Precedent at Work

In all of my courses this semester we have spent at least a portion of our time discussing how precedent operates in the common law system. One of the concepts I have tried to make clear is the role that reasoning by analogy plays in the development of case law. The California Supreme Court, in the case of Nawal v. Cedar Fair, L.P. (the ruling can be found here), recently gave us a nice example of how reasoning by analogy can be used to extend a common law principle.

The L.A. Times nicely sums the case up so:

The ruling came in a lawsuit by Smriti Nalwa, who fractured her wrist in 2005 while riding in a bumper car with her 9-year-old son and being involved in a head-on collision. Rosenberg said Great America had told ride operators not to allow head-on collisions, but failed to ask patrons to avoid them.

The court said Nalwa's injury was caused by a collision with another bumper car, a normal part of the ride. To reduce all risk of injury, the ride would have to be scrapped or completely reconfigured, the court said.

"A small degree of risk inevitably accompanies the thrill of speeding through curves and loops, defying gravity or, in bumper cars, engaging in the mock violence of low-speed collisions," Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar wrote for the majority. "Those who voluntarily join in these activities also voluntarily take on their minor inherent risks."

Monday's decision extended a legal doctrine that has limited liability for risky sports, such as football, to now include recreational activities.

The legal doctrine at issue is the common law (i.e. judge made) principle of assumption of risk, whereby someone who undertakes an activity knowing of the risks involved cannot later sue the person who organized or oversaw the activity. Up to this point, California courts had apparently limited the use of the doctrine to risky sports, but in this case they drew an analogy between risky sports and risky amusement park rides and found them to be sufficiently similar to allow for an extension of the doctrine.

The Right to Bear Arms

In the wake of the tragic events that unfolded last month in a Connecticut elementary school, the German press has highlighted the gun culture in America and how the U.S. Constitution seemly makes it quite difficult to put limitations on this culture. At issue, of course, is the Second Amendment to the U..S. Constitution, which states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The meaning of this awkwardly written sentence has been argued from the halls of academia to the chambers of the U.S. Supreme Court. And the arguments appear to be more about grammar and punctuation then anything else, as a recent post at the University of Pennsylvania's "Language Log" reminds us.

This post is a must read for anyone who is interested in the debate about how the Second Amendment can be interpreted and the role that language plays in this debate.

The Two Headed Supreme Court

As students who have heard my lecture on the Common Law Court System might recall, American courts at both the state and federal level are courts of general jurisdiction. Put another way, they hear all kinds of cases and there is not, at least at the highest levels, a division between civil and criminal cases. But students will also remember that I use Texas as an example of the exception to this rule, Texas having a Supreme Court that is the highest court for civil cases and a Criminal Court of Appeals, which sits as the highest court for criminal cases. I ran across an interesting article about the Texas system recently that not only includes a short explanation of how this system developed, but also reports that some in Texas are considering doing away with this unique, by American standards, division of labor. It's worth a read if you are interested in the American court system and some of its idiosyncrasies.

Gun Control in America

Students who have been following the school shooting story out of Connecticut and its political aftermath might be interested in a recent story published by the National Law Journal. The question about what kind of gun control legislation is possible in America is a legal as well as a political question. In 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court, in a landmark decision, ruled that gun ownership was an individual right. How far this right can be limited remains a matter of debate, both politically and legally, as the Law Journal points out.

More on Judicial Recusal

Thomson, Reuters has a nice article explaining why outspoken Justices of the Supreme Court should not have to recuse themselves simply because they have already taken a public stance on an upcoming case. More importantly, the article gives good examples of when it is appropriate for Justices to remove themselves from a case. For that reason alone, it is well worth a quick read.

The Politics of Appointing Judges

The New York Times reminds us yesterday that the process for appointing federal judges in the United States has become extremely political in the past few decades, culminating with a current vacancy rate of 9% of all federal judgeships. The editorial is a good review of how federal judges are selected and what role the filibuster now plays in the U.S. Senate to stop a President from filling judicial vacancies.

