POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 1/31, we continued with, and finished up, our discussion of the Glucksberg case. Along the way, we discussed such concepts as following v. distinguishing precedent, the judiciary deferring to the legislative branch, the levels of burden of proof (preponderance, clear and convincing, beyond a reasonable doubt) and the consequence of being a fundamental interest (narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling interest v. rationally related to a legitimate interest). The assignment for Thursday, 2/2 is to review the Smith case from the text and your case brief of that case (as previously assigned).
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 1/31, I distributed one handout, an article about a plan to reduce the current lifetime tenure on the Supreme Court to an 18 year term. We discussed the possible implications of the Hosanna-Tabor decision to the current controversy regarding the Affordable Care Act's mandate that employers cover preventive care, versus the Catholic Church's opposition to providing coverage for contraception. We then began a discussion of the recent 4th Amendment case, U.S. v. Jones. The assignment for Thursday 2/2 is to finish your Hosanna-Tabor paper, which is due at the beginning of class on Thursday.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
January 26, 2012
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 1/26, I distributed two handouts; an article by Tony Judt about life with ALS, and my version of the case brief for Washington v. Glucksberg. We went through that case brief up to the first issue that the Court dealt with. We will finish up the Glucksberg case brief next Tuesday. I also discussed three institutional conflicts that recur in our legal system: the individual v. the government, the separation of powers between the judicial, executive and legislative, and federal v. state power. The assignment for Tuesday 1/31, in addition to reviewing Glucksberg, is to read in the text pp. 32-36, and to do a practice brief (write it out, but you won't hand it in) of the Smith case on p. 34.
PL 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 1/26, we first went over some observations that I had on Hosanna-Tabor. Though the Church won a unanimous verdict, it did not succeed on one claim: that the ministerial exception should be treated as a jurisdictional bar, rather than an affirmative defense. They did get broader protection than what they were advocated for, though, in other areas such as whether a minister has to engage in an important religious function. We discussed the Lemon v. Kurtzman 1971 Establishment Clause case, with its "entanglement" prong, and the lack of mention of Lemon in either the briefing or the Opinion. We then switched to the recent Perry v. Perez Texas redistricting case, with its own silence on the elephant in the room question, the constitutionality of the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act. The assignment for Tuesday 1/31 is to continue working on the Hosanna-Tabor papers previously assigned.
In class today, Thursday 1/26, I distributed two handouts; an article by Tony Judt about life with ALS, and my version of the case brief for Washington v. Glucksberg. We went through that case brief up to the first issue that the Court dealt with. We will finish up the Glucksberg case brief next Tuesday. I also discussed three institutional conflicts that recur in our legal system: the individual v. the government, the separation of powers between the judicial, executive and legislative, and federal v. state power. The assignment for Tuesday 1/31, in addition to reviewing Glucksberg, is to read in the text pp. 32-36, and to do a practice brief (write it out, but you won't hand it in) of the Smith case on p. 34.
PL 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 1/26, we first went over some observations that I had on Hosanna-Tabor. Though the Church won a unanimous verdict, it did not succeed on one claim: that the ministerial exception should be treated as a jurisdictional bar, rather than an affirmative defense. They did get broader protection than what they were advocated for, though, in other areas such as whether a minister has to engage in an important religious function. We discussed the Lemon v. Kurtzman 1971 Establishment Clause case, with its "entanglement" prong, and the lack of mention of Lemon in either the briefing or the Opinion. We then switched to the recent Perry v. Perez Texas redistricting case, with its own silence on the elephant in the room question, the constitutionality of the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act. The assignment for Tuesday 1/31 is to continue working on the Hosanna-Tabor papers previously assigned.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
January 24, 2012
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 1/24, we went over the four different opinions in the Supreme Court Brown v. EMA case. We examined the differences in the questions asked, as well as in the answers given. The assignment for Thursday 1/26 is to read in the text pp. 22-32. Then write up a case brief of the Glucksberg case, using exactly the format from the template and sample brief that I had previously distributed. This case brief will not be collected or graded, but it is a practice brief before a graded one is assigned.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 1/24, I distributed one handout, Assignment#1, which is copied below. We went over the assignment, and then finished our outline of The Hosanna-Tabor opinions. We also discussed the apparent untruths told by the Church officials to the congregation, and the various reasons offered by the church as to why Perich was fired.
