That means (roughly) the times are changing, and we are changing with them. A judge (who later became a Supreme Court justice), argued in 1805 in a dissenting opinion, that despite the lack of precedent, a rule/law should be established that addressed a particular problem (in this case a fox hunting dispute!).
POLL:
Do you think that critics would call this judicial activism?
Did you ever think a fox hunting case from 1805 could immediately make you think of Bob Dylan?
Do you think the fact that I'm tempted to pull a Wayne's World and do the "Foxy Lady" in property class for emphasis of points I raise about said fox hunting dispute means I should really not be in law school?
Do you think my blog will be getting more and more cryptic as the semester progresses?
Discuss.
No comments:
Post a Comment