Colorado
Related: About this forumProfessors at Colorado's law schools rethink curriculum amid "revolutionary" Supreme Court decisions
https://www.denverpost.com/2024/07/19/colorado-law-schools-curriculum-supreme-court-precedent/?share=umehhtwtnuoncnsott0t(I'm pretty sure that's a gift link)
"Doug Spencers constitutional law courses will begin differently this fall than in years past.
The professor at the University of Colorado Law School in Boulder plans to beef up lectures on current events, likely starting with the U.S. Supreme Courts recent ruling on presidential immunity and a discussion of the legalities of presidential impeachment, all in hopes of providing a more foundational understanding of the current political climate.
Were in a constitutionally revolutionary moment where things are changing drastically, he said.
Spencer has instructed students on the intricacies of long-established law and the thorough reasoning that guides Supreme Court decisions only to see a string of major, precedent-setting rulings overturned in the last few years, he said.
The Supreme Courts conservative majority has recently struck down or altered foundational laws that have guided the nation for decades, including eliminating the federal right to an abortion with the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, weakening federal agencies power to interpret the law by overruling the Chevron decision last month, and by granting presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution earlier this month."
hlthe2b
(107,146 posts)precedence--followed by discussions of both ramifications and how the court may well be reformulated to allow future cases to be brought for reconsideration of some of these issues. Also a discussion of how Congress may counter with new statutory or even constitutional changes.
I do not think any law curriculum should present this as "FINAL AND ESTABLISHED" law.
rsdsharp
(10,352 posts)I already knew the cases, and where they fit into the headings. That allowed me to be able to quickly create an outline, complete with all of the cases, at the start of the test.
That was 39 years ago. At that time, learning the cases was a worthwhile exercise. They were the actual law, and with minor changes, were likely to remain so for generations if not in perpetuity.
It seems like so much wasted effort, now. Stare decisis is dead; the law is now just what the ideology of 5 members of the Supreme Court dictates.