Assignment #1
For this assignment, I would like you to write a paper about the Hosanna-Tabor decision. In addition to having read the Supreme Court Opinions, I would like you to read the Brief for the Federal Respondent (just to get an idea of what the loser’s argument was). You can access that brief by going to www.supremecourt.gov, selecting “Merits Briefs”/ “On-Line Merits Briefs” (which sends you to the ABA site), scrolling down alphabetically to Hosanna-Tabor, and the selecting “Brief for the Federal Respondents”.
Here are the specific questions I would like you to address:
1) Hiring v. Retaliation
When Congress wrote the ADA, they carefully supplied a religious exemption for hiring decisions, and carefully did not supply a religious exemption for retaliatory firings. In creating a ministerial exception for retaliatory suits, the Court says that this Congressional plan violates the Religious Clauses of the First Amendment. In your opinion, is the Court correct? Even if the government can’t tell a Church that an otherwise qualified blind man should be eligible to be hired as a priest of the Church, isn’t it a different thing to say that a man who is already a priest and then goes blind can be retaliated against when that priest asks for a reasonable accommodation under the ADA? Why is (or isn’t) that a violation of the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses?
2) “Religious Organizations”
The Court Opinion grants broad First Amendment immunity to “religious organizations” from having to comply with otherwise applicable laws against discrimination. Lots of groups would like to be exempt from having to comply with laws. For example, the Church of Solomon Goldman calls itself a “religious organization” organized to carry out the vital faith-based mission of the Church (lifting the consciousness of humanity to the virtues of supporting financially a cause bigger than themselves—i.e., giving money to support the work of the Church—which is to raise money; allowing people to experience the joy of discovering how much more blessed it is to give, than to receive.) So, since the Church of Solomon Goldman calls itself a “religious organization”, do the Religious Clauses of the First Amendment mean that the government has to take the Church’s self-description at face value? If I say I’m a religious organization, with all the rights and privileges thereto appertaining, (I think my law school degree used that phrase) does that make me one? If so, doesn’t that open the door to charlatans who want to evade our discrimination laws? (not me, of course, but those other guys.) If not, doesn’t that mean that government would be looking into the bona fides of my religion, and doesn’t the First Amendment forbid government from deciding what a true religion is, and therefore, what a “religion” is? Would it make a difference if the Church of Solomon Goldman said that it is our “God-given” mission to lift the consciousness of humanity? Answer both what you think that the Court’s Opinion means for this question, and what you think that the answer should be (as if you were the Supreme Court; if I can be the Church, why shouldn’t you be the Court?).
3) “Ministers”
Roberts doesn’t exactly define who is a “minister” (and who therefore has forfeited the protection of the anti-discrimination laws) but he lists the factors that make Cheryl Perich a loser. The concurring Opinions both have their own views on this subject. In the Church of Solomon Goldman, all the workers are called “ministers”. They all are granted that title by the head of the Church (me), and they have to accept the title. They even get a name tag with the label “Minister”. They are educated in the doctrine of the Church, and have to prove to the head of the Church that they know what the Church is all about and how to convey the message of the Church to all of those needy souls who haven’t discovered the beauty of giving their money away to a cause bigger than themselves. Assuming that the Church of Solomon Goldman is a covered “religious organization”, are all of the workers “ministers” (who have no protection against anti-discrimination laws)? Answer under all three Court Opinions, and also again give your own view.
4) Pretext
In the Church of Solomon Goldman, one of the beliefs of the Church is that the word of the leader is infallible, and never to be questioned. So, if any of the ministers question me, they are automatically fired. In fact, if there’s anything at all that I don’t like about the ministers, they’re fired. If they threaten to report my hiring of illegal aliens, or of little children, or the fact that ministers have to work eighty hours for the Church each week, I fire them, explaining only that they’ve challenged the doctrine of infallibility. So my explanation for the firing is really something of a pretext. Under the ministerial exception is it just fine for me to put forth clearly pretextual reasons for retaliating against ministers? Again, answer both what the Court Opinions say on this subject, and your view about the correct answer.
I’m not looking for an introduction to the case, or a summary of it—all of that is assumed. Just launch right into the questions.
