Police attacking the left across Midwest

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by The Templar
Now, do you have a response or are you just shooting your mouth off?

Other than saying that Thomas' few opinions should have told you that your opinion of the man was false clearer than anything Imran told you, I'll just say that Siddiqui more than adequately covered the rest.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You insinuated the blame fall squarely on the Rehnquist Court. I saw it, and DD saw it. You cannot deny it. NOW, you change your tune and say they didn't get rid of bad precedent.

No changing my tune at all - they are at fault for not only for relying on bad precedent but extending it.

If you've read Seminole Tribe of Fla v. Florida or Alden v. Maine, you will realize that the majority used legislative history to determine what the 11th Amendment meant. Especially since it came right after (and was meant to rectify) the SCOTUS decision in Chrisholm v. Georgia.

Legislative history? As Scalia once said - nobody votes on it, so it has no place in a court. (Besides, congressional staffers edit these after the fact.)

And btw, saying there is no excuse not to overturn 'bad' precedent shows a severe lack of understanding of the federal court system and how insanely difficult it is to overturn precedent. Brown came 60 years after Plessy, and is one of the rare cases that actually overturned prior precedent. One can easily see from Planned Parenthood v. Casey how important precedent is to the federal court system (or else they easily would have overturned Roe v. Wade in 1991, and then it would have overturned again with the next Democrat majority).

Actually Flood is the best example of the stickiness of bad precedent. But it isn't "insanely difficult" - there are just policy reasons that mitigate against overturning precedent.

All going to show that your view is seriously misguided and in some parts just wrong.

How so? Because I disagree with the Hans court? Give me a break. Hans is bad precedent with bad analysis.

And I think I'll continue to let my top 30 ranked Law School keep my tuition. Though perhaps you ought to write your educational facilities and ask for a partial refund, since you seem to have large gaps in your educational understanding.

Top 30? I'll assume it's lower that #25, otherwise you would have said top #25. This shows, because your argument is all black letter law (without analysis even!)and no substance.

You cite a bunch of cases at me without actually arguing against my analysis of why the precedent is bad. Again, how can the framers have intended for states to be immune from suits when the text of the constitution (pre-11th Amend) endorses the practice? And before you cite any Federalist Papers - tell me, who ratified those? Oh yeah, no one.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Thomas IS a textualist

Bull****! Thomas uses legislative history just as much as anyone else on the bench. That, by definition, does not make him a textualist. I understand that it is a nice pejorative slur you'd like to use towards him, but it doesn't make it true.


Btw, seeing as the Warren Court didn't get rid of the bad precedent of Hans does that make them complicit as well in this 'horrible' reading of the Amendment?

See People v. Staples.

[Agathon]

**** America.

Well that's my two cents. At least that's what all us commies are supposed to say.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Other than saying that Thomas' few opinions should have told you that your opinion of the man was false clearer than anything Imran told you, I'll just say that Siddiqui more than adequately covered the rest.

Translation: I don't know what you guys are talking about, but Siddi is right. Even though I have no basis for comparison.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Agathon
F*ck America.

Well that's my two cents.

I think she'd like a dinner and a movie first. America doesn't strike me as that kind of girl.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Legislative history? As Scalia once said - nobody votes on it, so it has no place in a court. (Besides, congressional staffers edit these after the fact.)

NO ****! That's why it ain't a textualist argument!

But it isn't "insanely difficult" - there are just policy reasons that mitigate against overturning precedent.

Of course it is insanely difficult, because if the court changes its mind every ten years no one is going to take the court seriously! Yes, that's a policy reason, but that doesn't make is insanely difficult!

How so? Because I disagree with the Hans court? Give me a break. Hans is bad precedent with bad analysis.

No, because you place the blame for what the Hans court did on the Rehnquist Court! That's intellectually dishonest.

Top 30? I'll assume it's lower that #25, otherwise you would have said top #25. This shows, because your argument is all black letter law (without analysis even!)and no substance.

