Week 6 kicks off...

Well, Monday has come and gone. This weekend was interesting and a little restful. I spent most of Saturday in the library trying to prepare for Torts for the coming week. The good news was that I was able to finish all of my Torts reading with no problems. The bad news was that this was what my Saturday consisted of. I was able to watch the Bears game on Sunday, but then it was of to the library for my study group. 4 hours later, I was done. It was not much of a relaxing weekend, but I was able to get some rest in.

The first class of the day was Con Law. We were discussing the taxing and spending power of Congress and the Civil War amendments. In reading some of the opinions of the court, all I could think was it was a good think that the decisions are not final and that the court turns over. In the 20 years after the Civil War, the power of Congress to enforce the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments was severely limited by the Supreme Court. The Court’s reasoning was that Congress had no legal right to pass laws that eliminated discrimination. They said that slavery was over and racism was not a problem. What the heck? This was in response to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1875. We would have to wait almost 90 years before a federal statute ensuring that discrimination would be prosecuted would be passed.

During lunch, I did my Contracts reading for tomorrow and worked on Civil Procedure. Civ Pro was interesting because we were discussing a case in which a plaintiff alleged violation of his civil rights under 24 USC §1983. This statute states that a plaintiff can sue law enforcement if they can prove 1) that their Constitutional or other rights were violated and 2) the officer who violated these rights were acting under color of law. What was interesting was that this was an appellate case (3 judges), and 2 judges agreed and one didn’t. The court upheld summary judgment in favor of the officers. This pretty much dismissed the case and ensured that it would never go to the jury. The point of view is what intrigued me here. The opinion painted a picture of 2 officers who feared for their lives and took actions to save themselves. There is nothing wrong with that. The dissent, however, painted a picture of a black plaintiff stopped on the side of a deserted highway in rural Texas late at night. The officers never arrested him, but they told him to lie down face down on the ground. The plaintiff refused to comply, and the officers’ affidavits state that they shot him (he survived) because they feared for their lives. Now, summary judgment should only be granted if the defendant’s can refute the facts in this case or show that there are no facts that a reasonable jury might find to be contrary. The fact that one of the judges dissented told me that there was enough of a question of fact that this case should have gone to the jury. Although I was starting to feel tired at the end of the day, this discussion woke me up.

I had another study group meeting right after class and then it was off to the library for 4 hours. I am now home and am unwinding by watching Monday Night Football.