The writing should be your own words. I don’t want long quotations dropped into the paper. Any quotations that you use should just be snippets. When you do quote or otherwise make specific reference, be sure to provide a citation. You need to cite at least two times each to both the Court Opinion and the Federal Brief.
Your papers will not be graded on which view of the issues you take, but rather on how well you support your position. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. I like short clear sentences better than long complicated ones. I like correct grammar.
The paper should be a minimum of 3 pages long, and no more than 5 pages (double spaced). Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Thursday, February 2. 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. If you do not have the paper done on time, be in touch with me right away.
The work should be entirely your own. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism.
In class today, Tuesday 1/24, we went over the four different opinions in the Supreme Court Brown v. EMA case. We examined the differences in the questions asked, as well as in the answers given. The assignment for Thursday 1/26 is to read in the text pp. 22-32. Then write up a case brief of the Glucksberg case, using exactly the format from the template and sample brief that I had previously distributed. This case brief will not be collected or graded, but it is a practice brief before a graded one is assigned.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 1/24, I distributed one handout, Assignment#1, which is copied below. We went over the assignment, and then finished our outline of The Hosanna-Tabor opinions. We also discussed the apparent untruths told by the Church officials to the congregation, and the various reasons offered by the church as to why Perich was fired.
Assignment #1
For this assignment, I would like you to write a paper about the Hosanna-Tabor decision. In addition to having read the Supreme Court Opinions, I would like you to read the Brief for the Federal Respondent (just to get an idea of what the loser’s argument was). You can access that brief by going to www.supremecourt.gov, selecting “Merits Briefs”/ “On-Line Merits Briefs” (which sends you to the ABA site), scrolling down alphabetically to Hosanna-Tabor, and the selecting “Brief for the Federal Respondents”.
Here are the specific questions I would like you to address:
1) Hiring v. Retaliation
When Congress wrote the ADA, they carefully supplied a religious exemption for hiring decisions, and carefully did not supply a religious exemption for retaliatory firings. In creating a ministerial exception for retaliatory suits, the Court says that this Congressional plan violates the Religious Clauses of the First Amendment. In your opinion, is the Court correct? Even if the government can’t tell a Church that an otherwise qualified blind man should be eligible to be hired as a priest of the Church, isn’t it a different thing to say that a man who is already a priest and then goes blind can be retaliated against when that priest asks for a reasonable accommodation under the ADA? Why is (or isn’t) that a violation of the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses?
2) “Religious Organizations”
The Court Opinion grants broad First Amendment immunity to “religious organizations” from having to comply with otherwise applicable laws against discrimination. Lots of groups would like to be exempt from having to comply with laws. For example, the Church of Solomon Goldman calls itself a “religious organization” organized to carry out the vital faith-based mission of the Church (lifting the consciousness of humanity to the virtues of supporting financially a cause bigger than themselves—i.e., giving money to support the work of the Church—which is to raise money; allowing people to experience the joy of discovering how much more blessed it is to give, than to receive.) So, since the Church of Solomon Goldman calls itself a “religious organization”, do the Religious Clauses of the First Amendment mean that the government has to take the Church’s self-description at face value? If I say I’m a religious organization, with all the rights and privileges thereto appertaining, (I think my law school degree used that phrase) does that make me one? If so, doesn’t that open the door to charlatans who want to evade our discrimination laws? (not me, of course, but those other guys.) If not, doesn’t that mean that government would be looking into the bona fides of my religion, and doesn’t the First Amendment forbid government from deciding what a true religion is, and therefore, what a “religion” is? Would it make a difference if the Church of Solomon Goldman said that it is our “God-given” mission to lift the consciousness of humanity? Answer both what you think that the Court’s Opinion means for this question, and what you think that the answer should be (as if you were the Supreme Court; if I can be the Church, why shouldn’t you be the Court?).
3) “Ministers”
Roberts doesn’t exactly define who is a “minister” (and who therefore has forfeited the protection of the anti-discrimination laws) but he lists the factors that make Cheryl Perich a loser. The concurring Opinions both have their own views on this subject. In the Church of Solomon Goldman, all the workers are called “ministers”. They all are granted that title by the head of the Church (me), and they have to accept the title. They even get a name tag with the label “Minister”. They are educated in the doctrine of the Church, and have to prove to the head of the Church that they know what the Church is all about and how to convey the message of the Church to all of those needy souls who haven’t discovered the beauty of giving their money away to a cause bigger than themselves. Assuming that the Church of Solomon Goldman is a covered “religious organization”, are all of the workers “ministers” (who have no protection against anti-discrimination laws)? Answer under all three Court Opinions, and also again give your own view.
