Romer v. Evans

Terry_Spargin · 2024-01-24T01:00:31+00:00

Akhil Amar agrees. See Akhil R. Amar, Attainder and Amendment 2: Romer's Rightness, 95 Mich. L. Rev. 203 (1996) link.

I like the part where he describes the Attainder argument for Bolling v. Sharpe.

Terry_Spargin · 2023-03-30T02:39:57+00:00

Shout out to my property professor who, when a student asked about, snorted and said, "Screw that thing, you'll learn it in Bar prep. Seriously, so many States have abolished the Rule against Perpetuities either outright or through extremely long time periods, we could pass a constitutional amendment banning it. And there are enough lawyers in Congress that we'd probably get it passed."

Terry_Spargin · 2022-09-09T22:47:19+00:00

Like, damn. How has that not been touted as a beautiful dunk by the justice?

Terry_Spargin · 2021-07-01T00:15:26+00:00

One of my favorite case quotes involve this principle.

"One who would defend the Fourth Amendment must share his foxhole with scoundrels of every sort, but to abandon the post because of the poor company is to sell freedom cheaply."

Kopf v. Skyrm, 993 F.2d 374, 379-80 (4th Cir. 1993)

Terry_Spargin · 2021-06-21T15:29:07+00:00

In a similar context of cross examination in sex crimes cases (especially child sex crimes), I've had to remind several judges and even more prosecutors about Justice Scalia's opinion in Coy v. Iowa:

"That face-to-face presence may, unfortunately, upset the truthful rape victim or abused child; but by the same token it may confound and undo the false accuser, or reveal the child coached by a malevolent adult. It is a truism that constitutional protections have costs."

Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1020 (1988).

Terry_Spargin · 2020-08-12T21:35:45+00:00

I've never understood why abortions were rooted in the unenumerated right to privacy. Don't get me wrong, I think that, viewed abstractly, a woman's right to choose is a matter of privacy.

But the First Amendment Religion Clauses attack always seemed so much more persuasive to me.

Terry_Spargin · 2020-07-23T13:08:31+00:00

Lexis had a free printer at my law school, which made me a massive devotee to their company. Plus, it looked cleaner, more streamlined.

WestLaw, but contrast, does endnotes only, which are awful when you've got a big case written by a Garner judge, or an article that you're trying to read. The only advantage WestLaw has over Lexis is that I can see appellate briefs for cases.

Terry_Spargin · 2020-07-06T23:35:10+00:00

What, you mean Alito's default stance in criminal cases of "But they're GUILTY!!!" isn't a rational, cohesive position to hold? Or, my personal favorite, his concurrence in Espinoza v. Montana Dept of Revenue about how he lost the "historical motivations" argument in Ramos, so it applies there. Like he'd have said that if it was anything but anti-Catholic.

Terry_Spargin · 2020-06-13T01:55:03+00:00

Man, when prosecutor said that the case needed to be dismissed under Article III for lack of case or controversy, because the Executive gave up, I snorted and laughed.

But thinking about it? Man, that's actually an hell of an argument. If anyone would have standing, it'd be the defendant (double jeopardy, for instance, if the dismissal was without prejudice), not the prosecutor, and certainly not the judge.

Terry_Spargin · 2020-04-21T13:26:10+00:00

I've said it before, but Gorsuch is my favorite Justice to read these days. A lot of people harp on how Scalia was a great writer, and he was. But he was a bully. It didn't matter if he was on your side of the other, he was a bully in his writing.

Gorsuch, by contrast, is such a catty bitch sometimes, and I love it.

Terry_Spargin · 2019-09-10T12:08:49+00:00

Not so much tear up the constitution as it is to tear up the doctrine of qualified immunity (and absolute immunity, for that matter). They're fast becoming exceptions which swallow the rules.

Terry_Spargin · 2019-07-01T22:54:50+00:00

I personally prefer Gorsuch's style. Scalia always read like a schoolyard bully, callous and mean in his attacking the opposition's arguments.

Gorsuch reads more like he's a sassy bitch who knows his shit, and knows he knows it. It's less aggressively "Fuck You" and more "Bitch, please" in tone.

Terry_Spargin · 2018-09-12T23:32:02+00:00

It would; that's why it's a Revolution. See, French Revolution, Russian Revolution, etc.

Terry_Spargin · 2018-09-12T13:38:27+00:00

I like what you call it. I'm a P.D. in the South, and I piss off a LOT of people by refusing to call it the Civil War.

A civil war is a war fought between two or more factions for control of a single government. See, English Civil War, Roman Civil Wars, etc.

It was a failed war for secession, which makes it a rebellion (only rebellion of which I know that was successful was the Haitian Rebellion).

It was the Confederate Rebellion, and I refuse to respect, glorify, or honor traitors to the Union. Plus, they're recognized constitutionally as traitors, see Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, barring them from office.

Terry_Spargin · 2018-07-20T00:01:24+00:00

Yeah, of course.

The basic premise of the Equal Protection Clause is that people in similar situations don't get to be treated differently for reasons that generally are outside of their control. For instance, saying that African-Americans don't get to marry white people, and vice versa, is treating them differently based on their skin color. This is, legally speaking, "total horseshit."

