POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 4/26, we finished going over Chapter 4 of the text. Exam #2 will be Tuesday 5/1 from 8:45 - 10:00. The exam will cover the material since the first exam, and will be open book and open note.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 4/26, I went over the oral argument in the Arizona v. U.S. case. Your ACA papers are due by noon on Wednesday 5/2. Make sure that you get a confirmation from me that I have received and can open your paper; no confirmation = no paper.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
April 24, 2012
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 4/24, the class first completed the class evaluations. Then we picked up in Chapter 4 of the text. We went over Cheap Escape and subject matter jurisdiction, and then Robey v. Hinners and personal jurisdiction. I also discussed a Maine case, Connelly v. Doucette, about personal jurisdiction. The assignment for Thursday 4/26 is to read and prepare to discuss the remainder of Chapter 4.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today I talked about a recent 9th Circuit case challenging the constitutionality of some of Congress' restrictions on public television broadcasting; the recent Supreme Court decision defining the term "individual" under the 1991 federal Torture Victim Protection Act; the remaining issues under the 1789 Alien Tort Statute; and then we began our discussion of tomorrow's oral argument in the Arizona v. United States immigration law case. The assignment is to continue working on the ACA opinion that was previously assigned.
In class today, Tuesday 4/24, the class first completed the class evaluations. Then we picked up in Chapter 4 of the text. We went over Cheap Escape and subject matter jurisdiction, and then Robey v. Hinners and personal jurisdiction. I also discussed a Maine case, Connelly v. Doucette, about personal jurisdiction. The assignment for Thursday 4/26 is to read and prepare to discuss the remainder of Chapter 4.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today I talked about a recent 9th Circuit case challenging the constitutionality of some of Congress' restrictions on public television broadcasting; the recent Supreme Court decision defining the term "individual" under the 1991 federal Torture Victim Protection Act; the remaining issues under the 1789 Alien Tort Statute; and then we began our discussion of tomorrow's oral argument in the Arizona v. United States immigration law case. The assignment is to continue working on the ACA opinion that was previously assigned.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
April 19, 2012
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 4/19, I first reminded the class that our exam on Tuesday 5/1 will be from 8:45-10:00 (instead of 8:00 - 10:00). I went back to the case at the end of Chapter 3 of the text, Finstuen, and contrasted that case with a case from the 5th Circuit, Adair v. Smith, 639 F.3d 146 (5th Cir., 2011). We also reviewed federal court organization, as well as Maine state court organization. We began, but did not finish with, the Cheap Escape case on p. 126. The assignment for Tuesday 4/24 is to review Cheap Escape and Robey (previously assigned) and to read in addition through p. 142 of the text.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 4/19, the class first did evaluations. Then we spent the rest of the class going through the use of Lexis as a legal research tool The assignment for Tuesday 4/24 is to work on your ACA opinion, previously assigned, due Wednesday 2nd.
In class today, Thursday 4/19, I first reminded the class that our exam on Tuesday 5/1 will be from 8:45-10:00 (instead of 8:00 - 10:00). I went back to the case at the end of Chapter 3 of the text, Finstuen, and contrasted that case with a case from the 5th Circuit, Adair v. Smith, 639 F.3d 146 (5th Cir., 2011). We also reviewed federal court organization, as well as Maine state court organization. We began, but did not finish with, the Cheap Escape case on p. 126. The assignment for Tuesday 4/24 is to review Cheap Escape and Robey (previously assigned) and to read in addition through p. 142 of the text.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 4/19, the class first did evaluations. Then we spent the rest of the class going through the use of Lexis as a legal research tool The assignment for Tuesday 4/24 is to work on your ACA opinion, previously assigned, due Wednesday 2nd.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
April 17, 2012
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 4/17, I returned the Collins case briefs, and distributed the Comment Key to my comments on that brief. We then discussed the textbook Dempsey case. I went over the case of Montana Supreme Court case of Hardy v. Progressive Insurance, which set the stage for Dempsey's discussion of retroactive v. prospective application of a court ruling. I then went over the Maine case of Androkites v. White, which discussed how Maine deals with retroactive v. prospective application of court judgments. We went over Strunk v. Strunk, regarding lack of precedent, and Finstuen v. Crutcher, regarding Full Faith and Credit. The assignment for Thursday 4/19 is to read through p. 135 of the text.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 4/17, I distributed assignment #3, which is copied below. I talked about today's decision about qualified immunity for a person who works with the local government, but is not their employee. We also went over several aspects of the Medicaid argument part of the ACA case. The assignment for Thursday 4/19 is to begin work on assignment #3.
