Wendell Holmes.Born 1842 in Boston. Father was a doctor and dean of Harvard medical school. Civil war changed him. Saw a struggleto survive. Wrote the common law. Named to Supreme Court of Massachusetts. Was well known. When he was in 60s president Roosevelt nominated him to Supreme Court for another 30 years. Wrote significant decisions. Became asocial Darwinist. law is not study of history but of a well known profession. The law is a profession and that's what itis. Law is totally different from morality.What the courts will do in fact is what I mean by the law. The law is a prediction of what the courts will do.What does the law mean.Law sometimes use legal language and ordinary speech. Law represents some kind of compromise in a conflict.Usually not looking for truth. But to help my side of the argument.Zander says
-the law means what it says. Ideal situation where you read the law exactly as it is.
Baley v us
- law tht set down mandatory sentence for anyone that uses or carries a gun in a drug offense. Baley had amachine gun he traded for cocaine.
Moscarelo v us
- arrested and gun was in trunk of car.
Babeth vs sweet homes chapter community for a greater Oregon
- congress made it crime to harm an endangeredspecies.
Hackworth vs insurance company
- federal family and medical leave act. Involves people that live 75 miles of their workplace.Mallard vs us district court -Justice roberts Put the law and constitution next to each other. See whether they match. But doesn't work in manycases.
Justice black - government has right to invade privacy unless constrained by a constitutional amendment. Constitutionnever included right to privacy so we as judges have non authority to put it in there. Questions whether court shouldhave power to write a good idea is into the constitution. If u want a right to privacy then amend the constitution.Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a long standing practice but the constitution is silent on this topic. It does not saythis is what a criminal trial should be.Zanders golden rule is the
. The people that passed the law did not expect this kind of absurdity.Courts do this rarely because what seems absurd to me might not seem absurd to u.
- law addresses the mischief. You interpret the law in according to the purpose of the law. This wouldmean what bad conduct is the law suppose to address. We should look at the intent of the people who drew up the law.Two approaches.
The intent is in the words. Supported by Madison and justice Scalia. U can infer the intent by looking at the words.Do you give the meaning of the words when they were first set down or the meaning that it is today?
Third approach is to figure out what the Intent is
- Look at general purpose.
- specific intent of the law
Bol earwax vs us
. Wiretapping on a telephone. In warranted search ad seizure does it prevent government from tappingyour telephone. Majority said what does search mean? Search means someone enters your premise seizure is to take.