POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 3/30, I returned the McDonald papers, and we briefly went over how they were graded. We then discussed the Nurre v. Whitehead case, as well as the concept of viewpoint discrimination regarding religious expression. For Thursday, 4/1, the assignment is to first review those parts of The Nine that discuss the career of Jay Sekulow (pp. 104-111;147-150); then, from the Supreme Court website/merits briefs, read the Petitioner's Brief in the case of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, oral argument 4/19 (docket #08-1371).
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
March 25, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 3/25, I collected your McDonald papers, and we went over them. I plan on returning them on Tuesday. I discussed a decision this week on student loan discharge in bankruptcy, United Student Aid v. Espinosa. The assignment for Tuesday 3/30 is to read Justice Alito's dissent from the denial of cert. in a free speech and religion case, Nurre v. Whitehead. Justice Alito's dissent can be found by going to the Supreme Court site
www.supremecourt.gov
select "orders and journals"
select "orders of the court"
select and download "order list 3/22"
this is a 27 page download, and the Alito dissent is found on pp. 22-27 of the download.
I also want you to watch the oral argument that was held last year in the Ninth Circuit in this case. That oral argument can be found at
www.c-spanvideo.org/program/283553-1
In class today, Thursday 3/25, I collected your McDonald papers, and we went over them. I plan on returning them on Tuesday. I discussed a decision this week on student loan discharge in bankruptcy, United Student Aid v. Espinosa. The assignment for Tuesday 3/30 is to read Justice Alito's dissent from the denial of cert. in a free speech and religion case, Nurre v. Whitehead. Justice Alito's dissent can be found by going to the Supreme Court site
www.supremecourt.gov
select "orders and journals"
select "orders of the court"
select and download "order list 3/22"
this is a 27 page download, and the Alito dissent is found on pp. 22-27 of the download.
I also want you to watch the oral argument that was held last year in the Ninth Circuit in this case. That oral argument can be found at
www.c-spanvideo.org/program/283553-1
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
March 23, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 3/23, we began with an excursion into the constitutionality of the new health care law. Regarding the McDonald assignment, I stressed that part of that assignment is to not just describe the questioning during the oral argument of the case, but to also give the point of the questions. I then went over 2 recent Supreme Court cases that touched on practice in the federal courts, Hertz v. Friend, (3/2/2010) regarding federal diversity jurisdiction, and Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick (3/2/2010) regarding federal subject matter jurisdiction. The assignment for Thursday 3/25 is to complete the previously assigned McDonald paper, which is due at the beginning of class (9:30) on Thursday.
In class today, Tuesday 3/23, we began with an excursion into the constitutionality of the new health care law. Regarding the McDonald assignment, I stressed that part of that assignment is to not just describe the questioning during the oral argument of the case, but to also give the point of the questions. I then went over 2 recent Supreme Court cases that touched on practice in the federal courts, Hertz v. Friend, (3/2/2010) regarding federal diversity jurisdiction, and Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick (3/2/2010) regarding federal subject matter jurisdiction. The assignment for Thursday 3/25 is to complete the previously assigned McDonald paper, which is due at the beginning of class (9:30) on Thursday.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
March 18, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 3/18, I finished going over the Snyder v. Phelps case in which cert. was granted 3/8. I then talked about the 3/8 unanimous decision of the Court in Milavetz v. U.S., a bankruptcy law case which discussed the First Amendment standard for review of commercial speech. The assignment for next Tuesday, 3/23 is to continue your work on the McDonald oral argument assignment.
In class today, Thursday 3/18, I finished going over the Snyder v. Phelps case in which cert. was granted 3/8. I then talked about the 3/8 unanimous decision of the Court in Milavetz v. U.S., a bankruptcy law case which discussed the First Amendment standard for review of commercial speech. The assignment for next Tuesday, 3/23 is to continue your work on the McDonald oral argument assignment.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
March 16, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 3/16, I distributed assignment #2, which is reproduced below. I also asked the class to read an article from the New Yorker, and listen to an interview from NPR, both about a profile that Jeffrey Toobin wrote about Justice Stevens. I went over the requirements for the assignments for the assignment, and then I talked about a new First Amendment case that the Court just granted cert. on, Snyder v. Phelps. Here are the web sites for the Toobin article and interview:
www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/03/22/100322fa_fact_toobin
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124597191
Assignment #2
For this assignment, I would like you to write a paper analyzing certain questions raised in the oral argument in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The only important source for this analysis will be the questions raised at the oral argument (no other research is needed or wanted). Your citations to the oral argument transcript should give page and line numbers. You should use primarily your own words, quoting only in snippets when the particular words of an exchange are crucial.