Assignment #3
Good news! In order to foster a more youthful outlook at the Supreme Court, Congress increased the membership of the Court to ten, and you, because of your outstanding dedication to The Law, have been chosen to be that 10th Justice.
Your first job as a new Associate Justice is to write a part of the Court’s opinion in the Affordable Care Act case. You have been given a choice about what part of the case you wish to tackle: you can either write about the constitutionality of the individual mandate, or you can choose to write about the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion.
Here are some guidelines for writing that I want you to observe:
• You should deal specifically with the issues raised by the side that is opposed to your view of the case. What’s wrong with the positions taken by the other Justices?
• You should have at least three specific references to the oral argument. Your citations to the oral argument transcript should give page and line numbers.
• If you write about the individual mandate, you should deal specifically with both issues that were presented in the case; whether Congress had power to pass the law under its Commerce Clause power, and whether Congress had power to pass the law under its taxing power.
• You should deal with other sub-issues as you locate them in the oral argument.
You should use primarily your own words, quoting only in snippets when the particular words of an exchange or a brief are crucial.
Here’s a fictitious example to demonstrate the format that I’m looking for:
This Court rejects the government’s position that the expansion of
Medicaid coverage is a permissible exercise of the power to tax for the General Welfare. At oral argument General Verrilli refused to assure this Court that the Federal government would not cut off all Medicaid funds to a state if the state chose not to participate in the expansion (17:6). The Court can think of no clearer example of impermissible coercion than the threat of such a cutoff in the Medicaid program.
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 by noon on Wednesday May 2nd. You should e-mail the paper to me by that time. I will acknowledge receipt of 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 paper will not be graded on whether I agree with your analysis of how the case should be decided, but rather by how well you identify issues, evaluate them, and support your position. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. Try using 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 4/17, I returned the Collins case briefs, and distributed the Comment Key to my comments on that brief. We then discussed the textbook Dempsey case. I went over the case of Montana Supreme Court case of Hardy v. Progressive Insurance, which set the stage for Dempsey's discussion of retroactive v. prospective application of a court ruling. I then went over the Maine case of Androkites v. White, which discussed how Maine deals with retroactive v. prospective application of court judgments. We went over Strunk v. Strunk, regarding lack of precedent, and Finstuen v. Crutcher, regarding Full Faith and Credit. The assignment for Thursday 4/19 is to read through p. 135 of the text.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 4/17, I distributed assignment #3, which is copied below. I talked about today's decision about qualified immunity for a person who works with the local government, but is not their employee. We also went over several aspects of the Medicaid argument part of the ACA case. The assignment for Thursday 4/19 is to begin work on assignment #3.
Assignment #3
Good news! In order to foster a more youthful outlook at the Supreme Court, Congress increased the membership of the Court to ten, and you, because of your outstanding dedication to The Law, have been chosen to be that 10th Justice.
Your first job as a new Associate Justice is to write a part of the Court’s opinion in the Affordable Care Act case. You have been given a choice about what part of the case you wish to tackle: you can either write about the constitutionality of the individual mandate, or you can choose to write about the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion.
Here are some guidelines for writing that I want you to observe:
• You should deal specifically with the issues raised by the side that is opposed to your view of the case. What’s wrong with the positions taken by the other Justices?
• You should have at least three specific references to the oral argument. Your citations to the oral argument transcript should give page and line numbers.
• If you write about the individual mandate, you should deal specifically with both issues that were presented in the case; whether Congress had power to pass the law under its Commerce Clause power, and whether Congress had power to pass the law under its taxing power.
• You should deal with other sub-issues as you locate them in the oral argument.
You should use primarily your own words, quoting only in snippets when the particular words of an exchange or a brief are crucial.