So wait... you are saying that the schools from 25-30 are dramatically inferior? Please . And it was in the Top 25 last year, so does that mean my analysis would have been better before the recent ranking came out?

how can the framers have intended for states to be immune from suits when the text of the constitution (pre-11th Amend) endorses the practice?

When did I say anything about the framers? The 11th Amendment came after the framers and superceeds anything the Constitution says beforehand (and anything after it superceeds the 11th, which is why Civil Rights cases aren't subject to soveriegn immunity). The courts looked at the intention for the 11th Amendment at the time it was passed and ratified. The founders have nothing to do with it.

Btw, the 11th Amendment was ratified. And interestingly enough it came almost right after Chisholm v. Georgia, and according to the speechs was undoubtably related to that. It may be bad precedent to say that is what it meant, it may not, but who cares? Precedent ain't an easy thing to overturn, as witnessed by the fact that in the 100 years from Hans to the Rehnquist court, that interpretation of the 11th wasn't deemed wrong (then again, they may have decided that the legislative history was clear).

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I think she'd like a dinner and a movie first. America doesn't strike me as that kind of girl.

Shut up; or you'll have Striker in here with that picture of Britney he's always carrying around.

[Imran Siddiqui]

See People v. Staples

Is that SCOTUS? Because it doesn't show up on Findlaw.

Or do you mean Staples v. United States? Because if you do, you know that Criminal law is a bit different than Constitutional Law when it comes to interpretation, right?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by The Templar
I recommend, Siddi, that you demand a refund of tuition from whatever law school you attend or attended.

Oh, and next time you accuse me of not knowing something, please be sure that I actually don't know about it.

I don't really know what you guys are talking about, but this has been said before

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, by you, IIRC, and you haven't even BEEN to law school... again, IIRC .

[Ned]

Templar, as a general rule, citizens cannot sue states or the United States without a waiver by them of their sovereign immunity. The 11th Amendment clarified an ambiquity created by the language of Article III. The clarification limited federal state-citizen jurisdiction to actions commenced by states against citizens of other states. This is consistent with and affirms the general rule of sovereign immunity.

The question is, can Congress pass a law that permits a citizen to sue a state in federal courts under federally created causes of actions, such as patent or copyright infrinement? The Rehnquist court held that Congress does not have this power, IIRC. You say this holding was non textual. But is it?

The 11th Amendment: "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State...."

The language does not provide an exception for federally-created rights. It is absolute.

But there is no text anywhere in the constitution that expressly denies a citizen the right to sue his own state in federal court under federal causes of action. You suggest therefor that Congress could grant such a right to a citizen without violating the 11th amendment or any other protection given the states by the constitution.

I suggest, however, that the 11th amendment clearly implies just such a prohibition. It would ludicrous, if you ask me, to expressly deny the right of a citizen of one state to sue a second state for federal causes of action while permitting such a right if the citizen were from the same state. The denial of such a right is also consistent with the general rule of state sovereign immunity.

The Rehnquist court is right, no pun intended.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, by you, IIRC, and you haven't even BEEN to law school... again, IIRC .

True, but I can't help but wonder if Templar is making a true statement about your knowledge of the law.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by The Templar
Translation: I don't know what you guys are talking about, but Siddi is right.

I'm not in law school so I'm not as well read as Imran is when it comes to Court precedent. However, I understand the issues being discussed. That's partly the reason why your earlier contention that anyone on the Court (especially Thomas who you made specific mention of) other than Scalia is a textualist amusing.

The main reason why I didn't make a longer post is because I would have only been going over ground Imran already plowed in his previous post.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Kidd: Says the person who proclaims himself an expert on economics, and yet finds just about every masters trained economist on this site wonder what the Hell you are going about...

Yet when people say it about you, do you believe that you have limited knowledge in economics? No... you continue to assert you are right.

(For the record, I do believe you are knowledgable about economics, but also think you are incorrect about plenty... doesn't make you incompetant about the subject... unless you think it does ).