Too Hard to Change?

Is the American Constitution too hard to amend? Here is one person, among many, who thinks so. For what it's worth, I think the answer is: it depends on who is trying to changing it and for what purpose.

Recusal

When must a judge or justice remove himself or herself from a case because of a conflict of interest? The question is rarely easy to answer as what amounts to a conflict of interest can be disputed. Recently, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer recused himself from two upcoming cases concerning environmental regulations. Justice normally do not say why they are recusing themselves, but some speculate that Justice Breyer is taking a pass because his brother was on the appeals court panel that ruled on these two cases in the lower court. Reuters has an article detailing Breyer's recusal, including this interesting tidbit:

During each Supreme Court term, there typically are a handful of cases in which justices recuse themselves. Members of the court make those decisions based on a federal statute, court rules and personal judgment.

In its "Statement of Recusal Policy," the court spells out situations where a justice must bow out. These include cases in which a relative of a justice has appeared as a lawyer or a justice has a financial interest in the outcome. At the same time, the guidelines caution that members of the court should not go beyond the required recusals.

Finding A Lawyer

Wie finden Sie Ihren Rechts­anwalt? asks Stiftung Warentest in a recent online survey. Good question, and my hunch is Germans go about this task in a different manner than Americans, at least outside of the business context. One main reason for my suspicion is the fact that in the United States lawyers can advertise for their services. I grew up watching Sam Bernstein commercials on television, where he implored viewers to call him if they had been injured: 1-800-Call-Sam was the number (see above picture)! Such commercials surely have an impact on how people find a lawyer. Whether this is a good thing or not is an entirely different question.

Green Rush

The election in the United States a few weeks ago was about much more than just who would be the next President. Voters in many states were faced with important, ground breaking and controversial ballot initiatives. For the first time in U.S. history voters in two states decided to recognize same gender marriage. Up to now, these marriages were recognized in a handful of states either by courts or statute.

But perhaps even more surprisingly, voters in two states decided to legalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana. While the coffee house culture in Holland might be dying, it has perhaps found a new home in the states of Washington and Colorado.

The video above from Reuters and the SZ explains. One thing of particular note is the discussion near the end about what the federal government might do about these new state laws. State pot laws offer perhaps the best example of how confusing American federalism can be. More on that next semesters, at least for students in their 3rd semester of Uni Osnbrück's FFA.

The Price of Electing Judges

The New York Times had an interesting editorial yesterday about how judicial elections in the United States are becoming more and more expensive. The Times says:

This year’s round of state judicial elections broke previous records for the amounts spent on judicial campaigns around the country. The dominant role played by special-interest money — including money from super PACs financed by undisclosed donors — has severely weakened the principle of fair and impartial courts.

The editorial goes on by citing Florida and my home state of Michigan as extreme of examples of campaign spending on judicial elections gone out of control.

What Happens in the Event of A Tie

So what happens if both candidates for President end up with 269 votes? How might "provisional ballots" leave us in a state of confusion after the election? What role mights lawyers and new voting laws play in the outcome? Answers to these questions and more can be found in this SZ article. The interactive map showing how the Electoral College works is also pretty cool.

The Role of Campaign Contributions in American Politics

From the SZ and Reuters, a great video on the impact of money on the American presidential campaign:

Much More Than the Presidency is at Stake

The SZ has a nice piece on the battle to control the U.S. Senate, which is also up for grabs next Tuesday. Who controls the Senate is important because the Senate, in many instances, can directly check the power of the President (treaties, nominations, etc.). But equally important is the fact that the Senate is a co-equal partner with the House of Representative in the legislative process. Put a different way, if one party controls both the House and Senate, that party is more likely to be able to draft bills that they favor.

