Palin unable to name a single Supreme Court case other than Roe v Wade.

[BoylenOver]

Originally Posted by YOhio

Why haven't they had her on with friendly media for the past month, building her confidence and speaking to the base? If CBS is really keeping the Supreme Court segment for a later date, then why are they going back on Couric's show? Hell, why haven't they had ESPN do an interview with Barry Melrose or that wacky hockey guy with the colorful suits?

Don Cherry would just blame Europeans for ruining the game.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by Tex

Copycat.

Dude, I swear I didn't read that before I posted.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I agree with all of these (and those listed by Tex). I would probably add Lawrence v Texas, Dred Scott v Sandford, Texas v Johnson, Oregon v Smith, Regents of Cal v Bakke, NY Times v Sullivan, Lochner v New York, and even Korematsu v US. Most educated people wouldn't know all of those, but they would have at least heard of most of them, and I would expect a VP and a Pres candidate to know all.

You must have paid more attention in law school than I did. Lets see, Lawrence is the sodomy case, Dred Scott is the slave case, NY Times is the defamation case (I know that one because I have litigated these) and Bakke is affirmative action, I think. I have no clue what the others are. You really think that most Senators or Pres and VP candidates could tell you all those off the cuff? I think you must be kidding.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by YOhio

Dude, I swear I didn't read that before I posted.

HACK!

And when Tex legitimately calls you out for being unoriginal, that is pretty bad.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

HACK!

And when Tex legitimately calls you out for being unoriginal, that is pretty bad.

No worse, really, than you calling someone classless.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

HACK!

And when Tex legitimately calls you out for being unoriginal, that is pretty bad.

No worse, really, than you calling someone classless.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I am not kidding. What kind of a lawyer are you?

Lochner is hardly an obscure case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_v._New_York

You clearly are familiar with Lawrence, Scott, NY Times and Bakke.

Oregon v Smith is an Establishment Clause case- the peyote case (I would guess that description is enough to remind you- the case is also notable to Mormons for its relationship to Reynolds v US).

Korematsu concerned the legality of placing the Japanese into internment camps in WWII.

Even if you don't know them by name, I would assume you are familiar with the cases.

I'm the kind of lawyer who knows the law I practice. I can tell you all about Virginia Supreme court authority on a large variety of topics, but honestly Cali when do you ever use or even think about that other stuff? Sure I know the broad strokes of those cases when reminded or when I stop and think about it, but I just don't clutter my mind with that.

I can give you chapter and verse on how medical bills are put into evidence (authenticity and reasonableness in amount can be through the Plaintiff, but only a doctor can establish medical necessity and causal connection), when experts can rely on hearsay and when they can repeat the opinions they relied upon, when co-conspirator hearsay is admissible and when not, when the confrontation clause is implicated by Crawford, what a custodial interrogation is and what constitutes reasonable suspicion in a huge variety of circumstances, what the economic loss rule is and how best to turn a disappointed contractual expectation into a tort anyway....the list goes on. No doubt you are expert on whatever it is you do most often.

I'm just being honest here. I don't concern myself much with whether people can sodomize each other in Texas or the Boy Scouts can have a table at back to school night. I can of course become conversant in it very quickly if I am interested, but that just rarely happens. I can't remember the last time I slogged through a SCOTUS opinion. Who has the time?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I'm the kind of lawyer who knows the law I practice. I can tell you all about Virginia Supreme court authority on a large variety of topics, but honestly Cali when do you ever use or even think about that other stuff? Sure I know the broad strokes of those cases when reminded or when I stop and think about it, but I just don't clutter my mind with that.

I can give you chapter and verse on how medical bills are put into evidence (authenticity and reasonableness in amount can be through the Plaintiff, but only a doctor can establish medical necessity and causal connection), when experts can rely on hearsay and when they can repeat the opinions they relied upon, when co-conspirator hearsay is admissible and when not, when the confrontation clause is implicated by Crawford, what a custodial interrogation is and what constitutes reasonable suspicion in a huge variety of circumstances, what the economic loss rule is and how best to turn a disappointed contractual expectation into a tort anyway....the list goes on. No doubt you are expert on whatever it is you do most often.

I'm just being honest here. I don't concern myself much with whether people can sodomize each other in Texas or the Boy Scouts can have a table at back to school night. I can of course become conversant in it very quickly if I am interested, but that just rarely happens. I can't remember the last time I slogged through a SCOTUS opinion. Who has the time?

When I came out of law school I knew a lot of them, but I'm forgetting them as most of them don't affect my daily practice.

Ernoznik?

The ones on punitive damages.

Some of the Lanham Act case law.

But no, most of us forget the stuff or it fades and we must ask ourselves, "what's the name of that case that stood for ....."

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Archaea

But no, most of us forget the stuff or it fades and we must ask ourselves, "what's the name of that case that stood for ....."

This is what associates exist for.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Any more lawyers want to step in and show off for a minute?