Since this sort of argument only arises once in a blue moon, and I have some flexibility with my current work schedule, I thought I would get up early and take a trip to the U.S. Supreme Court tomorrow morning. The Court is going to hear arguments about Delaware and New Jersey, in a case appropriately called "Delaware v. New Jersey." 
In this case and in an exercise of its original jurisdiction, the Court will decide once and for all where NJ can dump its garbage. And by garbage, I mean a gas pump. And by dump, I mean build.
Based on my one minute Google search, the Times article, and the special master's report, it appears that we have a good old-fashioned border dispute. The nine sheriffs on Maryland Ave. are hopefully not going to simply flip the Delaware and New Jersey quarters to decide whether Delaware's River is misnamed.
In this clash between titans of corporate law and rock music legends, it will be interesting to see whether Tony Soprano or Caesar Rodney will prevail. In either case, the arguments should be fun to watch. The picture of this disputed area can be found here.
An older case where Delaware and New Jersey fought another area of the river can be found here.
Monday, November 26, 2007
U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether George Washington was a trespasser
Tags:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Visiting the court is so much fun! I hope you got there early enough. Maybe got some work done standing in line on your Blackberry? :)
Nope, no work done today unfortunately, other than a bad flashback to the bar review's "riparian water rights" lecture. I was slightly delayed due to a "suspicious package" that the Capitol Police found outside the Court that resulted in the block being shut down. Fortunately, this particular argument didn't draw a packed house so I was able to find a seat once I did finally get inside.
Despite missing whatever opening remarks there were, I definitely got to hear most of the arguments. Justices Scalia and Souter's remarks at the Delaware attorney's inartful dodging of what I thought was a pretty straightforward hypothetical were pretty funny. In the words of Judge Judy, I think he forgot to put his "listening ears" on. Of course, that's easy for me to say sitting on the clerk side of the aisle and making what could be construed as a sarcastic comment - that is certainly not intended. I thought both attorneys did an excellent job, and the arguments were similar to the better arguments I have witnessed myself this year when I've had a chance to see them. We'll see what happens whenever the case gets decided as to who owns this subaqueous land and what exactly this contract meant to say about it.
Because I was able to make it to at least one other argument before today while I was in law school, I still recommend attending for anyone in law school to go and watch. I think you would appreciate it best either late in your second or sometime during your third year when you are really looking for something entertaining to do.
Most law schools have at least one professor with a connection to the Court and can get you reserved seats at most arguments. At least, that's what I was able to do when I was in law school.
Traveling may be rough if you're beyond the DC area, but Amtrak pretty much runs from Boston down. It can be expensive, but it's well worth the cost and certainly worth the time.
Oh man, I hope Scalia's mood remains entertainingly snotty today because he's coming to my con law II class. Of course I want to ask him a good question, but I'm nervous about being the person Scalia decides to take down.
I went to visit the court during the first or second week of oral argument, and I think Alito is probably the Justice who poked fun at the attorneys most, possibly out of exasperation. Souter is amusing because of the way he leans forward the whole time like he's about to jump over the bench.
I always liked Scalia's opinions, as wacky as they sometimes can be. Alito cracked a couple jokes also, but I know what you mean. I like the interaction between Thomas and Breyer (although Breyer wasn't there yesterday).
On a side note related to this entry, someone forwarded me the WSJ Law Blog's entry about the DE-NJ case. See New Jersey-Delaware Smackdown at the Supreme Court. Although it may be coincidence, I note the similarities in both tone of the article and in this sentence (and admit, it could be coincidental):
WSJ: "Yesterday the Supremes heard this case, a good old fashion boundary dispute between the Garden State and the First State"
Me: "It appears that we have a good old-fashioned border dispute. The nine sheriffs on Maryland Ave. are hopefully not going to simply flip the Delaware and New Jersey quarters to decide whether Delaware's River is misnamed."
If I was a law professor, I think the similarities are at least in the same ballpark that I would have liked to see a link to my entry (particularly because I think mine was much funnier). C'est la vie.
Also, as far as a good comment, and I highly doubt you'll get him to bite, but you may want to say that you figured out how he can reconcile original intent with the elusive "evolving standards of decency" doctrine (some thoughts discussed briefly here).
I would argue that if the original forms of execution in 1790 were primarily hangings (from long gallows), then the framers intended execution to be short and painless (since long hanging is pretty much instantaneous).
Our "evolving standards of decency" has extended the time of death from near instantaneous to some longer time. The example being argued is the death cocktail which can take up to 30 mins or longer in some cases apparently. This long execution period (as compared to the long hanging) may be considered 'cruel and unusual' to the framers. At the same time, the standard has evolved past the long hanging also, so it sort of rubs both ways. Therein lies the rub, as the DE lawyer from yesterday loved to say (three or five times).
Given the new composition of the court, I'll be curious if a temporal argument appears in the case when it comes out in order to reconcile the two sides and solve once and for all this entire debate.
Of course, I'm sure he would much rather talk about who he thinks is going to win the Superbowl. In either case, that should be a great class to be in. Hopefully the rest of the course is as interesting.
That is a clever argument, although I would be surprised if Scalia could see any merit in reconciling original intent with evolving standards of decency. He mocked that language mercilessly yesterday. Maybe some of the other Justices would be more amenable.
My beef with Scalia's application of originalism or textualism is that he disavows literalism when interpreting the constitution and says stuff like, "well we know what the purpose of the first amendment is." But he totally refuses to apply the same logic to statutes. He would rather look at the dictionary and only the dictionary than consider the meaning of a word in the context of the purpose of the Act. To me this seems like sticking your head in the sand-- abdicating the role the Court has always been expected to fill and asking too much of the Congress.
I had a very good time listening to him. He went on for more than an hour just answering questions, and he was just as funny as one would expect. He made some pretty unflattering comments about the Chief Justice, but I guess it's not really news that Scalia isn't his biggest fan.
I didn't think he would go for it - I just thought it would be a way that both sides could come out to the same result. I am certainly interested in this opinion when it comes out.
Yeah, the dictionary argument is pretty sandy - I remember reading an article a while back about the merits of using various dictionaries and how inconsistent courts are about it (and how the older dictionaries have only limited value to begin with).
It sounds like it was a good experience - I always tried to get to those types of speeches whenever I could - they are far more valuable than most of the stuff the profs try and teach you about anyway. Thanks for sharing.
Post a Comment