Everyone thinks they’re a legal expert

11 Comments:

By  Xrlq:

Please explain why, exactly, agreeing with five of the eight Justices makes Bill O'Reilly an idiot.

posted at 6/15/2004 8:41 PM 

By  Calico Cat:

He's agreeing with a decision that I doubt he read, and only because it achieved the result he wanted and not because the legal reasoning makes sense.

posted at 6/16/2004 12:37 PM 

By  Xrlq:

First, the legal does makes sense. You may not like it, but that doesn't mean it was wrong, and it certainly doesn't mean someone is an idiot because they think it's right.

Second, if O'Reilly didn't personally read the opinion, so what? He probably did bounce his ideas off Lis Wiehl or other legal advisors to his show before airing his views - he usually does - but even if he didn't, where's the beef? Did he actually say anything stupid which he wouldn't have said, had he read the decisions?
Certainly nothing on the order of mixing up the "case or controversy" requirement with Dred Scott!Third, and most importantly, the notion that only "legal experts" are qualified to discuss the standing doctrine is offensive and elitist in the extreme. Ordinary citizens have as much of a right to opine on that constitutional doctrine as they do on any other. One might just as well argue that no one who has a right to opine on the merits of the case unless they've read every church/state case of the 20th Century from cover to cover.

Last and least, O'Reilly's bit about the Ninth Circuit being loonies does not begin or end with this case. It consists of a long string of wacky cases, almost all of which involve taking some line from a past Supreme Court decision out of context, and running with it. Another, more recent example, was a three-judge panel that canceled last year's gubernatorial recall election solely because the state was going to use punch cards, and punch cards were also at issue in Bush v. Gore.Justice Thomas may have been right this time, but even that's not a slam dunk. If/when this case returns to the USSC, Justice Thomas wants that case to overturn the past precedents he also opposes. That won't happen if his colleagues rule that the past cases are distinguishable (as, I suspect, they will).

posted at 6/16/2004 2:38 PM 

By  Xrlq:

"the legal does makes sense" = "the legal reasoning does make sense"

posted at 6/16/2004 2:42 PM 

By  Calico Cat:

The Ninth Circuit has made a lot of whacky decisions, but not in this case. They were just following precedent, and Justice Thomas agreed.

You don't have to have gone to law school to discuss legal issues, that I agree with. But, the legal issues that the Supreme Court often deals with require a deep understanding of the legal background. Courts don't make arbitrary decisions, they make decisions based on legal precedent. People who haven't actually read a decision, and not bothered to get some background on previous cases and cited in a decision, aren't qualified to say if the decision was correct or incorrect.

That's not elitist. The full text of the Supreme Court decision is in the link I provided. People who are interested can read it. And I think that Cornell University has the full text of all past Supreme Court decisions, so you can learn a lot without actually having to walk into a law library.

Regarding Dred Scott, to quote Justice Taney: "Upon the whole, therefore, it is the judgment of this court, that it appears by the record before us that the plaintiff in error is not a citizen of Missouri, in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution; and that the Circuit Court of the United States, for that reason, had no jurisdiction in the case, and could give no judgment in it. Its judgment for the defendant must, consequently, be reversed, and a mandate issued, directing the suit to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction."

Taney is clearly stating that the case is dismissed because of lack of Article III jurisdiction.

posted at 6/16/2004 3:06 PM 

By  Xrlq:

"Taney is clearly stating that the case is dismissed because of lack of Article III jurisdiction."Partly, but he relied more on the substantive question of whether or not non-citizens had various privileges or immunities (including but not limited to the right to sue or be sued) than on the jurisdictional defects per se. Do you really think the court would have ruled in Mr. Scott's favor if the original suit had been brought in state rather than federal court?

In any event, the Article III problem here is lack of diversity jurisdiction, not standing. Money quote:

"The declaration is in the form usually adopted in that State to try questions of this description, and contains the averment necessary to give the court jurisdiction; that he and the defendant are citizens of different States; that is, that he is a citizen of Missouri, and the defendant a citizen of New York."

posted at 6/16/2004 6:46 PM 

By  Calico Cat:

Well, going back to what I originally wrote, I see that I did say that Dredd Scott had no standing, which is wrong.

Dredd Scott had "standing" but the Court still dismissed the case because it lacked jurisdiction on other grounds.

In both cases, the actual merits of the case weren't decided because the Court concluded that it had no authority to hear the case under Article III, although the doctrines were different.

You should have just said that in the first place instead of insisting that jurisdictional issues have nothing to do with Dredd Scott.

Maybe I should print a retraction.

posted at 6/16/2004 10:45 PM 

By  Xrlq:

I would think so, seeing as the jurisdictional issue in Dred Scott had nothing to do with the standing doctrine, or any other doctrine ruled on in the Newdow case. They weren't even all that central to Scott, as the court makes clear a slave had none of the substantive rights he sought, either. If the case had worked its way through the state courts, there would have been no jurisdictional issues under Article III or any other federal law, but trust me, Scott would have lost anyway.

Last and least, it's "Dred" Scott, not "Dredd." Perhaps you're confusing him with Judge Dredd?

posted at 6/17/2004 10:28 AM 

By  Calico Cat:

Maybe I'm confusing him with the Grateful Dredd, or the Dreddlocked Bob Marley.

Your point is noted, it's spelled "Dred". Dumb spelling mistakes like this will continue to occur because I don't have an editor.

Spelling errors are even more likely when I'm writing comments. Expect them.

In Dred Scott, the plaintiff was a slave who was transported from Missouri to a free state and then back to Missouri. Did his travel to a free state mean he was freed from slavery, and no longer a slave in Missouri? Justice Taney said the Court couldn't decide that because there was no jurisdiciton. Dred Scott claimed that he had diversity jurisdiction. That he was a citizen of Missouri and the defendant a citizen of New York. Justice Taney said there was no diversity jurisdiction because slaves are not citizens in Missouri. So the real merits of the case were not decided.

posted at 6/17/2004 10:52 AM 

By  kissmegritzs101:

NO! you dumb butts, its spelled "dredd Scott" not "dred" learn your history, not your english.

posted at 10/28/2004 10:46 PM 

By  abeauvais:

Dred Scott v. Sandford
19 Howard 393 (1857)
Although the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Missouri's representative's last name was correctly spelled Sanford, it was placed on the books mispelled and never corrected. Spelling v. Grammar, case dismissed!

posted at 10/21/2005 2:56 AM 

Post a Comment