SCOTUS AT&T Opinion Par for Rhetorical Course

You may also like...

4 Responses

  1. Joe says:

    just calling balls and strikes.

  2. Shag from Brookline says:

    Query whether CJ Taney’s opinion in Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (1837) was cited in any of the opinions in AT&T? I’m thinking that we need a book “Rehabilitating Charles River Bridge” that will avoid the tarnish of Taney’s opinion 20 years later in the Dred Scott case (second worse SCOTUS decision to Lochner!). Now whom might we get to write that book?

  3. Joe says:

    Austin Allen, Mark Graber, et. al. have written books and law review articles that in effect “rehabilitate Dred” to some extent. Not sure if CRB requires rehabilitation as compared to remembrance. Limitation of corporate power, a concern of various Jacksonians judges, would seem timely.

  4. Shag from Brookline says:

    Consider the economic results had CRB v. Warren been decided in favor of CRB (and thus Harvard College). Perhaps Taney can be rehabilitated individually because of the CRB decision, but Dred Scott and related decisions by Taney’s court constitute major blots. I join Joe’s last sentence.

    Back in my law school days in the early 1950s, there wasn’t that much focus on states’ rights. The UCC was yet to come. There were some uniform statutes that the legal profession worked on to facilitate commerce, providing, with adoption by the states, some uniformity for expanding commercial transactions. At the time I studied Bills & Notes, Sales, etc, I didn’t focus on states rights. But imagine the potential chaos without such uniform statutes for basically routine commercial transactions. Apparently attempts at such uniformity at the national level might not have passed constitutional muster. But states were not legally obliged to adopt the uniform statutes. Consider how long it took Louisiana to accept much of the UCC. I have great admiration for the legal profession’s role with uniform statutes. But federalism ain’t beanbag.