Our class is undertaking something new, and different - this and next hexter. You will need to acknowledge your cases here, by Friday, Dec 11th, and tell us what you hope to or could learn by doing this assignment. Do not forget to respond to another classmate by Sunday, Dec. 13th!
We will all be assigned at least 2 pending supreme court cases to research. You will also be required to check out the Supreme Court justices, as this Fantasy League involves predicting outcome, how the vote is split, and who votes which way. I have copied and pasted the cases and their blurbs in a word document, to be distributed to all of you, hard copy and electronically.
We are in a "League" with two other classes in Pennsylvania (fellow teacher friends of mine) - and although all our classes end at different times, there will be a way for us to keep score, as we will have all our cases done by January 31st. One PA class ends in mid-January, not sure of the other. We may coordinate with the mid-January date, just to be sure - that will be announced before the holiday break.
This work will be equal to two tests, 50% weight - rubric to come, graded on work, not the outcome, per se. Your research will be presented on a timeline, so it is IMPERATIVE that the assignment be done ON TIME. Points will be lost each late day, absences, not withstanding, and predictions will be done in class on presentation days, collaboratively - on the FANTASY SCOTUS site.
http://fantasyscotus.net/
Check it out and do NOT WAIT UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE - You should plan to do some research while on break. No excuses.
Remember, each week you are supposed to respond to classmates on their postings, by Sunday night - that means you will need to read and perhaps "click" on their posted information, in order to respond approriately.
Here are the basic rules. For each case the Supreme Court grants Cert, you will predict
* The Outcome: Affirm or Reverse the lower Court. You will recieve 1 point for predicting the outcome correctly.
* The Split: 5/4, 6/3, 7/2, 8/1, 9/0, or 4-1-4 , or Fragmented (no discernible majority opinion). You will receive 3 points for predicting the split.
* Which Justices are in the Majority and which are in the Minority. You will receive 1 point for each Justice correctly guessed. No points for recusals (not voting)
For example, in in the mock case of Bosh v. Gure, you predict:
* Affirm the lower Court
* 5/4 Split
* Majority- Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Thomas, and Scalia
* Minority- Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer,and Sotomayor
The Court resolves the case as follows:
* Affirm the lower Court (You get 1 Point)
* 5/4 Split (You get 3 Points)
* Majority- Roberts, Alito, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor (You only get 2 points, 1 point each for correctly guessing Roberts and Alito)
* Minority- Stevens, Kennedy, Thomas, Scalia (You only get 1 point for correctly guessing Stevens would dissent).
Total of 7 points.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
as panda (shanda) -
the kawasaki case was about carriers transporting goods across to the united states.Damages were done to the goods and whos to blame for it. shippers are sueing the ocean carriers.
in berghuis vs thompkins the court charged thompkins for assault with intent to murder. thompkins is trying to fight it because his case is that he the court violated his fifth amendment. The court says that thompkins refused to sign his miranda rights and acknowledge them at all. I hope to learn more about the case of wat he was charged with. alot of crimes minor or big could be put under the same charge.
Petitioner: Granite Rock Company
Respondent: International Brotherhood of Teamsters
court reasoned that both parties consented to arbitration when Teamsters asserted the arbitration clause in its filings
Does a federal court have jurisdiction to determine whether a collective bargaining agreement was formed when it is disputed whether any binding contract exists, but no party makes an independent challenge to the arbitration clause?
Petitioner: Mary Berghuis, Warden
Respondent: Diapolis Smith
Sixth Circuit held that the Michigan Supreme Court unreasonably applied federal law in concluding that county jury selection "worked no systematic exclusion."
Did the Sixth Circuit err in holding that the Michigan Supreme Court failed to apply clearly established U.S. Supreme Court precedent for evaluating whether the jury was comprised of a fair cross-section of the community?
my cases Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project is about how it is a crime now for groups to provide and "material support" to any suspected "foreign terrorist organization".
In the case of Migliaccio v. Castaneda:
Former prison inmate Francisco Castaneda and his estate filed a lawsuit against individual medical officials seeking damages after he was denied a biopsy. He later was diagnosed with penile cancer and had his penis amputated. Shortly after he died.
This clearly to me is a violation of his 9th amendment which states that, The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retaained by the people. Therefore when he called to be helped and needed that procedure they refused him and to that aint cool. Because he was in jail they didnt help him therfore causing his cancer and shortly later his death.
Lewis v. City of Chicago was filed as a law suit in 1998, it is about how the Chicago's Fire Department used a very high cut score on the 1995 entrance exam discriminated against African Americans. They filed the case on behalf of African Americans that scored between 65 and 89 on the test. There are almost 7,000 African Americans in the plaintiff case. This would go with amendment 14; Discrimination of people.
Carr v. United States is about how an Indiana Federal District Court convicted Thomas Carr of violating the Sex Offender and Registration and Notification Act. The Acts means penalties to anyone whose a convicted sex offender and traveling in interstate or foreign commerce and knows failing to register as a sex offender, unless they have uncontrollable circumstances where they can not or it prevents them from to. Carr is saying that he did not violate the law because the Act was not passed when he traveled. I'm Pretty sure this with be with amendment 9; Rights of Poeple.
my other case is McDonald v. City of Chicago and this is a 2nd amendment case-the right to bear arms. It has to do with Chicago making it illegal for citizens to carry a handgun and requiring rigurous paperwork for other firearms.
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security and catherine G. Ratliff's case was Social Security Administration moved for award of fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act in the South Dakota federal district court
i hope to learn about if they can in fact get their debt paid using this act.