Here’s a fictitious example to demonstrate the format that I’m looking for:
This Court rejects the government’s position that the expansion of
Medicaid coverage is a permissible exercise of the power to tax for the General Welfare. At oral argument General Verrilli refused to assure this Court that the Federal government would not cut off all Medicaid funds to a state if the state chose not to participate in the expansion (17:6). The Court can think of no clearer example of impermissible coercion than the threat of such a cutoff in the Medicaid program.
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 by noon on Wednesday May 2nd. You should e-mail the paper to me by that time. I will acknowledge receipt of 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 paper will not be graded on whether I agree with your analysis of how the case should be decided, but rather by how well you identify issues, evaluate them, and support your position. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. Try using 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, April 12, 2012
April 12, 2012
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 4/12, I collected the Collins briefs, and we spent most of the class going over them. I plan to return those on Tuesday. I also went over the case of Flaherty v. Allstate, a Maine case involving conflict of laws in an insurance contract. The assignment for Tuesday 4/17 is to finish reading Chapter 3 of the text, including the previously unassigned cases of Strunk (p.109) and Finstuen (p. 116).
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 4/12, we first continued our discussion of the Individual Mandate portion of the ACA argument, and then started into the Medicaid expansion part. For the last part of the class, we took a departure from our usual discussion, and listened instead to the streaming audio of the Maine Supreme Court argument regarding the respective rights of a "gestational carrier" (surrogate mom) and genetic mom, when the state court won't declare the genetic mom to be the legal mom. The assignment for Tuesday 4/17 is to review the oral argument of the Medicaid expansion (Wednesday) part of the ACA case.
In class today, Thursday 4/12, I collected the Collins briefs, and we spent most of the class going over them. I plan to return those on Tuesday. I also went over the case of Flaherty v. Allstate, a Maine case involving conflict of laws in an insurance contract. The assignment for Tuesday 4/17 is to finish reading Chapter 3 of the text, including the previously unassigned cases of Strunk (p.109) and Finstuen (p. 116).
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 4/12, we first continued our discussion of the Individual Mandate portion of the ACA argument, and then started into the Medicaid expansion part. For the last part of the class, we took a departure from our usual discussion, and listened instead to the streaming audio of the Maine Supreme Court argument regarding the respective rights of a "gestational carrier" (surrogate mom) and genetic mom, when the state court won't declare the genetic mom to be the legal mom. The assignment for Tuesday 4/17 is to review the oral argument of the Medicaid expansion (Wednesday) part of the ACA case.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
April 10, 2012
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 4/10, I first went over the Supreme Court case regarding the right of a state to prosecute a person for refusing to give the police his or her name, Hiibel v. Nevada (2004). We then began our discussion of how to brief Collins v. Trius, and I stressed the importance of gathering information from the footnotes of the case, including the assigned issue from footnote #6. We went over the textbook case of Hubbard v. Greeson, reviewing how that case would be briefed as well. The assignment for Thursday 4/12 is to complete the Collins case brief, previously assigned. Also on Thursday we will discuss the Dempsey case (p. 106, previously assigned) as time permits.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 4/10, we continued our journey through the Tuesday ACA oral argument. We discussed the nature of the Roberts' questioning at the end of the interstate commerce section of Verrilli's argument, and then we went into the argument regarding the taxing power (as opposed to the interstate commerce power). I also gave an introduction to the assignment for Thursday 4/12, which is to read the Wednesday 3/28 oral argument in the Florida v. DHHS ACA case. In this part of the argument, the states challenge the right of the federal government to "coerce" them into expanding their Medicaid eligibility standards.
