Random story from the interview trenches
In an interivew, I was asked:
"Which modern Supreme Court decision would you change, and why?"
("Modern" means no fair picking something about segregation or slavery that has been since overruled.)
Apparently it was meant to be a trick question . . . they didn't expect an answer, just wanted to see how I'd react to a stress question. Some people stammer, others politely ask for a moment to think it over and as likely as not come up with a response, and others ramble on about the judiciary or stare decisis.
Wish you could have seen the look of shock when I actually flat-out answered.
(I never did understand why the Court granted cert. in the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case. Are there better answers? Definitely. But it made for a good discussion.)
Quick! Answer!! No fair actually thinking!!
11 little fish:
I didn't understand why they granted cert in that case either, but I just assumed that the Justices wanted to say "bong" a lot and giggle like 12 year old boys :)
Kelo v. City of New London--the Takings Clause shouldn't be about kicking people out of their houses to build more Wal-Marts.
my vote is with Kelo.
Nice one on Kelo!!
what a scary qt to be asked!
I have an interview tomorrow and everyone if posting about interview nightmares lately, I wonder if its a sign...
It's too bad Kelo was correctly decided. If it had been decided otherwise, a government could not take actions to improve the economics of a community economically, but could only force the sale of private property if it wanted to widen a road or something. You may not like the facts of Kelo, but I think the holding gives local government the flexibility they need.
How about the Lopez Torres case, which upholds New York's nutty way of choosing judicial candidates?
HAHAHA - the Bong Hits for Jesus case. I can't say that was the first one that came to my mind . . . I also thought of ismaeltapiaii's "Kelo" response.
Wait, isn't it spelled "Kylo?"
If I'm asked "what case do you agree or disagree with and why" I choose Kelo, because it lets me go on about Midkiff and all the other cases to show why Kelo didn't actually change much of anything. If I have to pick one to change, it is Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, because they might as well find out now I'm a huge feminist. Bong Hits for Jesus is also a great case, because of how all over the place the Court is on students speech.
Butterfly fish, that's a great answer. Kudos for thinking on your feet. I agree with Melissa about the Planned Parenthood case. I also take issue with United States v. Morrison, and striking down the Violence Against Women Act. I don't know if I could have thought of it on a moment's notice.
Melissa, my 1L appellate brief and oral argument was on student speech, so I knew all the cases cold.
Silly, that's been my theory.
Post a Comment