In the Supreme Court case Abbott v. Abbott a British man was married to an American girl and they live in Chile. They got a divorce and had custody issues, it was worked out that the father was able to have regular visiting rights and one month in the summer. The mother took the kid to Texas breaking the Chilean law, but Texas court said that the move wa not "wrongful" even though the dad did not know about untill four months after, using a private investigator.
Lewis vs. city of chicago this seems like a very interesting topic and something to recognize that there is still not only discrimination but such racism in a day and age of a black pres.
My other case is American Needle Inc. v. NFL wich atates that the Merican Needle Inc. filed a law suit against the NFL and Reebok alleging that the teams' exclusive licensing agreement with Reebok violated the Sherman Antitrust Act.
in the US V. Marcus case, Glenn Marcus was convicted of sex trafficking and forced labor provisions. in court he aruged that Trafficking Victims Protection Act(TVPA) apllied retroactively thus violated the Ex Post Facto Clause
case # 2 is skilling v. US. texas federal district convicted jefferey Skilling for conspiracy, securties fraud, making false representation to auditors, and insider trading. in court he aruged that the government prsocuted him under an invalid theory.
Abbott v. Abbott seems like an Interesting case because the father wasn't even notified of the move and didn't know where his child was until he had a private investigator look into it. He basically had his child taken away from him and didn't know where they were for four months.
Conkright v. Frommert - This case is about Xerox employees who are suing an administrator of the "ERISA retirement plan". Some employees had quit and got a large sum of money for their retirement plan but were later rehired. The administrators want to take back the money given which could lower pensions values by thousands.
McDaniel V. Brown - This case is stating that a man who was convicted of sexual assault on a minor has "filed his federal petition for writ of habeas corpus" on grounds that a testimony from a forensic scientist created a fallacy. Her statement was that "she would expect such a match in only one in 3 million people in the entire population" which has the same probability of being any innocent person.
T th8s is daniel...
his case is about a woman trying to use her health care benifits for her sick son because he doesnt have any health care. I learned that you cant use your work benifits for anyone else besides yourself.
this is daniel... This case is about a man thinking the jury was biased so he doesnt think he had a fair trial.
Turbo__85 wow i would be pissed if i was there and they didnt give me medical treatment and had to cut off my penis i want to no how this cases ends cuz im siding with the guy that lost his penis
i am commenting on turbo_85's case of Migliaccio v. Castaneda: and i think this is way wrong that they denied him a biopsy and that he later died of penile cancer. if i were the family of this guy i would be going after the state with a lawsuit for sure.
McDonald v. City of Chicago
i think that adding a buch of paper work to owning a gun isnt going to stop shootings or people carrying the guns around
this is shanda the panda and my case was the magood v. culliver case.
Billy joe magwoodwas convicted for killing a sheriff thirty years ago. The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether it is too late for an Alabama man to argue that the murder that sent him to death row was not a capital crime when he committed it.
United States V. Comstock:
Convicted sex offenders moved to dismiss petitions requesting their indefinate civil commitment under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. A North Carolina federal district court dismissed the petitions. On appeal, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. It held that the Protection and Safety Act exceeded the scope of Congress' authority when it enacted a law that could confine a person solely because of "sexual dangerousness," and the governement need not even allege that this "dangerousness" violated any federal law.
Did congress have the constitutional authority to enact the Adam Walsh Protection and Safety Act?
Briscoe V. Virginia:
This appeal is the consolidation of three separate cases that involved defendants' conviction for possession of cocaine in a VA state court. On appeal, the defendants argued that the admission into evidence of a certificate of analysis in the absence of testimony at trail from the person who preformed the analysis and prepared the certificate, pursuant VA code Section 19.2-187, violated the Confontation Clause of the 6th amendment. The Supreme court of VA disagreed, holding that the provisions of Section 19.2-187 did not violate a defendant's Conforntation Clause rights. Moreover, the court held that the defendants in these cases knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived their 6th amendment rights to confront the forensic analysis when they failed to call them as a whitness in trial.
If a state allows a prosecutor to introduce a certificate of laboratory analysis, without presenting testimony of the analyst who prepaired the certificate, does that state avoid violating the Confrontation Clause of the 6th amendment by providing the accused the right to call the analyst as his own whitness?
COMMENTING: Abbott Vs. Abbott
I think that it was wrong for that woman to take the child away from the father without knowlege of it because they had settled everything in Chile and thats where the agreement lied. The court said that he was granted one month durring the summer and thats what he should have got, having that right taken away from him unknowingly was wrong.
this is shanda commenting on turbo_85 i thought it was against the law to deny someone medical treatmaent? even when it was that serious. i mean its his penis.
The case of Samantar v. Bashe abdi Yousuf natives of Samalia filed a suit against Mohamed Ali Samantar in Virginia federal district court under th Torture Victim Protection Act or "TVPA" and the Alien Tort Statue "ATS". Plantiffs aleged that Mr. Samantar committed torture and other human rights violations while he commanded Somali government agents under regime of Mohamed Siad Barre.
I hope to do more research on this case because i want to find out more about what our nation does as far as things that happen in other countries.
Im leaving a comment to Sams case as far as the descrimination in her case of Lewis v. City Of Chicago.
I really dont think that they should not give some one a job just because of their race. If someone does better on a test then they should get the better job. But even if their black or white that should have nothing to do with gettin a job, and people just just let that be the way it is.
im commenting on daniels case about the women with health care and her son.... i think its wrong that her benefits dont apply to her son because if persons under the age of 18 is in your custody and theyre sick they should be able to get treatment with your health care plan.
Post a Comment