POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 3/29, we spent the class period going over the Caperton case. I talked about the history of the case and its background, and also the dissenting opinions. On Tuesday 4/3 we will discuss the Gonzales v. Raich case, previously assigned, and also talk about the relationship of the Raich case to this week's argument in the Affordable Care Act (health insurance) case.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 3/29, I collected the FCC v. Fox papers, and we discussed the predictions for the various Justices. I plan on returning the papers on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 4/3 is to read the oral argument transcript (and listen as well to the audio) in the Tuesday (3/27) Supreme Court argument in the ACA case (DHHS v. Florida). Also, I am soliciting your thoughts about a good topic to address in the paper that you'll be writing about this case.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
March 27, 2012
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 3/27, we went over the Reardon case, talking about how to brief the case, the key facts of the case, and the implications of the Court making policy decisions. I then discussed three Maine Law Court cases regarding releases of liability: Doyle v. Bowdoin College, 403 A.2d 1206 (Me., 1979); Hardy v. St. Clair, 1999 ME 142, 739 A.2d 368; and Lloyd v. Sugarloaf, 2003 ME 117, 833 A.2d 1. The assignment for Thursday 3/29 is to review Caperton (previously assigned) on p. 77, and to read in addition Gonzales v. Raich, through p.97 of the text.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 3/27, we went over the Anti-Injunction Act portion of the Affordable Care Act oral argument this week. I then started to cover some history of health insurance in America, getting up to the great depression and the birth of the "Blues". We will pick up there the next time we go back to the ACA. The assignment for Thursday 3/29 is to complete the FCC v. Fox paper, which is due at the beginning of class on Thursday.
In class today, Tuesday 3/27, we went over the Reardon case, talking about how to brief the case, the key facts of the case, and the implications of the Court making policy decisions. I then discussed three Maine Law Court cases regarding releases of liability: Doyle v. Bowdoin College, 403 A.2d 1206 (Me., 1979); Hardy v. St. Clair, 1999 ME 142, 739 A.2d 368; and Lloyd v. Sugarloaf, 2003 ME 117, 833 A.2d 1. The assignment for Thursday 3/29 is to review Caperton (previously assigned) on p. 77, and to read in addition Gonzales v. Raich, through p.97 of the text.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 3/27, we went over the Anti-Injunction Act portion of the Affordable Care Act oral argument this week. I then started to cover some history of health insurance in America, getting up to the great depression and the birth of the "Blues". We will pick up there the next time we go back to the ACA. The assignment for Thursday 3/29 is to complete the FCC v. Fox paper, which is due at the beginning of class on Thursday.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
March 22, 2012
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 3/22, we went over the Lawrence v. Texas case. We also watched a short clip from a recent Republican debate in which Mitt Romney was questioned about whether he agreed with Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 right to privacy case that began the line of case of which Lawrence is a part. After we finished our discussion of Lawrence, we began talking about the Reardon case and releases of liability. We will continue with Reardon next week. The additional assignment for Tuesday 3/27 is to finish reading and preparing to discuss Chapter 2 of the text.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 3/22, I first went over three Supreme Court decisions from Wednesday. Then we discussed the oral argument in FCC v. Fox. The assignment for Tuesday is to be working on the assigned paper (see 3/20 post), which is due next Thursday 3/29.
In class today, Thursday 3/22, we went over the Lawrence v. Texas case. We also watched a short clip from a recent Republican debate in which Mitt Romney was questioned about whether he agreed with Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 right to privacy case that began the line of case of which Lawrence is a part. After we finished our discussion of Lawrence, we began talking about the Reardon case and releases of liability. We will continue with Reardon next week. The additional assignment for Tuesday 3/27 is to finish reading and preparing to discuss Chapter 2 of the text.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 3/22, I first went over three Supreme Court decisions from Wednesday. Then we discussed the oral argument in FCC v. Fox. The assignment for Tuesday is to be working on the assigned paper (see 3/20 post), which is due next Thursday 3/29.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
March 20, 2012
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 3/20, I distributed one handout. It contained three Maine statutes, hindering apprehension, crimes defined by statute, and mandated reporting of child abuse. We went over the Mobbley and Holland cases in the text. The assignment for Thursday 3/22 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 75 of the text.
