Digging In to the Cases...

In law school, you recognize very quickly the types of cases you can expect to read in each class. For example, torts and contracts cases, generally grounded in the common law, are largely decided by state courts. Civil procedure cases, however, at least on the subject of jurisdiction, are largely Supreme Court Decisions. These are the cases where I actually recognize the names of the judges who wrote the opinions. This can be a good thing, and this can be a bad thing. Its good in the sense that it definitely adds to the learning experience if you understand the background and perspective of the judge who is writing the opinion. It is also a bad thing, because you evaluate the opinions with pre-conceived notions about the opinions. For example, today I was reading cases dealing with the subject of personal jurisdiction (when can a state can force a nonresident to appear and defend itself in the state's court). 

In the first case, the issue was whether or not plaintiff, a seriously injured mother and wife who was injured in an automobile accident could force a New York based automobile distributor to appear in court in Oklahoma. The majority ruled that since the company did not have minimum contacts in OK, the state did not have jurisdiction. Included in the casebook was a dissent by Justice William Brennan. I just thought to myself: "what a shock". The most notorious and liberal justice of the 20th Century siding against the corporation. He advocated for an extremely broad view of jurisdiction in his consent. 

However, the next case I read dealt with the same issue, this time whether or not Burger King could sue a Michigan resident in Florida. I was surprised to see that staying consistent with his previous legal opinion, Brennan sided with the giant corporation, Burger King, and argued that the company did in fact have authority to haul this Michigan citizen into court on its home turf in Florida.

I am often cynical when it comes to Supreme Court Judges. I tend to think that legal theory or philosophy doesn't really mean anything to them. It is just the tool they use for the purpose of imposing their political views on the country; not just liberal judges, but conservative judges as well. I was pleasantly surprised by Brennan's opinion in the second case, standing true to the principle he believed in, even though you could just tell deep down he was dying inside ruling for the corporation against the "little guy". 

Perhaps law school will strengthen my faith in the American judicial system.