Today in Supreme Court History: November 8, 1994

11/8/1994: U.S. v. Lopez argued.

Edison High School, San Antonio

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Greene v. Fisher, 565 U.S. 34 (decided November 8, 2011): “clearly established federal law” required for habeas does not include law established by Court in decision announced after state appeals on facts are exhausted

United States v. Olson, 546 U.S. 43 (decided November 8, 2005): Federal Tort Claims Act allows only for torts for which state law holds private parties (not governmental entities) liable, and court must determine if state law provides private law analogies for the duties of governmental entities (here, mine inspectors)

U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18 (decided November 8, 1994): federal courts don’t automatically vacate judgments simply because a settlement has been reached; appeal dismissed as moot, so judgment stands (one imagines that the paying party didn’t want to have a Satisfaction of Judgment filed because it might be seen as admitting liability)

[SomeGuy 2]

Wow, surprised that last one was even considered worth granting cert.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Possibly it was a persistent procedural uncertainty that the Court wanted to weigh in on and give an answer to.

When I was in law school much was said about the then-recent Alcoa case (499 F. Supp. 53, I think) where a contract was voided simply because it became unprofitable for one of the parties. It was pointed out that the case was settled on appeal — but the judgment still stood, to serve as precedent.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"a contract was voided simply because it became unprofitable for one of the parties"

Isn't that the usual reason someone wants to get out of a contract?

[Dan Schiavetta]

It’s not an argument that tends to succeed, if the other side objects. Usually you need to show mistake, frustration of purpose, lack of consideration, illegality, fraud, etc.

[Krayt]

Was listening to NPR on the way in today. They were rebroadcasting BBC as they do, who was interviewing a Hezbollah leader in Lebanon.

Q: Given Israel has said there would be a severe response if Hezbollah launched missiles from Lebanon, are you afraid of civilian Lebanese casualties in the respones?

A: Nope! Them's the breaks! (Paraphrased)

Q: Given the massive destruction in Gaza, did the Hamas attack cause a setback?

A: No, because Israel is causing all the deaths.

So to sum up: Civilian deaths are expected, justified, and useful to the cause, so oh well.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes, get your own people killed and then blame their deaths on Israel....

[Sarcastr0]

The attempt by Hamas (and I guess Hezbollah) to do media is a noted contrast from previous terrorist groups.

And gotta say, it's a horrible idea and I hope they keep trying it.

[Frank Drackman]

What do you expect from National Palestinian Radio??

[Estragon]

Anyone else listen to those rahimi orals?

[Dan Schiavetta]

It was inevitable that the Bruen rationale would be discredited. We were lucky it happened so soon. It will be entertaining to see the members of the Bruen majority tie themselves in knots when the decision comes out.

[I Callahan]

How is Bruen being discredited? Do perpetrators of domestic violence have the right to own a gun or not? And why not?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Roberts asked, "Don't you agree your client is a dangerous person who cannot be trusted with a gun?" And Rahimi's lawyer had no answer to that.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Didn't the good old common law provide for people being bound over to keep the peace?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Indeed. The Constitution was intended to enforce, and not displace, common law. “Due process of law” had an agreed upon common law meaning. There’s also an explicit reference to common law in the Seventh Amendment.