4) Pretext
In the Church of Solomon Goldman, one of the beliefs of the Church is that the word of the leader is infallible, and never to be questioned. So, if any of the ministers question me, they are automatically fired. In fact, if there’s anything at all that I don’t like about the ministers, they’re fired. If they threaten to report my hiring of illegal aliens, or of little children, or the fact that ministers have to work eighty hours for the Church each week, I fire them, explaining only that they’ve challenged the doctrine of infallibility. So my explanation for the firing is really something of a pretext. Under the ministerial exception is it just fine for me to put forth clearly pretextual reasons for retaliating against ministers? Again, answer both what the Court Opinions say on this subject, and your view about the correct answer.
I’m not looking for an introduction to the case, or a summary of it—all of that is assumed. Just launch right into the questions.
The writing should be your own words. I don’t want long quotations dropped into the paper. Any quotations that you use should just be snippets. When you do quote or otherwise make specific reference, be sure to provide a citation. You need to cite at least two times each to both the Court Opinion and the Federal Brief.
Your papers will not be graded on which view of the issues you take, but rather on how well you support your position. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. I like short clear sentences better than long complicated ones. I like correct grammar.
The paper should be a minimum of 3 pages long, and no more than 5 pages (double spaced). Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Thursday, February 2. 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. If you do not have the paper done on time, be in touch with me right away.
The work should be entirely your own. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
January 19, 2012
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 1/19, we finished going over the Court of Appeals violent video games opinion, and we finished going over my sample brief of the opinion. Along the way, I also covered a few other legal concepts, such as de novo review, Court of Appeal panel and en banc decisions, dictum, and mandatory versus persuasive authority. We studied the outline structure of the Court of Appeals decision, and used that structure to help us in pinpointing the issues that the court addressed. The assignment for Tuesday 1/24 is to re-read the U.S. Supreme Court decision in this case, as previously assigned. Follow the outline that the Court uses. Does the majority opinion differ from the Court of Appeals decision in any way? In what ways do the concurring and dissenting opinions differ from the majority opinion? How would these differences be reflected in a case brief?
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 1/19. I distributed one handout, a news article regarding the Governor's call for public prayer, and we talked about the tension between the free exercise right of prayer versus the establishment clause questions regarding public prayer by government officials. I explained the concepts of reasoning a fortiori, and the concept of strict scrutiny versus rational basis review. We continued our outlining of Hosanna-Tabor, adding structure to Part II (C) that was not supplied by the Court. We also went into the developments in the aftermath of the Smith case. We will continue with our exploration of Hosanna-Tabor next Tuesday. In preparing your outline, create subsections not supplied by the Court, as necessary. In addition to generally reviewing the decision, I asked the class to review the facts regarding exactly what the Church did once Perich told them on January 27 that she would be able to return to work the following month. We decided that the first paper for the class would be on Hosanna-Tabor, and so your detailed study of the case will not have been in vain.
In class today, Thursday 1/19, we finished going over the Court of Appeals violent video games opinion, and we finished going over my sample brief of the opinion. Along the way, I also covered a few other legal concepts, such as de novo review, Court of Appeal panel and en banc decisions, dictum, and mandatory versus persuasive authority. We studied the outline structure of the Court of Appeals decision, and used that structure to help us in pinpointing the issues that the court addressed. The assignment for Tuesday 1/24 is to re-read the U.S. Supreme Court decision in this case, as previously assigned. Follow the outline that the Court uses. Does the majority opinion differ from the Court of Appeals decision in any way? In what ways do the concurring and dissenting opinions differ from the majority opinion? How would these differences be reflected in a case brief?
