What are /r/scotus' favorite Products & Services?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

I'm not sure I can continue reading this article.

It begins:

>I am reasonably sure that our tax dollars could be put to better use than chasing down a rabbit trail trying to impune a 16-year-olds dating record of him trying to get “some” as a young man. Give me a damned break; this is insanity!

Let's ignore the typo.

The allegations describe someone forcing a younger girl down and groping her while another boy watched. That is not a young man "trying to get some." That's sexual assault.

Second the article links to "Ratemyprofessors" to prove that Ford is an unpopular Professor that is "Unhinged". http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1352705

However - she has an average of 3.2 on a scale of 5 and most of the comments were on how hard she pushed students to put forward their best work.

Complaints had nothing to do with her "liberal" ideas and everything to do with "Hard grader and talks for 2hr 45min without giving a break."

There was nothing in their supporting link about her being "unhinged."

I feel like I don't need to go any further than that - it's an article that uses poor sourcing and unfounded claims to defend the SCOTUS Nominee.

The author gives credit where credit is due to Feinstein's ability to serve her constituents but their attempts to discredit an alleged victim and characterize sexual assault as normal courtship are huge red flags as to where the article is going.

Buy a Constitutional Law hornbook and read it cover to cover. Something like the linked book below is more approachable than reading a straight con law textbook and outlines the material taught in most law schools:

Examples and Explanations

100 SCOTUS cases everyone should know: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMIM2V8Vm4YoahvCw6yjAIhANTl5ywrJN

There's a corresponding book: An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100 Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know https://www.amazon.com/dp/1543813909/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_fabc_VibXFb7T8V1AB

You can rent it on Amazon for $3.99.

https://www.amazon.com/Cerated-Equal-Clarence-Thomas-Words/dp/B08HGXGFZC/ref=sr_1_9?crid=TPD7GPU3A44C&dchild=1&keywords=created+equal+clarence+thomas+in+his+own+words&qid=1601994237&sprefix=created+equal,aps,189&sr=8-9

I think there's actually that exact book.
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Constitutional-Law-Supreme-Everyone/dp/1543813909
Barnett, the author, is a well-respected scholar.

This is the one (I bought this copy about five years ago and it’s the same as the one in the photo with Breyer): https://www.amazon.com/Constitution-United-States-Declaration-Independence/dp/1598048201

I have this one in hardcover but it is also available as a paperback.

Constitution of the United States (Books of American Wisdom) by Amazon.com Learn more: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1557091056/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_3D8BZ1598Y3N60DPPRKT

Irony

https://www.amazon.com/Pocket-U-S-Constitution-President-Commemorative/dp/1542651417/ref=sr_1_15?keywords=pocket+us+constitution&qid=1666644201&qu=eyJxc2MiOiI0LjQ2IiwicXNhIjoiNC4xMiIsInFzcCI6IjMuOTQifQ%3D%3D&sr=8-15

Highly recommend The Devil in the Grove. Great deep dive into the work Marshall did for the NAACP, including criminal defense work in the Segregated South.

No problem. I'm not a lawyer, I'm just a semi-obsessive court watcher, with a pretty good memory so I remember a lot of them.

For the gun cases, the Firearms Policy Coalition(gun rights group) has a case tracker that I use a lot to keep track of them. It's not just the big ones either, they track a ton of them, even ones with no chance of being heard and not just 2nd Amendment cases either(like they include AFP v. Rodriguez formerly AFP v. Becerra which is the 1st Amendment challenge to financial disclosure laws for interest groups) or ones that are at the Supreme Court already. It tracks cases at all levels of the federal court system(Supreme Court, circuit, district) and state courts as well. Pretty good resource and not just for those, like us, who are pro-gun.

In the past, I've seen some interest on this sub about SCOTUS-related podcasts. I recently uploaded an episode reviewing the last Second Amendment case heard by the Supreme Court. The 2nd Amendment | District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). The episode reviews the case facts, oral arguments, and decision of the court. Thought I'd share it here in case anyone was interested.

> Is there a reason that 2A is open to states' interpretation but not 1A

It isn't supposed to be. McDonald v. City of Chicago should have settled that. However for the decade since McDonald, the lower courts have openly flaunted that ruling (as well as Heller) and the Supreme Court has not been granting cert to the challenges. This could be changing soon. I certainly hope so. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York has been granted cert and NYC, anticipating getting smacked down, tried to moot it and has thus far been denied. Definitely one to watch.

> So, instead of the court's protection rights, let's say the right does not exist at all and let states ban it altogether!

The "right" to abortion, such as it is, depends on a single (and IMO badly reasoned ) Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, like Congress and the Executive Branch, cannot irrevocably bind their successors in office to past decisions (stare decisis in the SCOTUS context is a prudential consideration, not a requirement; past SCOTUS decisions which have been recognized can be and are reversed). Nor can the other branches of government simply demand another branch of government to maintain their own past decisions, those branches themselves must either act (e.g. by passing legislation), or seek to amend the Constitution.

And yes, letting each state decide for itself in any issue not covered by the Constitiution is the default rule under the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

And yes, the Second Amendment could be repealed. The entire Constitution could be repealed. But doing that would require a super-majority of state legislatures... or a bigger army than you can raise.

