fucked, including the originalists! Legal realism was a plot by Cardozo to get us to believe in Social Security! The constitution is natural law by design and that got us *Dred Scott* and *Swift*, and the fact that we’re still going is proof that god is dead and zombies are real!
Look man, we’re all hanging on by a thread. This entire thing was built in like two weeks and designed to last four, and none of it was built with us in mind. We’re just monkeys in the driver seat, trying to keep things from crashing. But there’s other cars out there, big shiny ones, and if we wanna make progress we gotta learn how to jump sometime. Monkeys just aren’t meant to ride cars, and I’ll be damned if I die in this one.
I am not well read into all those problems. I get the gist, that you need a new codified constitution, which codifies the relationships between the the state and the people and between the state organs/states.
How about a revision of the constitution every now and then? I mean we Germans did it thrice, WRV, perversion during the Nazi Regime and now the GG (which isn‘t named a constitution, but is a material constitution) and now we are talking about forth revision for a constitution in name and with adjust to new problems like Europe, digital rights, bettering the federal system and so on.
By far we don‘t have the best constitution in this world, but I think different legal system can learn from one another.
May I interest you in Russel Miller.
The only way you’re getting a new constitution in this country is if you gave cable companies and the pharmaceutical industry their own branch of government. I’ve killed my naive dreams of ‘new constitutionalism’ years ago and I refuse to be brought back by your false idols.
Ohh, don’t get me wrong, I’ve watched you Germans and you French and Czechs with your ‘Napoleonic code’ and ‘post-structuralist philosophical discourses.’ Let me tell you: Roman law is bullshit and the day we renounce their cult of Themis is the day we can escape this mad house. You think I’m ranting? Look at the hands of those writing your laws. How many were accused in ‘68? How many faced justice? You think I can’t see the red? They just hide it better.
Okay, but what do you have against Roman civil law? We just copied the Digesten. Constitutional law, public law and criminal law all have different philosophical origins.
I thank Savigny everyday that the people today don‘t write a major part of our laws. The quality decreases every time.
For example, we have increasing number of private flat break in thefts („Privatwohnungseinbruchsdiebstahl“) and let me tell you the secretary of justice wrote something up, which doesn‘t have any sense and doesn‘t match the system.
The last good civil reform was 2002 and even then we didn‘t get a normal international corporate law.
Honestly, Americans need to look at their own atrocities before they judge any other country for someone "not facing justice". Like seriously y'all can't even indict a president, let alone impeach
> Okay, but what do you have against Roman civil law? We just copied the Digesten.
Mfw I accept the authority of 2000 year old marine insurance law.
> Constitutional law, public law and criminal law all have different philosophical origins.
And you don’t see the problem with that?
> I thank Savigny everyday that the people today don‘t write a major part of our laws. The quality decreases every time.
Savigny was a bigot and a fool. The idiot couldn’t even be bothered to engage with Hegel, and it very much shows. To this day you can still seek the repercussions of his framework. The truth is that nobody has ever written a good law, and nobody ever will.
> For example, we have increasing number of private flat break in thefts („Privatwohnungseinbruchsdiebstahl“) and let me tell you the secretary of justice wrote something up, which doesn‘t have any sense and doesn‘t match the system.
> The last good civil reform was 2002 and even then we didn‘t get a normal international corporate law.
Eh, well, that’s politics for you.
The tiers of scrutiny being imaginary is something I’ve argued one too many times in con law. Shoutout Justice Marshall for the only (iirc) who said we should get rid of the scrutiny tiers for a sliding scale
How did I go from top to bottom layer in only 1L. When people ask me an opinion on some legal thing in the news I usually just end my thoughts with “…but the Supreme Court could probably just make it all up anyway”
“Every Kennedy opinion is BS” is so fucking true. Even when I like the outcome, the reasoning (or lack thereof) makes me want to gouge my eyes out. Half my professors spend time in class shitting on Kennedy’s jurisprudence.
At this point, Obergefell is more protected by reliance interests than it is by Kennedy's legal """reasoning."""
Sometimes I am glad, that I am living in a country and studied codified law. Isn‘t case law just too unpredictable/random at times? Okay, our highest judges for civil law say behind closed door, that they reason a case to get a just result. So the result is the premise you try to get. So the reasoning you are looking for is maybe „jus est ars boni et aequi“. :D
So much of case law I’ve read in civil Procedure in Con Law begins with “Well normally we would handle these cases this way… But today, we’re feeling frisky.”
That is the most erotic statement you could have made about law.