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 1/19. I distributed one handout, a news article regarding the Governor's call for public prayer, and we talked about the tension between the free exercise right of prayer versus the establishment clause questions regarding public prayer by government officials. I explained the concepts of reasoning a fortiori, and the concept of strict scrutiny versus rational basis review. We continued our outlining of Hosanna-Tabor, adding structure to Part II (C) that was not supplied by the Court. We also went into the developments in the aftermath of the Smith case. We will continue with our exploration of Hosanna-Tabor next Tuesday. In preparing your outline, create subsections not supplied by the Court, as necessary. In addition to generally reviewing the decision, I asked the class to review the facts regarding exactly what the Church did once Perich told them on January 27 that she would be able to return to work the following month. We decided that the first paper for the class would be on Hosanna-Tabor, and so your detailed study of the case will not have been in vain.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
January 17, 2012
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class to day, Tuesday 1/17, I distributed one handout, my version of a case brief for the VDSA Court of Appeals opinion. We started going through how to brief such a case, getting through the segment entitled "Appellant's Contentions on Appeal". We will continue with the case brief from that point on Thursday. Along the way, we went over citation form for the case, including the order of the listing of the parties; the concept of the police power (that states have and Congress doesn't); strict scrutiny versus rational basis review (how high is the hurdle to be jumped when taking a bite out of the First Amendment apple); summary judgment; and the history of the 14th Amendment and its three clauses. The assignment for Thursday 1/19 is to review both the Court of Appeals decision in the text, and the previously assigned U.S. Supreme Court case of Brown v. EMA.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 1/17, we went over the Hosanna-Tabor decision that was assigned last week. I first went over the contrast between concurring in the judgment versus concurring in the opinion. We then followed the outline of the majority opinion, putting labels on each section of the outline. We got up to Section II (C) of the opinion (p.13) which was the beginning of the heart of the opinion. We will pick up from there on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 1/19 is to re-read the opinion, filling in the remainder of the outline of the majority opinion, and preparing to discuss how the concurring opinions differ from the Court's opinion.
In class to day, Tuesday 1/17, I distributed one handout, my version of a case brief for the VDSA Court of Appeals opinion. We started going through how to brief such a case, getting through the segment entitled "Appellant's Contentions on Appeal". We will continue with the case brief from that point on Thursday. Along the way, we went over citation form for the case, including the order of the listing of the parties; the concept of the police power (that states have and Congress doesn't); strict scrutiny versus rational basis review (how high is the hurdle to be jumped when taking a bite out of the First Amendment apple); summary judgment; and the history of the 14th Amendment and its three clauses. The assignment for Thursday 1/19 is to review both the Court of Appeals decision in the text, and the previously assigned U.S. Supreme Court case of Brown v. EMA.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 1/17, we went over the Hosanna-Tabor decision that was assigned last week. I first went over the contrast between concurring in the judgment versus concurring in the opinion. We then followed the outline of the majority opinion, putting labels on each section of the outline. We got up to Section II (C) of the opinion (p.13) which was the beginning of the heart of the opinion. We will pick up from there on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 1/19 is to re-read the opinion, filling in the remainder of the outline of the majority opinion, and preparing to discuss how the concurring opinions differ from the Court's opinion.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
January 12, 2012
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 1/12, I distributed one handout, the template for the case briefs that I will be asking you to write later in the semester. We went over three concepts from the introductory part of Chapter One that I had assigned: common law (law made by Judges in the absence of enacted law); injunctive relief (as opposed to money damages); and separation of religious authority from secular law. Regarding the religious separation tradition, I went over one case that was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC. In that case, the Supreme Court said that certain church employees were not protected by anti-discrimination laws that otherwise would have protected employees from discrimination by their employers. I also went over the organization of the federal court system, including citation formats for all three levels of federal courts. We began our discussion of the textbook case of VSDA v. Schwarzenegger on p. 15, getting through the text of the First Amendment and the justification offered by California about why they wanted to forbid the sale of violent video games to minors. We will continue that discussion next week. The additional assignments for Tuesday January 17 are 1) to try to fit the Court of Appeals decision into the brief template that I distributed today (not handed in or graded) and to read the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the violent video case. The case was now called Electronic Merchants Assoc. v. Brown, and it can be found by going to the Supreme Court website as follows:
go to http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/opinions.aspx
select 2010 Term Opinions
select R- 81 6/27/11 08-1448 Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.
Read all of the opinions of the various Justices.
