How would you have ruled in the preceding case?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I would have supported the minority.  Both the "evolving standards of decency" test and the  "national consensus" test are judicial activism of the highest order as it places the court in the position deciding what the law should be rather than its proper function of deciding what the law is. I view the cruel and unusual punishments clause as primarily a restraint on the judicial branch in handing out sentences, not generally as a restraint on the legislative branch in deciding what punishments should be.

Bush v. Gore

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Concur, tho I think Congress could choose to create a reportorial privilege.

Nix v. Hedden

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

With the majority.  While I favor giving the legislative branch broad authority on the topic of abortion, the one Pennsylvania restriction they struck down, requiring married women to obtain the consent of their husbands to obtain an otherwise legal abortion, deserved to be struck.

South Carolina v. Baker

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'd have concurred with Alito in his opinion that agreed with the decision but not how Scalia reached it.  In particular, I see no reason why the finding in Ginsberg v. New York should not be extended from sex to violence.  Furthermore, given the interactive nature of video games, the comparison should not be made with pornography but actual sexual acts.

Anyway, since I mentioned it:
 Ginsberg v. New York

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Concur as to decision, but not as to reasoning. I concur with the dissent as to how that section of the FLSA should be interpreted.  However, I'd have used the case to revisit Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority and thus strike down the application of FLSA to state and local governments doing core government functions, of which law enforcement clearly is one.

Speaking of which: Garcia v. SAMTA

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I would concur with Roberts' dissent, but not with those of Murphy or Jackson.  Had it been an exclusion order alone, then I think it would have been constitutional, but as Roberts pointed out, the exclusion was conjoined with internment and the majority was profoundly wrong in treating it as a separate issue. Indeed, it would seem they did so for the express purpose of not embarrassing the government by ruling against it.

Let us see how someone would judge with the predecessor case, Hirabayashi v. United States.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Concur with the majority.  Missouri v. Holland

Against the Court, the Federal government does not have any delegated power to intern American citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_v._King

Hirabayashi v. United States was about curfews not interning.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

How you link Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow to Hennington v. Georgia is beyond me.  The former is an establishment clause case while the latter is an interstate commerce clause case that at most tangentially relates to religion.

Hennington v. Georgia was about the constitutionality of a blue law requiring that railroads in Georgia not operate on Sundays.  Hennington was a manager of the Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company who had his trains run thru Dade County in violation of said law.  Dade County is in the extreme northwest corner of Georgia and the rail line in question connected Chattanooga with New Orleans. (Roughly along the route of I-59 today.)  No stops on Sunday were being made in Georgia as the plaintiff alleged that Georgia's law impinged upon interstate commerce and thus was unconstitutional.

Hennington v. Georgia is one of a long line of cases ruling that the police power of the states when it incidentally affects interstate commerce is not impeded by the interstate commerce clause in the absence of any Congressional legislation to the contrary.  The court found that Georgia's blue law met that standard of having an incidental effect and ruled for the State of Georgia.  While I think the court was a tad too dismissive of the potential effects of such laws on interstate commerce when they impinge upon the ability to travel, especially if conflicting laws were enacted in bordering states, such a hypothetical problem does not apply to this case and thus I would concur with the court.

Next case: 62 Cases of Jam v. United States

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Typically this thread has dealt with settled cases, and we have other threads dealing with this particular unsettled case. Still, I'll give it a stab.

Given that the initiative process can pass laws that the normal government would care to not defend or to implement, it would seem prudent that there be a mechanism to compel the government to do that which it would rather not do.  However, California has no such mechanism, therefore the plaintiffs did not have standing to appeal the decision of the district court.  The circuit court ruling is therefore voided and the Ninth Circuit is ordered to ordered to lift its stay due to the failure of any party with standing to file an appeal in the relevant period of time.

Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Would have disagreed with some of the reasoning, but would have agreed with the ruling.  Regardless of whether homosexuality is a changeable behavior as noted in the ruling or not, it is a behavior that some people seek to keep secret and thus can potentially make one more of a security risk through fears of either oneself or one's friends being outed, so there was a rational basis for the higher scrutiny.

Canada v. Schmidt

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The case involved the admissibility of a recorded conversation when the party who had given consent to the recording was not available at trial.

Concur in the decision, but make clear in my concurrence that in such a case, the defendant should be given the broadest opportunity to have the evidence excluded on the grounds of entrapment.  By which I mean that if the missing witness undertook to question or otherwise elicit incriminating evidence, it should be thrown out.  That appears to have not been raised at trial tho, so concur in the decision as to the basic admissibility of such evidence.

Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd v Peat Marwick Hungerfords

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

With the majority.  I have a low opinion of Title VII in the first place, tho it was needed at the time it became law.  Limiting the scope of it to prevent preemptive reverse discrimination when there was no evidence of discrimination is appropriate.

United Steelworkers v. Weber

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'd have concurred with Harlan's dissent, but made clear that while there was no judicial role here, Congress could act under its powers under Amendment XIV Section 2 and Article I Section 4.

Massiah v. United States