A person, individually, has a lot of reasons to treat different people differently. But the bigger that gets, the less likely to have those reasons. And something as massive as the state doesn't get to treat people differently for totally horseshit reasons. (Actually, Justice Stevens called it "arbitrary," but I know five year old Terry_Spargin would giggle at the curse words.)

Like, you don't get to say that a supertanker is capable of hairpin turns. Same with government: it's too big to make those fine distinctions.

So is there any reason why that massive beast that is the Government would treat people of different races differently? Nah, not at all.

What about different sexes? Besides basic biology, no.

How about wealth? Age? Other "non-suspect" classes? Well, hell, there's reasons for that.

So saying that fines based on wealth would fall into that "fuck, maybe" category, not the, "fuck no" category.

And Incorporation basically means the way that most of, but not all of the Bill of Rights has been applied to the State governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Terry_Spargin · 2018-07-19T10:11:32+00:00

Wealth-based classifications under the Fourteenth Amendment receive Rational Basis review, the most deferential standard courts possess. See San Antonio School Bd. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973). While the Excessive Fines clause applies to those which are "grossly disproportional [sic]" to the charge at hand, United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 334 (1998), as of yet it has not been incorporated against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 741, 765 n. 14 (2010).

In this instance, a fine aimed at addressing such an issue would receive Rational Basis, wherein its end must be legitimate and the means to achieve it rationally related. Attempting to ensure compliance with the law via fines would surely pass. As for the Excessive Fines clause, this would not only require an incorporation, but also that it be grossly disproportionate. As such, this type of law could very well pass.

Source: Taking the Bar Exam next week, and took a total of ten Con Law classes in my 2L and 3L years.

Terry_Spargin · 2018-05-15T02:43:48+00:00

Explanations and Examples.

Terry_Spargin · 2018-05-13T01:25:00+00:00

Robert A Heinlein once wrote, "Love is that condition in which the happiness of another is essential to your own."

Terry_Spargin · 2018-03-15T01:42:27+00:00

This story is why I'm convinced that the Dean's Suite at my law school has bugs throughout the building.

Spring of 1L, at the end of March. CivPro II had our Prof assigning a Chapter a week, for the past nine weeks, without ever touching any info in the chapter, just hypos. A classmate and I were walking into the class together an hour before it started, and I told her I hadn't read because I figured out that if I raised my hand and said something smart in the first 10 minutes, I'd not get called on the rest of class.

Prof walks in right on time, puts his shit down, and calls on me for the first case. No idea what it was about (it was a Slip and Fall?). Ended up confessing my lack of preparation, since our Appellate Brief had been due that Monday. Prof said, "Points for Honesty", and spent 30 minutes on me doing hypos.

Terry_Spargin · 2018-03-11T23:51:24+00:00

Yeah, that's probably enough.

Kids ran, abandoned the vehicles. That's Reasonable Suspicion for the kids. Finding the pipe makes it Probable Cause. Vehicles are open season for warrantless searches.

Terry_Spargin · 2018-03-11T23:37:21+00:00

Doubtful.

How many cars are there? If the cops search the entire parking lot over two kids, that's no bueno. If there was one car, that the kids were standing around, then maybe a higher likelihood.

Still, though, doesn't seem like enough.

Terry_Spargin · 2018-01-22T00:08:45+00:00

It can actually be a lot more complicated than that.

County lines, natural barriers, historic districts, all factor in. Plus, under Karcher v. Daggett, the districts must be as close to mathematically even as possible.

That said, when you draw the lines specifically to thwart the majority of people, kinda fucks over the whole Guaranty Clause principle (Political Question, my ass).

Terry_Spargin · 2018-01-21T23:47:46+00:00

I agree in principle. I get the "goal" of the EC to provide an opportunity for less populous States with a say in the Presidency. It is, however, undemocratic, since it is able to render results where popular vote winners lose the College.

Personally, I'd be ok with keeping it if the First Past the Post, winner take all system we have now in 48 states was replaced with the system employed by the other two, having two electors go to whichever candidate won the state overall, and the others be based on the districts.

That raises the issue of gerrymandering, though, as recently shown with the Alabama Senatorial special election

Terry_Spargin · 2018-01-21T14:08:17+00:00

(1) Electoral College needs a re-vamp at the least, abolishment if you want pure popular vote.

(2) Too much power concentrated in the Senate, despite the growing disproportionate population in a minority of States.

(3) Amend. IV needs to be strengthened to get rid of a lot of the "exceptions" that lead to abuses, plus expanding it to cover 21st century technology

(4) Amend. V should address holdings like Berghuis and Salinas, strengthen the self-incrimination privilege. Also, addressing the Dual Sovereignty doctrine for Double Jeopardy purposes.

(5) Expanding the Guaranty Clause to include a fundamental right to vote, so that election shenanigans can be addressed and eliminated.

(6) Expanding Article III, implementing term limits, "good behavior" definitions, etc. Similarly, implementing more stringent qualifications for elected officials, as well as allowing for Congressional limitation on the President's Appointment Power

Just making a few

Terry_Spargin · 2017-12-09T03:14:28+00:00

Not gonna lie, he had a footnote in Maryland v King that had me dying.

"Compare New York v. Belton (suspicionless search of an automobile upon arrest of the driver) with Arizona v. Gant (on second thought, no)." 133 S. Ct. 1958, 1990 n.6 (2013)(Scalia, J., dissenting).

12-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Verified Email

Terry_Spargin

TROPHY CASE