POS 395-- The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 1/12, we first discussed the three articles that I had distributed on Tuesday. We went over the organization of the federal court system, and we also discussed three institutional power conflicts that were among the underlying subjects of the three articles: federal power versus state power; individual rights versus the coercive power of government; and separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. We didn't quite make it back to going over the recent Supreme Court oral arguments, but the semester is still young. The assignment for Tuesday 1/17 is to read all of the opinions in a religious freedom case that the Supreme Court decided yesterday, 1/11/12, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, which can be found at www.supremecourt.gov.
In class today, Thursday 1/12, I distributed one handout, the template for the case briefs that I will be asking you to write later in the semester. We went over three concepts from the introductory part of Chapter One that I had assigned: common law (law made by Judges in the absence of enacted law); injunctive relief (as opposed to money damages); and separation of religious authority from secular law. Regarding the religious separation tradition, I went over one case that was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC. In that case, the Supreme Court said that certain church employees were not protected by anti-discrimination laws that otherwise would have protected employees from discrimination by their employers. I also went over the organization of the federal court system, including citation formats for all three levels of federal courts. We began our discussion of the textbook case of VSDA v. Schwarzenegger on p. 15, getting through the text of the First Amendment and the justification offered by California about why they wanted to forbid the sale of violent video games to minors. We will continue that discussion next week. The additional assignments for Tuesday January 17 are 1) to try to fit the Court of Appeals decision into the brief template that I distributed today (not handed in or graded) and to read the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the violent video case. The case was now called Electronic Merchants Assoc. v. Brown, and it can be found by going to the Supreme Court website as follows:
go to http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/opinions.aspx
select 2010 Term Opinions
select R- 81 6/27/11 08-1448 Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.
Read all of the opinions of the various Justices.
POS 395-- The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 1/12, we first discussed the three articles that I had distributed on Tuesday. We went over the organization of the federal court system, and we also discussed three institutional power conflicts that were among the underlying subjects of the three articles: federal power versus state power; individual rights versus the coercive power of government; and separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. We didn't quite make it back to going over the recent Supreme Court oral arguments, but the semester is still young. The assignment for Tuesday 1/17 is to read all of the opinions in a religious freedom case that the Supreme Court decided yesterday, 1/11/12, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, which can be found at www.supremecourt.gov.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
January 10, 2012
POS 282-- Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 1/10, I distributed one handout, the Syllabus. We went over the Syllabus, and the use of this Blog. I then discussed a case that was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday, Sackett v. EPA, regarding the rights of alleged polluters to go to court to stop the enforcement of environmental laws. The assignment for Thursday 1/12 is to read pp. 1-21 of the textbook.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 1/10, I distributed six handouts: the syllabus; a list of Justices and of useful websites; the January calendar for the Supreme Court oral arguments this month; and three columns about the Court and current politics:
•an article by George Will about Newt Gingrich--
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gingrich-the-anti-conservative/2011/12/20/gIQALq8CAP_story.html
•an article by Erwin Chemerinsky, also about Newt Gingrich--
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/20/opinion/la-oe-chemerinsky-fedjudges-20111220
and an article by Linda Greenhouse about decision-making by the Justices--
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/what-we-think-about-when-we-think-about-the-court/
I went over the syllabus, the Justices of the Court, and began a discussion of the Sackett case that was argued on Monday. The assignment for Thursday 1/12 is to read the three articles that I distributed today.
In class today, Tuesday 1/10, I distributed one handout, the Syllabus. We went over the Syllabus, and the use of this Blog. I then discussed a case that was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday, Sackett v. EPA, regarding the rights of alleged polluters to go to court to stop the enforcement of environmental laws. The assignment for Thursday 1/12 is to read pp. 1-21 of the textbook.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 1/10, I distributed six handouts: the syllabus; a list of Justices and of useful websites; the January calendar for the Supreme Court oral arguments this month; and three columns about the Court and current politics:
•an article by George Will about Newt Gingrich--
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gingrich-the-anti-conservative/2011/12/20/gIQALq8CAP_story.html
•an article by Erwin Chemerinsky, also about Newt Gingrich--
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/20/opinion/la-oe-chemerinsky-fedjudges-20111220
and an article by Linda Greenhouse about decision-making by the Justices--
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/what-we-think-about-when-we-think-about-the-court/
I went over the syllabus, the Justices of the Court, and began a discussion of the Sackett case that was argued on Monday. The assignment for Thursday 1/12 is to read the three articles that I distributed today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)