POS 359-- The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 3/20, I distributed one handout, Assignment #2 which is copied below. We went over the 2009 FCC v. Fox decision, looking for hints about how some of the Justices might vote on the constitutional issues. The assignment for Thursday 3/22 is to read the January 10, 2012 oral argument in FCC v. Fox.
Assignment #2
For this assignment, I would like you to predict the outcome of the Supreme Court case of FCC v. Fox. In addition, I would also like you to write about how you think the case should come out.
The predictive portion of this paper is not intended as a discourse on the history of the case, or a synopsis of the case, or a full legal analysis of the issues in the case--it is intended to be “I think that this Justice will vote this way because of these indications that I find in the oral argument and in the 2009 FCC v. Fox decision”. I don’t need any introduction to the case, its facts, the proceedings below, or precedent.
The paper should be a minimum of 3 pages long, and no more than 6 pages. Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Thursday, March 29. If you are unable to attend class on that date, you should e-mail the paper to me by the beginning of that 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.
The specific assignment regarding the prediction is this: Go Justice-by-Justice and find some indication of how each Justice might vote in this case. Remember that Justice Sotomayor has recused herself in this case. Discuss how the questions asked or the comments made by a Justice in the oral argument may reflect a view of what the outcome should be. Also discuss whether anything written by the Justices in the 2009 FCC v. Fox decision tips their hand in terms of how they view the constitutional questions.
There is a complicated set of questions presented to the Court in this case. For example, there are the two constitutional issues, vagueness under the Fifth Amendment and Free Speech under the First Amendment. There are the questions of whether Pacifica should be overruled, (either because it was wrong from the beginning, or because it’s wrong now because circumstances have changed) and whether it should be limited versus extended. The two networks are in different positions regarding the vagueness of the “indecency” and the imposition of fines. There are many other sub-issues.. Use the FCC reply brief as your guide to those specific sub-issues. Your prediction should be directed not only to the final vote (for or against the FCC), but also rather to the distinct issues and positions raised by the parties
Remember that the Court issues two kinds of things: a Judgment (whether the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed or reversed); and an Opinion (the reasoning used to get to the result). Justices may agree on a result (a judgment) without agreeing on an opinion.
Your citations to the oral argument transcript should give page and line numbers. I’m not requiring a specific number of citations for each Justice, but each mention of what a Justice says requires a specific transcript reference.
You should use primarily your own words, quoting only in snippets when the particular words of an exchange are crucial.
Here’s a fictitious example to demonstrate the format that I’m looking for:
Justice Sotomayor raised questions about how much discretion is allowed to the FCC, since every exercise of discretion reduces the notice that the networks might have that their broadcast is proscribed (7:16). Verrilli replied that the FCC needs that discretion, because the context matters (8:3). Sotomayor then said that, as far as she can tell, the context of the ABC broadcast was not something that would alert ABC that its broadcast was “indecent” (8:11). Sotomayor had also written in the 2009 case that she had “grave doubts” that the 2004 FCC policy change was properly explained or was precise enough to explain what is allowed: this leads me to believe that Justice Sotomayor will rule that the FCC’s rule is overly vague, and therefore unconstitutional. I did not find any indication of her views regarding the First Amendment issues.
For your own thoughts about how the case should be decided, deal specifically with the issues raised by the party that is opposed to your view of the case. For example, if you think that the FCC’s position is correct on the continued validity of Pacifica, how do you answer ABC’s and Fox’s contention that the underpinnings of Pacifica, pervasiveness and accessibility, have been eroded?
You papers will not be graded on the accuracy of the predictions, but rather on how well you support your position by reference to the oral argument and 2009 case. The paper will also not be graded on whether I agree with your analysis of how the case should be decided, but rather by 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. Try used an outline. I encourage you to use the UM writing center to help with your English.
The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration, and no plagiarism.
In class today, Tuesday 3/20, I distributed one handout. It contained three Maine statutes, hindering apprehension, crimes defined by statute, and mandated reporting of child abuse. We went over the Mobbley and Holland cases in the text. The assignment for Thursday 3/22 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 75 of the text.
POS 359-- The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 3/20, I distributed one handout, Assignment #2 which is copied below. We went over the 2009 FCC v. Fox decision, looking for hints about how some of the Justices might vote on the constitutional issues. The assignment for Thursday 3/22 is to read the January 10, 2012 oral argument in FCC v. Fox.
