separate but not equal

[raven]

Oh hi, I'm still crazy. (Actually, no; much wailing and much being fed junk food by lovely boy has helped, and now I'm depressed and knackered but no longer actively considering throwing self in front of bus.)

Anyway, that's not the point. Via thistlerose, Sarah Palin apparently can't name any Supreme Court decision other than Roe v Wade. The meme: post any Supreme Court decision, modern or historic, to your LJ. After six straight hours of baby law school today, I feel honour-bound to respond to this.

So, I give you a classic: Brown v Topeka State Board of Education, which established that seperate does not mean equal and ended racial segregation in schools. I can't name many others - Loving v Virginia comes to mind - but I have to say, English law is much better for this sort of thing, in that the cases that are used every day to set binding precedents are astonishingly, delightfully old. Yesterday I looked up Payne v Cave (1789), which establishes that you may withdraw your bid in an auction at any time before the hammer falls; Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball (1893), wich establishes that you may, if you are sufficiently stupid, accidentally make a unilateral contract with the entire world; Donaghue v Stevenson (1929), of which the substance is immaterial: all you need to know is it involved decomposing slugs in beer.

Have I mentioned I really like the law? I really like the law. Other strange thing I have learned today: consent is not a defence to actual bodily harm. Also, a sin of ommission is not a crime. Which means I could have consensual kinky sex with someone, and be prosecuted, and watch a child drown, and not. Huh.

In other news, Dar Williams' new album is made of perfect. (Have two songs: Buzzer; Midnight Radio.)

Anyway. I return to land law and crazy. Hope you're all having a nice Thursday.

Comments

[jacinthsong.livejournal.com]

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co is ftLOL. There is a facebook group dedicated to this fact. I probably should not find out about legal history through facebook.

[deathbyshinies.livejournal.com]

Which means I could have consensual kinky sex with someone, and be prosecuted, and watch a child drown

Why yairs. Isn't it fun living in a world where some people's sexuality is still illegal? OTOH, I am firmly convinced that at least part of the decision in R v. Brown was based on homophobia... did you get up to the delightful bit in the decision where the judges rejoice over the fact that one of the young 'victims' has now got a girlfriend and is in 'a normal heterosexual relationship'?

This is probably not helping with the depression, is it? *cuddles you*

[jonquil.livejournal.com]

I love "Carbolic Smoke Ball" rather a lot, having stumbled across it somewhere. "consent is not a defence to actual bodily harm." Didn't that come up in a prosecution of an S&M club?


OMGNEWDAR! ::RUNS off to Amazon::

[calapine.livejournal.com]

Donaghue v. Stevenson, the case every Scots law student has DRILLED INTO THEIR BRAINS. Also there's the advert for the Carbolic Smoke Hill thing framed and on the wall in the law library at Edinburgh uni, yes.

[loneraven.livejournal.com]

*pets* It is kind of lol. It is actually kind of great.

[loneraven.livejournal.com]

Ahahaha! Oh, that is great. I now wish to go and see it.

[loneraven.livejournal.com]

Very recently, in R v Brown. Not the English courts' finest hour, one feels.

OMG NEW DAR. It is GREAT.

[loneraven.livejournal.com]

Believe me, I know. I note with interest that there was some kerfuffle this month about Section 377 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code), but India being the narrow-minded, conservative, reactionary, Luddite, repressed, homophobic and anti-feminist society that it is, I don't think I'm very surprised.

One thing I like about R v Brown is that now, it's being taught, and the lecturers and textbooks agree: don't take any notice of the principles of law, they were just being homophobic. It's not much, but it's a start.

[birdsflying]

The horror that is Pepper v. Hart (ask any law librarian about doing research for Pepper v Hart and then step back quickly), my personal favourite Albert v. Strange and one that was kind of personally relevant to myself in a sense R. v. Brown.

[parrot-knight.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the news that there is a new Dar Williams album!

[loneraven.livejournal.com]

You're welcome! It's stupidly, ridiculously lovely. I've listened to it six or seven times in two days.

[loneraven.livejournal.com]

Heh, Pepper v Hart! Yes, that one. R v. Brown is just a travesty, but is at least being taught as one.

[birdsflying]

I really must go to the special research course that is taught just on how to research Pepper v. Hart but I am strangely fond of my head remaining in one piece and it's a whole day. of Pepper v. Hart. Which will just lead to explosions of the head related variety.

I would rather do Hansard enquiries.

[very-improbable.livejournal.com]

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball (1893), wich establishes that you may, if you are sufficiently stupid, accidentally make a unilateral contract with the entire world

"Accidentally" is perhaps my favorite comedy word. Plz tell us more about this case.

[loneraven.livejournal.com]

The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company made carbolic smoke balls, whatever they are, and advertised them around the place with posters saying, if you use a smoke ball three times a week, you won't get influenza! And if you use it and then you do get influenza, we'll pay you £100.

Mrs Carlill used her smoke ball three times - and then got influenza. So off she goes to the CSBC and says, I want £100. That was an advert! say Carbolic. It wasn't an actual offer. And usually, they would be right; advertisements are generally held to be what are called invitations to treat, not contractual offers, simply because of the patent absurdity of making a contractual offer to everyone who happens to walk past the advertisement.

Ah, but, said the Court of Appeal. You actually specified a figure. You even said on the advert that you'd paid £1000 into the Alliance Bank just to give to people who wrote in demanding their money. Despite the patent absurdity, yes, you just did make an offer to the entire world. You stupid people, etc (I may be paraphrasing Lord Justice Lindley here).

Mrs Carlill got her money. They all lived happily ever after, more or less. :)

[clubhopper15.livejournal.com]

I'm so pleased that I got the Brown vs Topeka reference. A Level History does come in handy once in a while, apparently.

[very-improbable.livejournal.com]

Hahahaha that's awesome.

I'm surprised that it hasn't yet been related as an anecdote in an Aaron Sorkin teleplay. :)

[tau_sigma]

now I'm depressed and knackered but no longer actively considering throwing self in front of bus - this is, at least, improvement? *hugs* I do hope you feel less awful soon.

Also, I know Donaghue v Stevenson! At least, I went to a pre-university law taster course, and they told us about it. Also, our university library mousepads have it on them, for some reason. Complete with pictures (but, for some reason, of snails, I think).