Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Spanky]

Originally posted by bilmore
There was this thing about starting a whole new country. Brand new. Not tied down with the old ways, not stuck with the King's old rulings . . . you should read about it. It was called a revolution. It was pretty much a condemnation of the old system, and I've never heard anyone (this is my evidence, which I know is weak) say that they decided only to keep 49.45% of the old legal system.

I understand the idea that they all seemed to follow the hairy hand cases, but this was more of a "this is logical, and so we'll stick to it" approach, then it was a "oh, shit, this is precedent, and we're stuck" feeling.

"Precedent" was a word, then, for "let's see what other treatments this set of circumstances has raised", and not for something that a judge was duty-bound to follow.

Now I know you are wrong about this. All the common law systems in the the colonial courts were preserved. In most of the states the common law system in the state courts were not even slightly interrupted by the American revoution. If a common law precedent was not liked then the state legislature had to overturn it, even if it was prerevolutionary.

However, I don't remember anything about common law rights from law school. In fact I had only heard of them in the British system. But now that I think about it there were certain common law concepts like Habeus Corpus.

Since the Bill of Rights was not applied to the states until after the Civil war, people rights in these states against state law had to come from somewhere. Before that West Wing Episode I had just assumed these rigths came from state constitutions. But now I realize that some of these rights may have come from a common law tradition (Just like England). So if a colonial or state government abused someones rights prior to the civil war people may have claimed these rights from the common law tradition.

But of course I really don't know. But if this were true it puts a whole new perspective on strict construction now doesn't it?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
Now I know you are wrong about this. All the common law systems in the the colonial courts were preserved. In most of the states the common law system in the state courts were not even slightly interrupted by the American revoution. If a common law precedent was not liked then the state legislature had to overturn it, even if it was prerevolutionary.

However, I don't remember anything about common law rights from law school. In fact I had only heard of them in the British system. But now that I think about it there were certain common law concepts like Habeus Corpus.

Since the Bill of Rights was not applied to the states until after the Civil war, people rights in these states against state law had to come from somewhere. Before that West Wing Episode I had just assumed these rigths came from state constitutions. But now I realize that some of these rights may have come from a common law tradition (Just like England). So if a colonial or state government abused someones rights prior to the civil war people may have claimed these rights from the common law tradition.

But of course I really don't know. But if this were true it puts a whole new perspective on strict construction now doesn't it?

I thought a bunch of the traditional first-year law classes were common law -- e.g. property and contracts and torts. Is the contracts stuff statutory? I had thought not, on the whole, which was why they had all those treatise thingies, but to be perfectly honest I knew what I wanted to do when I was in ls and my intellectual curiosity was pretty nonexistent.

ETA Are there statutes setting forth what torts are and contract interpretations? I thought there was basically common law and statutory law. It seems like common law comes in all the freaking time -- of course, I have most of the discussants in this discussion on ignore, so fuck if I know what people are claiming, but if anyone is claiming there is no common law in the US that is crap. Litigants and judges and stuff try to fill in around ERISA with "federal common law."

EATA how the hell did we do anything in the first few years after the revolution if there wasn't common law hanging around? Were there suddenly huge books of statutes? Why is it my impression that I've always heard that Louisiana's laws are all different because they are based on the Napoleonic Code whereas the other 49 states' laws are based on common law, if we don't have common law?

EYATA Is posting while feverish better or worse than posting under the influence?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Well, so far I see a criminally neligent Mayor and Governor and a federal honcho (Brown) who didn't know how to handle the press. And an opportunistic Congress.

And while I see local and state officers running away (or getting paid trips to go to Vegas), I see thousands of federal soldiers/workers and unpaid American volunteers working frantically to assist everyone that they can.

So if not the "Bush hates black people point," I'm curious how - now that everything is starting to shake out - you find such overwhelming fault with the Feds?

Right. That was Brown's problem -- that he couldn't handle the press.

The fault of the federal government -- specifically, the executive branch -- was the delay and ineptitude with which it acted -- or failede to act -- in the days after the hurricane hit. It is not excused by the failures (inc. any delay and ineptitude) of the state and local governments there, nor do I understand even Penske to suggest otherwise.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
It's the MEME model of politics.

You posit a theme, and then, no matter how well the facts shut you down, you just keep repeating it.

Penske's been teaching us about this while you were away.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
With Terri Schiavo the Feds were stepping in to prevent a state sanctioned taking of her right to life.

Here, Slave, this is the point I was making. With Terri Schiavo, the feds were stepping in. With Katrina, they were dragging their feet, etc.

Thanks for the assist, Penske.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Unlike Sean Penn, the jackass has neither an entourage or a personal photographer.

BTW, saw this a few days ago in the SF Chronicle:

• A widely distributed report that [Sean Penn had] been traveling with a personal photographer was a fabrication from a photographer with whom he'd slightly tangled as the rescue effort got under way. If the Australian newspaper can produce that personal photographer, he said, "I will give them $10 million to party with.'' If they can't, he said, they should give him $10 million to donate to the victims.

I'm betting Spanky saw it, too.

I note that the donkey has an outboard motor on that Boston Whaler. So that's something.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I thought a bunch of the traditional first-year law classes were common law -- e.g. property and contracts and torts. Is the contracts stuff statutory? I had thought not, on the whole, which was why they had all those treatise thingies, but to be perfectly honest I knew what I wanted to do when I was in ls and my intellectual curiosity was pretty nonexistent.

ETA Are there statutes setting forth what torts are and contract interpretations? I thought there was basically common law and statutory law. It seems like common law comes in all the freaking time -- of course, I have most of the discussants in this discussion on ignore, so fuck if I know what people are claiming, but if anyone is claiming there is no common law in the US that is crap. Litigants and judges and stuff try to fill in around ERISA with "federal common law."

EATA how the hell did we do anything in the first few years after the revolution if there wasn't common law hanging around? Were there suddenly huge books of statutes? Why is it my impression that I've always heard that Louisiana's laws are all different because they are based on the Napoleonic Code whereas the other 49 states' laws are based on common law, if we don't have common law?

EYATA Is posting while feverish better or worse than posting under the influence?

Yes - that is exactly what I was saying. But do you remember anything about common law concerning rights?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


I'm betting Spanky saw it, too.

That's dumbass to you.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
That's dumbass to you.

Wasn't there a hyphen in it?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Penske's been teaching us about this while you were away.

Barnard Griffith Merlot. 2002. Hi. Ty.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Here, Slave, this is the point I was making. With Terri Schiavo, the feds were stepping in. With Katrina, they were dragging their feet, etc.

Thanks for the assist, Penske.

2nd glass. Punt.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


I note that the donkey has an outboard motor on that Boston Whaler. So that's something.

translation:Glass half full.

Ty that's a start, maybe you are redeemable yet.

[Penske_Account]

Hannity is interviewing Mitt Romney, and said:

"Every time I think of those buses, all I can think of is why, Why, WHY?!?!?!?"

Romney agreed.

Wow, I am influential. Eat that Sidd!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Barnard Griffith Merlot. 2002. Hi. Ty.

Qupe Syrah, 2003. Liking this better than the 2000 Bien Naciedo.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by nononono
Jesus, what is there, an email alert around here? I've been through this several times already. But no, unless we know each other from somewhere other than here, no.

It's your provocative aura.