How would you have ruled in the preceding case? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 15, 2024, 10:54:32 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.)
  How would you have ruled in the preceding case? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: How would you have ruled in the preceding case?  (Read 9275 times)
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35
« on: May 19, 2013, 02:37:56 PM »
I would concur in the result, but say that there shouldn't be an automobile exception to the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment at all.  I would rather just have all 4th Amendment exceptions explained by exigency or some type of generality and regularity.   

Wal-Mart v. Dukes
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35
« Reply #1 on: May 20, 2013, 01:36:05 AM »
For Costco, probably. Mostly because the Ninth Circuit opinion puts US manufacturing at a competitive disadvantage and hurts US consumers.   

Brown v. Plata.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35
« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2013, 10:18:14 PM »
With the majority, seems like commonsense to me as a matter of prosecution, even if you thought it shouldn't be Constitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiobel_v._Royal_Dutch_Petroleum_Co.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.029 seconds with 12 queries.