Assignment #2
For this assignment, I would like you to predict the outcome of the Supreme Court case of FCC v. Fox. In addition, I would also like you to write about how you think the case should come out.
The predictive portion of this paper is not intended as a discourse on the history of the case, or a synopsis of the case, or a full legal analysis of the issues in the case--it is intended to be “I think that this Justice will vote this way because of these indications that I find in the oral argument and in the 2009 FCC v. Fox decision”. I don’t need any introduction to the case, its facts, the proceedings below, or precedent.
The paper should be a minimum of 3 pages long, and no more than 6 pages. Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Thursday, March 29. If you are unable to attend class on that date, you should e-mail the paper to me by the beginning of that 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.
The specific assignment regarding the prediction is this: Go Justice-by-Justice and find some indication of how each Justice might vote in this case. Remember that Justice Sotomayor has recused herself in this case. Discuss how the questions asked or the comments made by a Justice in the oral argument may reflect a view of what the outcome should be. Also discuss whether anything written by the Justices in the 2009 FCC v. Fox decision tips their hand in terms of how they view the constitutional questions.
There is a complicated set of questions presented to the Court in this case. For example, there are the two constitutional issues, vagueness under the Fifth Amendment and Free Speech under the First Amendment. There are the questions of whether Pacifica should be overruled, (either because it was wrong from the beginning, or because it’s wrong now because circumstances have changed) and whether it should be limited versus extended. The two networks are in different positions regarding the vagueness of the “indecency” and the imposition of fines. There are many other sub-issues.. Use the FCC reply brief as your guide to those specific sub-issues. Your prediction should be directed not only to the final vote (for or against the FCC), but also rather to the distinct issues and positions raised by the parties
Remember that the Court issues two kinds of things: a Judgment (whether the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed or reversed); and an Opinion (the reasoning used to get to the result). Justices may agree on a result (a judgment) without agreeing on an opinion.
Your citations to the oral argument transcript should give page and line numbers. I’m not requiring a specific number of citations for each Justice, but each mention of what a Justice says requires a specific transcript reference.
You should use primarily your own words, quoting only in snippets when the particular words of an exchange are crucial.
Here’s a fictitious example to demonstrate the format that I’m looking for:
Justice Sotomayor raised questions about how much discretion is allowed to the FCC, since every exercise of discretion reduces the notice that the networks might have that their broadcast is proscribed (7:16). Verrilli replied that the FCC needs that discretion, because the context matters (8:3). Sotomayor then said that, as far as she can tell, the context of the ABC broadcast was not something that would alert ABC that its broadcast was “indecent” (8:11). Sotomayor had also written in the 2009 case that she had “grave doubts” that the 2004 FCC policy change was properly explained or was precise enough to explain what is allowed: this leads me to believe that Justice Sotomayor will rule that the FCC’s rule is overly vague, and therefore unconstitutional. I did not find any indication of her views regarding the First Amendment issues.
For your own thoughts about how the case should be decided, deal specifically with the issues raised by the party that is opposed to your view of the case. For example, if you think that the FCC’s position is correct on the continued validity of Pacifica, how do you answer ABC’s and Fox’s contention that the underpinnings of Pacifica, pervasiveness and accessibility, have been eroded?
You papers will not be graded on the accuracy of the predictions, but rather on how well you support your position by reference to the oral argument and 2009 case. The paper will also not be graded on whether I agree with your analysis of how the case should be decided, but rather by 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. Try used an outline. I encourage you to use the UM writing center to help with your English.
The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration, and no plagiarism.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
March 15, 2012
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 3/15, we first discussed the text and interpretation of the 8th Amendment. I went over the 1972 Furman v. Ga. case, and then we went over the textbook case of Gregg v. Ga. I discussed a number of post-Gregg cases, including Coker v. Ga. (death penalty for non-homicide); Atkins v. Va. (death penalty for mentally retarded); Godfrey v. Ga. (definition of aggravating circumstances); Ring v. Arizona (beyond reasonable doubt standard for aggravating circumstances). We then talked about the rules for minors, including Roper v. Simmons (death penalty for minors); Graham v. Florida (life imprisonment for minors in non-homicide cases) and Miller v. Alabama ((life imprisonment for minors in homicide cases) to be argued 3/20/ 2012. The assignment for Tuesday 3/20 is to read through p. 70 of the text.