Specifically, I want you to address the following four questions:
1) What was the Justices’ reception to McDonald’s attempt to resurrect the Privileges and Immunities clause? (Which Justices weighed in on the question; what seemed to be the thrust of each of their line of questioning; what were the responses by the lawyers?)
2) If the Court does “incorporate” the protections of the Second Amendment against the states, does the incorporation bring with it the body of case law that develops directly in the Federal Second Amendment cases, or might the Second Amendment mean something different for the states than for the Federal government?
3) If the Court does not incorporate the protections of the Second Amendment against the states, does that mean that the states are free to ban all handguns, or all guns of any kind?
4) Is the right that is protected one of self-defense in the home, or is it a broader right than that?
Here’s a Sample (though fictional) answer:
Justice Souter asked whether the right is only to arm bears, or whether the right extends to other animals as well (P.7, L.20-22). Gura answered that the right extends to all hibernating mammals (P.7-8, L223-25,1-8). Souter was forcing Gura into admitting that his reasoning would extend the right far beyond the words of the Second Amendment; Gura’s reply explained that this was not a problem as he saw it, because the right to hibernation preceded the codification of the right to arm bears. Amphibians, however, were excluded because they are cold-blooded (P.10, L12-15).
The paper should be a minimum of 3 pages long, and no more than 5 pages. Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Thursday March 25, 2010. If you are unable to attend class on that date, you should e-mail the paper to me by the beginning of class. I will acknowledge receipt of any e-mailed papers--if you don’t get an acknowledgment, that means that I didn’t get the paper. See the syllabus for more information, or if you do not have the paper done on time.
Your papers will be graded on how directly and completely you respond to the questions assigned, and how well you explain the point of the questions and the answers. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. I encourage you to use the UM writing center to help with your English.
You may not collaborate with other students. The work should be entirely your own. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism.
In class today, Tuesday 3/16, I distributed assignment #2, which is reproduced below. I also asked the class to read an article from the New Yorker, and listen to an interview from NPR, both about a profile that Jeffrey Toobin wrote about Justice Stevens. I went over the requirements for the assignments for the assignment, and then I talked about a new First Amendment case that the Court just granted cert. on, Snyder v. Phelps. Here are the web sites for the Toobin article and interview:
www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/03/22/100322fa_fact_toobin
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124597191
Assignment #2
For this assignment, I would like you to write a paper analyzing certain questions raised in the oral argument in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The only important source for this analysis will be the questions raised at the oral argument (no other research is needed or wanted). Your citations to the oral argument transcript should give page and line numbers. You should use primarily your own words, quoting only in snippets when the particular words of an exchange are crucial.
Specifically, I want you to address the following four questions:
1) What was the Justices’ reception to McDonald’s attempt to resurrect the Privileges and Immunities clause? (Which Justices weighed in on the question; what seemed to be the thrust of each of their line of questioning; what were the responses by the lawyers?)
2) If the Court does “incorporate” the protections of the Second Amendment against the states, does the incorporation bring with it the body of case law that develops directly in the Federal Second Amendment cases, or might the Second Amendment mean something different for the states than for the Federal government?
3) If the Court does not incorporate the protections of the Second Amendment against the states, does that mean that the states are free to ban all handguns, or all guns of any kind?
4) Is the right that is protected one of self-defense in the home, or is it a broader right than that?
Here’s a Sample (though fictional) answer:
Justice Souter asked whether the right is only to arm bears, or whether the right extends to other animals as well (P.7, L.20-22). Gura answered that the right extends to all hibernating mammals (P.7-8, L223-25,1-8). Souter was forcing Gura into admitting that his reasoning would extend the right far beyond the words of the Second Amendment; Gura’s reply explained that this was not a problem as he saw it, because the right to hibernation preceded the codification of the right to arm bears. Amphibians, however, were excluded because they are cold-blooded (P.10, L12-15).
The paper should be a minimum of 3 pages long, and no more than 5 pages. Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Thursday March 25, 2010. If you are unable to attend class on that date, you should e-mail the paper to me by the beginning of class. I will acknowledge receipt of any e-mailed papers--if you don’t get an acknowledgment, that means that I didn’t get the paper. See the syllabus for more information, or if you do not have the paper done on time.
Your papers will be graded on how directly and completely you respond to the questions assigned, and how well you explain the point of the questions and the answers. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. I encourage you to use the UM writing center to help with your English.
You may not collaborate with other students. The work should be entirely your own. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)