You can't make me do any more studying today. Nope. 12 hours in this chair, minus 1.5 hours in civil procedure, minus 25 minutes playing with the cat and 25 minutes eating leftover spaghetti = still a lot of hours in this chair. I'm making decaf and playing poker, and you all can't do anything to stop me.
Hi Prof. Abrams,
Today I've done con law reading and notes on sovreignty, worked on civ pro notes that covered standing, and now am reading about Alito (Scalito) and contemplating the seemingly imminent doom of Roe v. Wade. So my question out of all of this is as follows: If Roe is overturned and women return to back alley/hanger abortions and start dying as a result, who can their disgruntled boyfriends and husbands and parents sue? Is there any way to sue the Supreme Court? I'm sure the answer is no, but it seems like there must be a remedy somewhere if we can establish that the hindrence of health service is leading to the deaths of women. But maybe there is no remedy if it is determined that women have no right. Any thoughts?
Thank you,
Kara Govro
And now for the answer, per Paula Abrams, Constitutional Law Professor at Lewis and Clark Law School . . .
"Hi Kara,
As for Roe, keep in mind that the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision which reaffirmed the core constitutional right to choose (although it changed Roe significantly) was a 6-3 decision, with Kennedy and O'Connor both upholding on the basis of stare decisis. Assuming both Roberts and Alito would vote to overrule Roe, that would still leave the decision 5-4 in favor of upholding, assuming Kennedy stays where he was in Casey. So even with Scalito in, the votes are not yet there to overrule. That said, there are three more long years in this administration and Stevens is 85 and Ginsburg has had medical problems. So the fate of Roe is still very much up in the air. What you can count on is, even if the right to choose is not discarded, the new members of the Court will solidify a conservative coalition willing to uphold every restriction on abortion that a state can conjure.
The only recourse for this situation, or for the eventual overruling of Roe, if it happens, is the political process. State laws can protect reproductive rights. Some state courts have already found the right to choose protected by state constitutions, and more are likely to do so as the federal landscape becomes more restrictive. If Congress goes Democrat, federal legislation could be passed protecting reproductive rights. Of course, if Congress stays R, we face the possibility of federal anti-choice legislation. Whatever diminishment of rights occur, and they will occur even if Roe is not overruled, there will be a great deal of suffering and inequality for women. The only good that may come of that is maybe people will realize how important it is to vote... "
I've said it before and I'll say it again - people are most entertaining when pissed off. The State of Georgia, in 1793, when informed by the Supreme Court that it could be sued by a citizen of another state without its consent, passed a bill providing that "anyone attempting to enfore the Chisholm decision would be 'guilty of felony and shall suffer death, without benefit of clergy, by being hanged.'".
Sorry about that, but suddenly I'm exposed to *interesting* things, and I feel like sharing.
So anyway, dissents are WAY more fun that the opinion of the court. Scalia in particular gets crazy pissy and condescending and bitter - it's good stuff, even though I usually disagree. But today you'll get a nice quote from Justice O'Conner whilst wigging out about Congress making an insatiable states-rights-eating monster out of the Commerce Clause . . .
"With the abandonment of National League of Cities, all that stands between the remaining essentials of state sovreignty and Congress is the latter's underdeveloped capacity for self-restraint."
I freaking love it when smart people get mad.
I went to a panel today of three minority lawyers in ledership positions. The super cool one was the Multnomah County District Court Judge who is gay, and he and his husband were the first gay couple in Oregon to adopt a child (who is now 12). I think I should try and get a job with him . . .
My property prof told us that when he was young and saddistic he competed with other profs to see how many studends they could cause to leave a final to throw up. His record was 7 in one exam.
The oldest person in our pod (the yellow pod) is a 31-year old woman who apparently owns or owned a mortgage company somewhere on the East coast. Now she's in law school. She is chronically late . . . even when we are in the same stinkin' room for the following hour, she manages to be late. It's really, really freaking annoying. The profs always see her, and law profs really don't like being distracted (way more so than most) and she comes in with a little smile on her face like she's being cute. It's not cute. It's annoying. I think I'm going to ask her why she can't get her ass to class on time if she continues this much longer. It pisses me off. Grr.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 19. Joinder of Persons Needed for Just Adjudication
(a) PERSONS TO BE JOINED IF FEASIBLE. A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the actions shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in the person's absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) the person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in the person's absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of the claimed interest.
That was one sentence.
And in other news, I had a dream/nightmare that Miers had been confirmed. What the hell kind of nerdy dream is that? That hasn't happened yet, right?
117 Death KeyCite Notes
117III Actions for Causing Death
117III(H) Damages or Compensation
117k80 Elements of Compensation
117k89 k. Mental Suffering or Emotional Distress of Plaintiff or Beneficiary. Most Cited Cases
In action for wrongful death, a husband could recover reasonable compensation for loss of his wife's love, companionship, comfort, affection, society, solace or moral support, loss of enjoyment of sexual relations, loss of wife's physical assistance in the operation or maintenance of the home and economic losses such as the lost earning capacity, but damages for mental and emotional distress, including grief and sorrow, could not be recovered.
I always look for her first thing in the morning when I walk out the door and she wasn't there. She'd been pretty still the last few days so I thought maybe she was getting old, and today I found her upside down on the ground outside my door. I put her on leaf (right side up); she doesn't look nearly as plump. There's a smaller spider there now, but his butt is getting moved to the other side of the yard before he gets big like she did.
A nonvested interest is valid under the Rule if it must timely vest. For this purpose, a vested remainder subject to open vests when the class closes; a contingent remainder in a class vests when the class closes and all conditions precedent for each and every member of the class occur; a springing executory interest vests when the interest becomes possessory and a shifting executory interest vests when it either becomes a possessory or becomes a vested remainder.