March 7, 2019

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 3/7, I distributed one handout, the Maine criminal statutes regarding the use of force in defense of property and premises. (That handout, though, will not be included in the material for which you are responsible for Tuesday's exam). We began class by going over the Speelman hypotheticals that I had handed out on Tuesday. We looked at how closing your eyes can work out in your favor. I then talked about a 2006 U.S. Supreme Court case, Jones v. Flowers, in which the Court dealt with the Due Process requirements when an important notice is returned as undeliverable. The Court also discussed the scope of responsibilities on the sender regarding further attempts to get the notice delivered, and the responsibility to do further investigation into the correct address. We then turned to Katko v. Briney in the textbook. We went through the case brief of the case as far as the "facts" in the first issue in the case (whether the thief can recover when he was shot in the course of his thieving ways). That's where we'll pick up on Thursday after we go over Tuesday's exam.
On Tuesday 3/12 we will have Exam #1. Remember that if you're using a laptop etc., you may not use it in any way that a person having just paper cannot do. If you find in your review of the blog that you are missing any handouts, you can email me no later than 8:00 pm on Monday with your request for a copy of what you're missing.


POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Thursday 3/7, we first finished our discussion of the Madison opinion. I pointed out a few points in Kagan's opinion that I found of particular interest. One was in Kagan's discussion of the ability (or lack of ability) to preserve memories, even though the lack of memory is not, in itself, sufficient for a finding of incompetency. The other was in her discussion of the procedure that should be followed by the Alabama competency court on remand, with her strong suggestion that there should be a new round of evidence, even though she didn't find that that court had committed error in their previous ruling. Then we went over the dissent, and saw how they got to the conclusion that the Court was ruling on issues that weren't properly before it, and Madison's case should therefore be dismissed.
We then turned to the Timbs opinion, and saw how in that case as well, the Court dealt with the issue of one one the contentions of the state of Indiana (that Austin should be overruled) would not be dealt with, because it was not raised in the Questions Presented in the Cert. Petition. We saw how Ginsburg had little trouble then with the incorporation question, as well as the state's contention that protections against in rem forfeitures were neither fundamental nor deeply rooted. We finally looked at Thomas' concurrence, in which he refused to go along with Due Process as the vehicle for incorporation, but rather used the 14th Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause
On Tuesday 3/12 we will have Exam #1. Remember that if you're using a laptop etc., you may not use it in any way that a person having just paper cannot do. If you find in your review of the blog that you are missing any handouts, you can email me no later than 8:00 pm on Monday with your request for a copy of what you're missing.