POS 359-- The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today Thursday, 3/15, we went over the assigned FCC Reply Brief. We first examined the outline of the Reply Brief, and then followed the back and forth between networks' contentions and the FCC reply to those contentions. The assignment for Tuesday 3/20 is to read and prepare to discuss the 2009 Supreme Court decision in FCC v. Fox, 556 US 502. Read all of the opinions in the case, concentrating on those hints found in the 2009 case about how some of the Justices view the constitutional issues to be decided in the present FCC v. Fox case.
In class today, Thursday 3/15, we first discussed the text and interpretation of the 8th Amendment. I went over the 1972 Furman v. Ga. case, and then we went over the textbook case of Gregg v. Ga. I discussed a number of post-Gregg cases, including Coker v. Ga. (death penalty for non-homicide); Atkins v. Va. (death penalty for mentally retarded); Godfrey v. Ga. (definition of aggravating circumstances); Ring v. Arizona (beyond reasonable doubt standard for aggravating circumstances). We then talked about the rules for minors, including Roper v. Simmons (death penalty for minors); Graham v. Florida (life imprisonment for minors in non-homicide cases) and Miller v. Alabama ((life imprisonment for minors in homicide cases) to be argued 3/20/ 2012. The assignment for Tuesday 3/20 is to read through p. 70 of the text.
POS 359-- The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today Thursday, 3/15, we went over the assigned FCC Reply Brief. We first examined the outline of the Reply Brief, and then followed the back and forth between networks' contentions and the FCC reply to those contentions. The assignment for Tuesday 3/20 is to read and prepare to discuss the 2009 Supreme Court decision in FCC v. Fox, 556 US 502. Read all of the opinions in the case, concentrating on those hints found in the 2009 case about how some of the Justices view the constitutional issues to be decided in the present FCC v. Fox case.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
March 13, 2012
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 3/13, I returned the test papers, and we went over the test. After that we discussed the idea of law and ethics, going over a recent case regarding religious liberty and the rights of pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions, as well as some of the recent history regarding the interpretation of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. The assignment for Thursday 3/15 is to review the textbook case of Gregg v. Georgia, previously assigned.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 3/13, we went over the two Respondent's Briefs in FCC v. Fox, those of ABC and of Fox. We looked at the difference in approach between the two briefs, even though in the end they made very similar arguments. We looked at a number of issues raised by the parties, both the arguments and the responses by the opponent. Among these were the arguments to overrule Pacifica and the argument to simply distinguish it; whether there's been a change in both pervasiveness and accessibility to children since Pacifica; the question of whether this FCC restriction is properly characterized as a content based restriction, versus a neutral time, place and manner restriction; whether broadcasters lose their right to complain because they are granted free licenses to use the public airways; whether harm to children can be presumed, or whether it has to be demonstrated; and whether radio has the same rules as broadcast television. The assignment for Thursday 3/15 is to read the FCC Reply Brief. Looking ahead, the assignments will then be the 2009 FCC v. Fox Supreme Court decision, the oral argument in our case, and then the paper due on March 29th (subject to change, of course).
In class today, Tuesday 3/13, I returned the test papers, and we went over the test. After that we discussed the idea of law and ethics, going over a recent case regarding religious liberty and the rights of pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions, as well as some of the recent history regarding the interpretation of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. The assignment for Thursday 3/15 is to review the textbook case of Gregg v. Georgia, previously assigned.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 3/13, we went over the two Respondent's Briefs in FCC v. Fox, those of ABC and of Fox. We looked at the difference in approach between the two briefs, even though in the end they made very similar arguments. We looked at a number of issues raised by the parties, both the arguments and the responses by the opponent. Among these were the arguments to overrule Pacifica and the argument to simply distinguish it; whether there's been a change in both pervasiveness and accessibility to children since Pacifica; the question of whether this FCC restriction is properly characterized as a content based restriction, versus a neutral time, place and manner restriction; whether broadcasters lose their right to complain because they are granted free licenses to use the public airways; whether harm to children can be presumed, or whether it has to be demonstrated; and whether radio has the same rules as broadcast television. The assignment for Thursday 3/15 is to read the FCC Reply Brief. Looking ahead, the assignments will then be the 2009 FCC v. Fox Supreme Court decision, the oral argument in our case, and then the paper due on March 29th (subject to change, of course).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)