Both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are authors of Law of Judicial Precedent which refers to Roe as "super-precedent" due to the dozens of attempts to overturn it.

Unironically. https://www.amazon.com/Reading-Law-Interpretation-Legal-Texts/dp/031427555X

Even if you don't like Scalia or originalism, Reading Law is worth your time because it offers an insight into Scalia's mind and influence he's had over the federal judiciary. Its a must read for anyone that is arguing law because of just how influential Scalia is.

Despite its relatively academic bent it remains a pretty enjoyable read, a testament to Scalia's writing skills if nothing else.

If you’re referring to Dartmouth, please show me where the right was granted to Dartmouth. The Court found that the crown and the trustees had a contract. The state could not nullify that contract. Dartmouth the college did not possess that right, the trustees did.

Here’s an entire book on the subject.

Here is a portion of Chemerinsky’s take on the case, including the contention that the bill of rights was never meant for corporations:

> The constant conservative attack on judicial activism is put to rest. By any measure, Citizens United was stun- ning in its judicial activism. The defer- ence to the democratic process so often preached by conservatives in attacking liberal rulings that protect rights was nowhere in evidence. Conservatives have lambasted court decisions protecting rights not stated in the Constitution or intended by its fram- ers. But there is no evidence that the First Amendment’s drafters contemplated the notion that spending money in election campaigns is a form of protected speech. Nor did they intend any provisions in the Bill of Rights to protect corporations. It was not until 1978, in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, that the Court first found any First Amendment protection for speech by corporations.12 Few Supreme Court decisions are more important on as many different levels as Citizens United. It portends even greater changes in campaign finance laws in the years ahead, and it reveals much about the Roberts Court. By any measure, it will likely be the most significant decision of the 2009 term.

> To be fair, the Dems did the same thing with gay marriage last decade. It was ruled unconstitutional and illegal time after time, and they built momentum to bring in new narratives regarding it into the public consciousness that ultimately tipped enough justices to overturn the precedents and legalize it in 2015.

See also the right to own a gun for self defense. Both are discussed here

For a lay reader, I think this is very accessible: https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Constitutional-Law-Supreme-Everyone/dp/1543813909

"worst articulated" and "incoherent" mean different things. Both opinions suffer from the coalition building that went into them (to get a unanimous ruling in Brown, and to get Kennedy as a 5th vote in Obergefell). Sharper-edged reasoning is not conducive to coalition building. Both opinions are squishy, sweeping, and touchy-feely, while I would prefer just a broad application of the 14th Amendment.

FYI, there are a lot of criticisms of Brown. See this:

https://www.amazon.com/What-Brown-Board-Education-Should/dp/081479890X

Thanks. I'll give them a go.

As a return of favor, there is a non-law book that I cannot get enough of called Heroic Mexico that details the Revolution.

https://www.amazon.com/Heroic-Mexico-Violent-Emergence-Modern/dp/0385015518

Edit: I just checked the price of those Clio books... how are you all not in extreme debt? Ohhh... my empathy has grown today.

I look forward to the future book written by Bill Eskridge and a bunch of earnest Yale Law profs on What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said.

(For those who don't know, this is not a joke.)

I just read about this in The Good Lawyer: Seeking Quality in the Practice of Law by Douglas O. Linder and Nancy Levit. 10/10 good read.

Ed Johnson, a man of color, was tried for allegedly raping a white woman in Tennessee. His lawyer, a man of color, was a bankruptcy attorney but took the case only because nobody else would. I don't recall where he was from, but it was another town such that he had to catch a train.

Ed Johnson was convicted at trial and given the death penalty.

He did appeal, and the Supreme Court granted a stay of execution pending the appeal. It was during that Stay that Ed Johnson was lynched by a mob.

The Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan convinced President Theodore Roosevelt to intervene and pursue those responsible.

After the SCOTUS contempt case cited by OP, Ed Johnson's defense lawyer's office was burned to the ground. He apparently never returned to the practice of law.

Ah yes, I smelt something funky afoot; though I’m not shocked you wouldn’t even consider I thought you might be disingenuous. I’d recommend this resource. (Garner is a co-author, indeed, this is the book you reference) https://www.amazon.com/Reading-Law-Interpretation-Legal-Texts/dp/031427555X/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Scalia&qid=1595642807&sr=8-1

I’d direct you to the opening paragraphs of Alito’s dissent:

> JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, dissenting. There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation. The document that the Court releases is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive.

>Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employ- ment discrimination on any of five specified grounds: “race, color, religion, sex, [and] national origin.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(a)(1). Neither “sexual orientation” nor “gender identity” appears on that list. For the past 45 years, bills have been introduced in Congress to add “sexual orientation” to the list, and in recent years, bills have included “gender identity” as well. But to date, none has passed both Houses.

The plain text of the law has nothing to say about “gender identity,” both because the legislators of 1964 would never have considered for even an iota of a second a person’s sexual preference to be protected. Gorsuch does good, but in the process, throws his supposed “textualist” bonafides out the window with a long winded attempt to conflate sexual orientation with discrimination based on sex.

The biggest irony here is that the title of the article you’ve linked is “Old-fashioned textualism is all about interpretation, not legislating from the bench” which is precisely what Alito addresses in his dissent.

I would recommend Philip Hamburger's Law and Judicial Duty. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674031318/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i3