But I wonder whether studying the Supreme Court’s “historical treatment of precedence” is applicable for this particular court … it (the court) seems to look at the past only when it supports a conservative outlook.
In my opinion a holistic case preview analysis would be incomplete if it didn't mention relevant past cases. This helps constitute the universe of potentially guiding cases. It doesn't convey if and how the precedent will be leveraged.
Oh, I am not really criticizing your analysis methods … I just wanted to point out that the study of the past won’t help when the current players don’t play by those past rules. Nor any of the previous century’s rules or practices. Hope I’m wrong.
Didn't Gorsuch write Virginia Uranium? That case seems to move away from a conflict preemption analysis to say that the FRCP occupy the "field."
Another intriguing journey—admirably studying a problem I didn’t know existed.
But I wonder whether studying the Supreme Court’s “historical treatment of precedence” is applicable for this particular court … it (the court) seems to look at the past only when it supports a conservative outlook.
In my opinion a holistic case preview analysis would be incomplete if it didn't mention relevant past cases. This helps constitute the universe of potentially guiding cases. It doesn't convey if and how the precedent will be leveraged.
Oh, I am not really criticizing your analysis methods … I just wanted to point out that the study of the past won’t help when the current players don’t play by those past rules. Nor any of the previous century’s rules or practices. Hope I’m wrong.
I assumed. Just wanted to provide my general disclaimer.
An ass worth covering.
You got a laugh out of me on that one.