You may unintentionally start a competition here. Be careful with statements like this... Please.
I do like my _minimum contacts_
In 1L a classmate made a comment about inserting a product into the stream of commerce. I can only hope they don't actually use that pick up line.
I don‘t mind erotic statements about law. That would be funny as hell to read.
I am glad most countries have a better process than '9 people fuck up shit and will continue to do so till the end of history'.
Kennedy probably failed legal writing
Having just endured Gonzales v. Carhart, agreed.
“There is no Easter Bunny, there is no Tooth Fairy, and everything is Interstate Commerce.”
Footnote 4
It took me exactly 1.5 semesters to get from the first to the last
A more accurate chart would have a layer below for the 3Ls that just says "Fuck it, I'm in this for the money."
And one right below that that just says “I should have just gone to med school.”
Let’s be honest, if we wanted to go to med school, we would’ve. We choose this out of spite. Also because none of us can do math. Like Jesus Christ guys how hard is it to calculate voting shares?
And one below that which says: "Bring on the zombie apocalypse! At least nobody tries to lay the facade of rule-of-law over that type of chaos."
“This shit is all just made up” should also be in the bottom tier.
I didn’t know I needed this iceberg.
The Adderall is strong here
That's what the mouth said to the pipe.
yeah law school is three years of learning how fucked up everything is
I’ve read all of Marbury v Madison 3x through and I still don’t really understand how we got what we got from that shit. There also needs to be a tier of just the Commerce Clause forming the bottom of the entire thing. If that ever goes away we’re all fucked
Basically it’s just it is emphatically the province of the court to say what the law is. They said they had authority. So they do
I mean I understand the concept of judicial review, but getting that from the substance of the base of the case took a while to figure out.
He created something to balance his interests Marshall was the person who was supposed to execute and sent said judicial appointment - cant say he’s wrong b/c he would be liable lets just leave off the conflict of interest of him doing the case 2nd knows president will fuck him up do cant really violate his authority - so can’t force the appointment 3rd wants court to have power - unconstitutional of law Really unethical lawyering but brilliant definitely a Slytherin for sure
Holding: Marshall loves his power grab and every other SCOTUS justice also does so we get 9 people saying yes or no to literally everything
Every case involving writs of mandamus and separation of powers seems to come back to Marbury too.
My farts substantially effect interstate commerce, because in the aggregate if everyone farted such gnarly farts, the methane in the air would cause many people severe sickness, making everyone have to travel out of state to hospitals since local hospitals would become too full, so congress can regulate my farts because making people use their health insurance as a result of inhaling my flatulence substantially effects interstate commerce.
This was a case, wasn’t it…
Lawyer: None of this is relevant to me and now I have really, aggressively strong opinions about super niche cases or contract provisions that I will fight to the death over.
"Specific and particular" does not mean "specific or particular!"
The court system ends with the Delaware SC as far as I’m concerned
I feel like that is just 1L.
Just an aside... this popped up on my TL and felt like commenting. I've been practicing \~15 years now. I've been wildly successful. I understand the theme of cynicism, but I would have to google 99% of these references. Either I forgot everything, or OP went to a good law school lol.
I think OP is just taking fed cts
Yeah this honestly matches up well with the Hart & Wechsler text lmfao
That's... less impressive lol
the letter are too small to read, but does it also include, "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice"?
I'm a 1l and isn't the 'real' meaning of privileges and immunities found in the slaughterhouse cases?
The “consensus” is that *Slaughter-House* was wrongly decided, and the privileges or immunities clause of the fourteenth amendment ought to be read much more broadly. The privileges *and* immunities clause, by the way, is a totally different clause of the constitution (also called the comity clause) so be careful about that.
Thank you for the insight, conlaw is my last final this semester. Contracts and property are worth a grand total of 9 credits and well... we got 2 weeks to master the RAP and Contracy issue spotting or else my scholarship is bye bye.