In class today, Tuesday 4/10, I first went over the Supreme Court case regarding the right of a state to prosecute a person for refusing to give the police his or her name, Hiibel v. Nevada (2004). We then began our discussion of how to brief Collins v. Trius, and I stressed the importance of gathering information from the footnotes of the case, including the assigned issue from footnote #6. We went over the textbook case of Hubbard v. Greeson, reviewing how that case would be briefed as well. The assignment for Thursday 4/12 is to complete the Collins case brief, previously assigned. Also on Thursday we will discuss the Dempsey case (p. 106, previously assigned) as time permits.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 4/10, we continued our journey through the Tuesday ACA oral argument. We discussed the nature of the Roberts' questioning at the end of the interstate commerce section of Verrilli's argument, and then we went into the argument regarding the taxing power (as opposed to the interstate commerce power). I also gave an introduction to the assignment for Thursday 4/12, which is to read the Wednesday 3/28 oral argument in the Florida v. DHHS ACA case. In this part of the argument, the states challenge the right of the federal government to "coerce" them into expanding their Medicaid eligibility standards.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
April 5, 2012
POS 282 --INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 4/5 I distributed one handout, Assignment #2, which is copied below. After discussing the assignment, I talked about some connections between Gonzales v. Raich and the Affordable Care Act Supreme Court argument last week. We then went on to the Butler case, and the idea of dictum. I went over a 1971 case, Harris v. N.Y., in which the U.S. Supreme Court decided the very issue on which the Butler Court had based its decision. The assignment for Tuesday 4/10 is to begin work on the case brief assignment below. In addition, read in the text the case of Hubbard v. Greeson (p. 113) and accompanying materials.
Assignment due Thursday, April 12, 2012
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of Collins v. Trius. 663 A.2d 570 (Me., 1995).
The case can be found at Google Scholar
http://scholar.google.com/
select Legal opinions and journals
and then search “Collins v. Trius”
or, just go to
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2516716028617993366&q=collins+v.+trius&hl=en&as_sdt=2,20
I’ll include this link in the blog (goldmanmaine.blogspot.com)
I would like the brief to include the discussion in footnote six of the Opinion.
Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve distributed. Note especially that the Facts, Issues, and Holding are copied and pasted. Everything that you put into the Fact section should appear exactly in your Issue and Holding sections as well. Your Issue and Holding sections should be identical to each other, except that the issue is a question, and the Holding is the answer to that question. Your briefs will be evaluated on the format, as well as the specific content.
Please make two copies of your brief, one to hand in at the beginning of class, and the other for you to have during class for our discussion.
You may e-mail me if you have questions about the brief. The more time that I have to answer your questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.
If you cannot be in class on Thursday 4/12, you should still e-mail me your brief by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the brief. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon as possible to see what options are available to you. (Generally, I do not want to accept assignments after we have discussed them in class). See the Syllabus for the class rules regarding late papers.
Remember to work by yourselves; do not collaborate.
IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your brief to me, I will reply to confirm that I have received your assignment. If I do not reply, then I have not received the assignment.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 4/5 we continued with our discussion of the ACA oral argument. We discussed various subsidies that flow in various directions in the system, the targeting to Kennedy based on the votes in Gonzales v. Raich, the arguments that Verrilli made to distinguish this situation from other mandatory purchases, and to contest the idea that this was in fact a mandatory purchase. We will continue our examination of the oral argument next Tuesday 4/10. We will examine the distinguishing principles identified by Verrilli, and we will also look at the "taxing power"argument made by Verrilli.
In class today, Thursday 4/5 I distributed one handout, Assignment #2, which is copied below. After discussing the assignment, I talked about some connections between Gonzales v. Raich and the Affordable Care Act Supreme Court argument last week. We then went on to the Butler case, and the idea of dictum. I went over a 1971 case, Harris v. N.Y., in which the U.S. Supreme Court decided the very issue on which the Butler Court had based its decision. The assignment for Tuesday 4/10 is to begin work on the case brief assignment below. In addition, read in the text the case of Hubbard v. Greeson (p. 113) and accompanying materials.
Assignment due Thursday, April 12, 2012
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of Collins v. Trius. 663 A.2d 570 (Me., 1995).
The case can be found at Google Scholar
http://scholar.google.com/
select Legal opinions and journals
and then search “Collins v. Trius”
or, just go to
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2516716028617993366&q=collins+v.+trius&hl=en&as_sdt=2,20
I’ll include this link in the blog (goldmanmaine.blogspot.com)
I would like the brief to include the discussion in footnote six of the Opinion.
Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve distributed. Note especially that the Facts, Issues, and Holding are copied and pasted. Everything that you put into the Fact section should appear exactly in your Issue and Holding sections as well. Your Issue and Holding sections should be identical to each other, except that the issue is a question, and the Holding is the answer to that question. Your briefs will be evaluated on the format, as well as the specific content.
Please make two copies of your brief, one to hand in at the beginning of class, and the other for you to have during class for our discussion.
You may e-mail me if you have questions about the brief. The more time that I have to answer your questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.
If you cannot be in class on Thursday 4/12, you should still e-mail me your brief by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the brief. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon as possible to see what options are available to you. (Generally, I do not want to accept assignments after we have discussed them in class). See the Syllabus for the class rules regarding late papers.
Remember to work by yourselves; do not collaborate.
IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your brief to me, I will reply to confirm that I have received your assignment. If I do not reply, then I have not received the assignment.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 4/5 we continued with our discussion of the ACA oral argument. We discussed various subsidies that flow in various directions in the system, the targeting to Kennedy based on the votes in Gonzales v. Raich, the arguments that Verrilli made to distinguish this situation from other mandatory purchases, and to contest the idea that this was in fact a mandatory purchase. We will continue our examination of the oral argument next Tuesday 4/10. We will examine the distinguishing principles identified by Verrilli, and we will also look at the "taxing power"argument made by Verrilli.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
April 3, 2012
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today Tuesday 4/3, I discussed a number of historical Supreme Court Commerce Clause cases: Gibbons v. Ogden (1824); U.S. v. Knight (1895); U.S. v. Butler (1936); Carter v. Carter Coal (1936); NLRB v.Jones and Laughlin (1937); Wickard v. Filburn (1942); U.S. v. Lopez (1995); U.S. v. Morrison (2000). We then went over Gonzales v. Raich from the text. In addition to the Commerce Clause, we also looked at the Necessary and Proper clause, and the Tenth Amendment. We talked about the substantive Due Process clause argument made by Raich, and I went over the 2007 decision by the Ninth Circuit regarding substantive due process, Raich v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 857 (9th Cir., 2007). On Thursday, I plan to distribute the next case-briefing assignment, which I plan to make due on Thursday 4/12. I also plan to discuss the implications of Gonzales v. Raich for the Affordable Care Act argument that the Court heard last week. The additional reading assignment for Thursday 4/5 is to read through p. 109 of the text.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 4/3, I handed back the FCC v. Fox papers. I went over yesterday's strip-search decision. We then talked about the history of health insurance, the Maine death spiral experience in the individual market, the history of the Commerce Clause, the argument regarding violations of individual liberty, and the Tenth Amendment. All of this is leadup to the actual oral argument, previously assigned, which we will start going over in detail on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 4/5 is to review that previously assigned oral argument.
In class today Tuesday 4/3, I discussed a number of historical Supreme Court Commerce Clause cases: Gibbons v. Ogden (1824); U.S. v. Knight (1895); U.S. v. Butler (1936); Carter v. Carter Coal (1936); NLRB v.Jones and Laughlin (1937); Wickard v. Filburn (1942); U.S. v. Lopez (1995); U.S. v. Morrison (2000). We then went over Gonzales v. Raich from the text. In addition to the Commerce Clause, we also looked at the Necessary and Proper clause, and the Tenth Amendment. We talked about the substantive Due Process clause argument made by Raich, and I went over the 2007 decision by the Ninth Circuit regarding substantive due process, Raich v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 857 (9th Cir., 2007). On Thursday, I plan to distribute the next case-briefing assignment, which I plan to make due on Thursday 4/12. I also plan to discuss the implications of Gonzales v. Raich for the Affordable Care Act argument that the Court heard last week. The additional reading assignment for Thursday 4/5 is to read through p. 109 of the text.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 4/3, I handed back the FCC v. Fox papers. I went over yesterday's strip-search decision. We then talked about the history of health insurance, the Maine death spiral experience in the individual market, the history of the Commerce Clause, the argument regarding violations of individual liberty, and the Tenth Amendment. All of this is leadup to the actual oral argument, previously assigned, which we will start going over in detail on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 4/5 is to review that previously assigned oral argument.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)