More importantly, as the SZ points out, who controls the Senate may also determine what the next President can accomplish:

"Zurzeit sind fünf Szenarien denkbar, die zeigen, wie unterschiedlich groß der mögliche Spielraum für Obama und Romney trotz eines Sieges sein kann. (see here for the five scenarios)"

How We Pick Our Judges: Missouri Style

Apparently some folks in the State of Missouri are not at all happy with the system they have for selecting judges. In Missouri, court vacancies are filled using an independent commission who sends candidates to the governor for his or her approval. Currently, the commission is made up of a Supreme Court judge, three lawyers selected by the Missouri Bar Association and three gubernatorial appointees who are not lawyers. Critics of the plan claim that this gives too much power to the Bar Association, which according to critics, are dominated by trial lawyers.

Under an alternative plan that will be on the ballot next Tuesday, the Supreme Court judge would be replaced with a forth gubernatorial appointee. But the fiercest critics of the judicial nomination system in Missouri are not endorsing this alternative plan, instead continuing their push for open and contested elections for all judges.

“The issue is very important,” said Gary Harris of the advocacy group Better Courts for Missouri. “Everyone wants access to fair and impartial courts and everyone wants judges who are impartial.”

A question for students to ponder. If the goal is indeed fair and impartial courts, is a push for elected judges really the answer?

All About the Swing States

Der Spiegel has a rather accurate description of what the U.S. Presidential Election has come down to: Swing States. The modern Presidential Election is fought not nationwide, but in a few states where the election close. Places like California, Texas, and New York are rarely visited by the candidates despite having the most votes in the Electoral College, because it is already assumed that one candidate or the other will win the state. I would be curious to hear what students think about this system after reading the Spiegel piece.

Everything You Need to Know About Presidential Debate History

The Week has an interesting, concise history of American presidential debates. A few take away factoids: The debates between Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln in 1858 are widely considered to be the first debates between presidential candidates. These debates have taken on mythical proportions in the American political psyche. The first modern television debate took place between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy in 1960, but this did not begin a tradition, as it was not until 1976 until another set of debates took place. The Nixon/Kennedy debate also seemed to put in motion the importance of style over substance. Give the article a read to see how so. 

Engel v. Vitale at 50

Students in any of my courses that have touched upon religion in the United States are familiar with the case Engel v. Vitale, one of the most important or at least controversial Establishment Clause cases decided by the United States Supreme Court. In fact, students in my American Constitutional Law course looked at the case in depth yesterday. Unbeknown to me, yesterday was also the 50th anniversary of the Court's decision. The Desert News has a nice piece reflecting on the importance of the decision and how 50 years later it is still at the center of controversy.

When Government Breaches for Non-Payment

What happens when the federal government enters into a contract with private parties to provide some kind of services for the government, and then Congress refuses to allocate money to cover the costs of these services, or put a different way, refuses to give the government the money needed to pay for the services under the contract? Breach? You bet, said the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday.

Apparently Congress has created something called a "Judgment Fund" to cover costs related to court judgments issued against it. The Court determined that when the government breaches a contract, it must dip into this fund to make good on the promises it made under the contract.

Why? Lyle Denniston at SCOTUS blog sums up the Court's rationale nicely:

In stressing that the government must live up to what it promises its contracting partners, the Court majority said that this would actually benefit the government’s overall contracting operations, because more partners will be willing to join in contracts with the government if they know that the government has to meet whatever obligations it commits itself to satisfy.  Those who would enter a contract without such an assurance, the Court added, are likely to insist that the government pay a premium to “account for the risk of nonpayment.”

The Court is an Issue

Every four years Americans are reminded by the press about just how important the Presidential Election is to the U.S. Supreme Court, or at least to the composition of the Court. A recent piece in the U.S. Today begins by stating that "[t]his presidential election year, the most important numbers at the court could be 79, 76, 75 and 73. Those are the ages" of four of its members. Put a different way, up to four Justices might be retiring in the near future. Now might be good time for students in my American Constitutional Law and Common Law Legal System courses to reflect on our discussions about the Court and how its members are selected.