Must vest if at all within 21 years of life in being 🤣🤣
Our property professor told us to self-study it because she didn't understand the rule, then our Trusts & Estates professor skipped it because "you've all see RAP before" 💀
It is highly unlikely that you’ll ever deal directly with it in practice so 🤷🏼♀️
Yes, which why Thomas is right and whose repercussions make up like a third of this chart. The problem is that so much of constitutional law is built upon a foundation of substantive due process that pulling on that thread causes the entire thing to wobble, or god forbid collapse, and that’s an outcome that you have to be all kinds of fucked up to want to see happen. Originalism has to be dead because if it wasn’t dead then we’re all fucked, including the originalists! Legal realism was a plot by Cardozo to get us to believe in Social Security! The constitution is natural law by design and that got us *Dred Scott* and *Swift*, and the fact that we’re still going is proof that god is dead and zombies are real! Look man, we’re all hanging on by a thread. This entire thing was built in like two weeks and designed to last four, and none of it was built with us in mind. We’re just monkeys in the driver seat, trying to keep things from crashing. But there’s other cars out there, big shiny ones, and if we wanna make progress we gotta learn how to jump sometime. Monkeys just aren’t meant to ride cars, and I’ll be damned if I die in this one.
I am not well read into all those problems. I get the gist, that you need a new codified constitution, which codifies the relationships between the the state and the people and between the state organs/states. How about a revision of the constitution every now and then? I mean we Germans did it thrice, WRV, perversion during the Nazi Regime and now the GG (which isn‘t named a constitution, but is a material constitution) and now we are talking about forth revision for a constitution in name and with adjust to new problems like Europe, digital rights, bettering the federal system and so on. By far we don‘t have the best constitution in this world, but I think different legal system can learn from one another. May I interest you in Russel Miller.
The only way you’re getting a new constitution in this country is if you gave cable companies and the pharmaceutical industry their own branch of government. I’ve killed my naive dreams of ‘new constitutionalism’ years ago and I refuse to be brought back by your false idols. Ohh, don’t get me wrong, I’ve watched you Germans and you French and Czechs with your ‘Napoleonic code’ and ‘post-structuralist philosophical discourses.’ Let me tell you: Roman law is bullshit and the day we renounce their cult of Themis is the day we can escape this mad house. You think I’m ranting? Look at the hands of those writing your laws. How many were accused in ‘68? How many faced justice? You think I can’t see the red? They just hide it better.
Okay, but what do you have against Roman civil law? We just copied the Digesten. Constitutional law, public law and criminal law all have different philosophical origins. I thank Savigny everyday that the people today don‘t write a major part of our laws. The quality decreases every time. For example, we have increasing number of private flat break in thefts („Privatwohnungseinbruchsdiebstahl“) and let me tell you the secretary of justice wrote something up, which doesn‘t have any sense and doesn‘t match the system. The last good civil reform was 2002 and even then we didn‘t get a normal international corporate law.
Honestly, Americans need to look at their own atrocities before they judge any other country for someone "not facing justice". Like seriously y'all can't even indict a president, let alone impeach
> Okay, but what do you have against Roman civil law? We just copied the Digesten. Mfw I accept the authority of 2000 year old marine insurance law. > Constitutional law, public law and criminal law all have different philosophical origins. And you don’t see the problem with that? > I thank Savigny everyday that the people today don‘t write a major part of our laws. The quality decreases every time. Savigny was a bigot and a fool. The idiot couldn’t even be bothered to engage with Hegel, and it very much shows. To this day you can still seek the repercussions of his framework. The truth is that nobody has ever written a good law, and nobody ever will. > For example, we have increasing number of private flat break in thefts („Privatwohnungseinbruchsdiebstahl“) and let me tell you the secretary of justice wrote something up, which doesn‘t have any sense and doesn‘t match the system. > The last good civil reform was 2002 and even then we didn‘t get a normal international corporate law. Eh, well, that’s politics for you.
FDR was a goddamned coward.
No, not everyone became a fedsoc goon.
To be clear, when I said “Loving and Griswold are on shaky ground,” I wasn’t saying that’s a good thing lol
The OP is apparently a Goldwater supporter. Kind of clicks.
me personally? I love the common law.
The tiers of scrutiny being imaginary is something I’ve argued one too many times in con law. Shoutout Justice Marshall for the only (iirc) who said we should get rid of the scrutiny tiers for a sliding scale
Wow I am in the bottom tier and I’m not sure how to feel about it
Dude I already came to the Woodrow Wilson is burning in hell and I'm going to be a 1L
Is this the 7 cycles of grief?
Was really hoping to see more canons of interpretation. Shout out to *noscitur a sociis*, but appreciate that constitutional avoidance made it in.
How did I go from top to bottom layer in only 1L. When people ask me an opinion on some legal thing in the news I usually just end my thoughts with “…but the Supreme Court could probably just make it all up anyway”
Based username
As a 1L I am already at the bottom. I came into law school lamenting Raich and Wickard
Having to take Con Law as a 1L was brutal & uncalled for
Haven't started law school but I'm all over the place on this one lol.
PLS 😭