Today in Supreme Court History: February 28, 1966

2/28/1966: Miranda v. Arizona argued.

The Warren Court (1966)

 

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Johnson v. M’Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 (decided February 28, 1823): Why do law professors like to play with the heads of 1L’s? In Property Law, instead of starting the course with some simple cases illustrating basic principles, they confuse new law students with this mishmash involving purchase of land from an Indian tribe, the granting of a federal land patent to someone else, the “doctrine of discovery”, “aboriginal title” . . . and almost all the opinion is dicta where they’re forced to listen to Marshall expound on the Rights of Whites by Conquest. There is no possible way this case helps them understand real life property law. (Another torturer of students in their first week of law school was Farnsworth, who decided to start his Contracts casebook with Laredo Hides v. H & H Meat Products, where the student is forced to learn a complicated formula for damages — this is, mind you, after a contract is formed, after it’s broken, and after it’s litigated on liability. “In medias rae” might be a good trick to use in fiction, but in teaching a course it’s poor, poor, poor.) As for the holding, it’s not worth mentioning because it didn’t pertain to the actual facts. Most law students would be better off if they could extract all memory of this case from their brains.

Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510 (decided February 28, 2001): state could not identify on the ballot those candidates for Congress who failed to support term limits (which BTW was like inviting couch potatoes to an exercise class; voters who support term limits by definition are too lazy to drag their asses to the polls to vote the rascals out)

Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (decided February 28, 2011): hearsay statement by police as to mortally wounded man’s identification of who shot him did not violate Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause; purpose of “emergency” interrogation was to save man’s life (he died in hospital a few hours later)

Texaco, Inc. v. Dagher, 547 U.S. 1 (decided February 28, 2006): joint venture’s decision to sell separately branded gasoline at same price was not illegal horizontal price fixing (the “joint venture” was between Texaco and Shell Oil, who agreed to sell “Texaco” and “Shell” gas at same price — how is this not an illegal “cartel”? — yet Thomas writes for a unanimous Court)

Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (decided February 28, 1990): police entering with a warrant and arresting armed robbery suspect can conduct “protective sweep” of premises for individuals who might pose danger (during this “protective sweep” police found outfit matching description of what man was wearing at time of robbery)

[apedad]

"(which BTW was like inviting couch potatoes to an exercise class; voters who support term limits by definition are too lazy to drag their asses to the polls to vote the rascals out)"

That's the best argument for NOT having term limits.

Just vote the critter out if you don't want them anymore.

I just thought of an idea for SC Justices; have term limits (10 years?), but a president can renominate them if they (pres) want - not required to renominate though (prolly has been thought of by others).

[Krayt]

Spend 50 years playing the long gain to slowly get control of the court. All of a sudden a faster churn of justices, one way or the other, becomes some great idea.

All of a sudden? That idea is so great, it's all of the sudden!

[apedad]

Yeah...not all of a sudden....

2014: https://www.law.columbia.edu/news/archive/pros-and-cons-potential-term-limits-supreme-court-justices

2005: https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2005/01/law-professor-proposes-term-limits-supreme-court-justices

[apedad]

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5893&context=uclrev

See pg 996 about 1937 and 1954

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why worry about any new methods when the traditional approach — adjusting the size of the Court— would suffice?

[John F. Carr]

Renewable appointments give the political control that the constitution seeks to avoid. If justices have term limits or a retirement age they need to be done serving at the end of their time. Give them the option of serving on a lower court. Justice Souter has heard many cases on the First Circuit after retiring.

[Dilan Esper]

Term limits solve a collective action problem.

[Dan Schiavetta]

So would abolishing elections entirely.

[John F. Carr]

I like the opening of Scalia's dissent in Michigan v. Bryant: "Today's tale—a story of five officers conducting successive examinations of a dying man with the primary purpose, not of obtaining and preserving his testimony regarding his killer, but of protecting him, them, and others from a murderer somewhere on the loose—is so transparently false that professing to believe it demeans this institution."

My state Supreme Court considered a case where a police officer pulled up behind a stopped car and turned on his flashing blue lights. The court said it wasn't a seizure because the prosecution argued after the fact that it was community caretaking. Of course if the guy had driven away he wouldn't have gotten far pleading "it was just a community caretaking stop."

[Dan Schiavetta]

It seems unlikely but certainly possible. There’s obviously a murderer lurking nearby with a gun. Safety of the officers would be a concern.

[John F. Carr]

A protective sweep in my area turned deadly. A police officer ordered a non-target occupant to lie face down on the ground then shot him in the back. The killer said it was an accident. If any normal person said it was an accident he would be facing manslaughter charges. But cops don't get charged for shooting people in the back. After the statute of limitations had run a new DA looked at the case again and again filed no charges.

The dead man's name was Eurie Stamps if you want to do research. As of my last review the officer was still employed, the town's SWAT team was disbanded, and the family of the deceased received a substantial payment.

[Bob from Ohio]

You just has a bad real property prof. The correct way to start is discussing fee tails and the covenant of seisen.

I don't think we had any US supreme court case in my property class, there's only like 5 on the subject.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Well yes, she was pretty bad. She was a new professor and came in with an attitude. For some reason when we came back for the spring semester she was much better.

Starting with this case wasn’t necessarily her fault. It was the first case in our textbook and apparently it is pretty standard to scare new law school students with this case the first week, which accounts for my rant. See the wikipedia article on this case.

[defaultdotxbe]

"how is this not an illegal “cartel”? — yet Thomas writes for a unanimous Court"

Texaco continued its independent refining operations, but sold the stations to Shell, which continued to operate them under the Texaco name until they completed rebranding. I'm guessing the court found it was not a cartel because Texaco stations and Shell stations weren't really separate companies that would otherwise be competing, they were all owned by Shell and just operated under two different names.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It certainly gave the illusion of competition, at least to customers.

[Frank Drackman]

Carmen Miranda (too old? OK, Miranda Lambert) could have made a better decision,
but as the Late/Great Paulllllllll Har-vey would say, let's hear the "Rest of the Story"
On January 31, 1976, after his release for violating his parole, a fight erupted in a bar in downtown Phoenix in which Miranda was stabbed. He was pronounced dead on arrival at Good Samaritan Hospital. Several Miranda cards were found on his person. Miranda was buried in the City of Mesa Cemetery in Mesa, Arizona.[8] The person suspected of handing the knife to the man who murdered Miranda invoked his Miranda rights and refused to talk to police. He was released and never charged with Miranda's murder.[9] The killer fled and was never found.[10]

so it has a happy ending,

Frank