Althouse: Justice Sonia Sotomayor says: "the problem with every test is that you can find an exception that makes the application ridiculous."

१२ नोव्हेंबर, २००९

Justice Sonia Sotomayor says: "the problem with every test is that you can find an exception that makes the application ridiculous."

Doesn't that just make you want to think of a rule that does not require an exception to avoid ridiculousness? Then aren't you intrigued by the paradox that you will have just come up with an exception to her rule (about the need for exceptions to avoid ridiculousness), and that will simultaneously support and undercut her rule?

Or you can just think about whether there should be a clear test for determining a corporation's "principal place of business" for the purposes of §1332 diversity jurisdiction or whether it would be better to use a multi-factor approach?

२६ टिप्पण्या:

The Drill SGT म्हणाले...: Multi-factor seems the way to go, else you get Delaware as an answer for all firms or gaming of the system to avoid taxes and gain a friendly legal environment.; १२/११/०९, १:५७ PM
Jim Hanson म्हणाले...: I love pretzel logic and strange loops. Now you have my little brain all Godel, Escher, Bached up.

Cordially,

Uncle J; १२/११/०९, २:१२ PM
Alex म्हणाले...: This is what happens when Affirmative Action is your God.; १२/११/०९, २:२५ PM
Widmerpool म्हणाले...: No to the multifactor test. I recall lo these many years later the sound opinion of a law school professor of mine who denounced all legal tests based on factors as "a lawless approach". Are all the factors equally important? Some more important than others? How many do you have to meet? More often than not, the answer is "Who knows?" Far better to have a simple test with a predictable result, and the occasional absurd result.; १२/११/०९, २:२८ PM
PatHMV म्हणाले...: In this context, what exactly does "ridiculous" mean? My cynicism about Justice Sotomayor's judicial philosophy tells me that "ridiculous" is simply code for "doesn't let me make a ruling for the little guy and against the big bad corporation, like I want."; १२/११/०९, २:३० PM
अनामित म्हणाले...: Justice, if you have issues with weighing factors and applying tests why the hell are you a judge, let alone lawyer?; १२/११/०९, २:५१ PM
Kirby Olson म्हणाले...: Does water freeze at 32 degrees?; १२/११/०९, २:५४ PM
अनामित म्हणाले...: Kirby Olson: Does water freeze at 32 degrees?

No, as I suspect you actually know perfectly well. :-)

Word verification: faqualsh, to violently subdue a set of questions that is asked too often.; १२/११/०९, ३:०२ PM
paul a'barge म्हणाले...: Please don't make me have a heart attack or anything but what if we just let every corporation formally specify their location.; १२/११/०९, ३:१४ PM
अनामित म्हणाले...: Principal place of business should be defined by statute, not by judges.; १२/११/०९, ३:२१ PM
rhhardin म्हणाले...: Judges are ridiculous, is the place to start.; १२/११/०९, ३:२१ PM
Paul म्हणाले...: Justice Sonia Sotomayor says: "the problem with every test is that you can find an exception that makes the application ridiculous."

Heh! My reply is the rebuttal made famous by John Cleese in Monty Python's "Argument Clinic": "No it isn't!" (see, e.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM); १२/११/०९, ३:३६ PM
traditionalguy म्हणाले...: Jurisdiction shopping is the issue. Make a rule that can be certain in its application and see what that screws up in practice, and then try another rule, and see what that screws up in practice...etc. That is all that Sonia, the Wise Hispanic Woman, is saying here. As I usual agree with her empathy level. Flipping a coin works too.; १२/११/०९, ३:४० PM
From Inwood म्हणाले...: Rule/test:

Ivy League grads are automatically qualified to be SCOTUS Justices.

Exception:

Guess who.; १२/११/०९, ३:४२ PM
From Inwood म्हणाले...: Rule/test

Islam is a peaceful religion.

Exception:

Bang, bang you're dead!; १२/११/०९, ३:४४ PM
DADvocate म्हणाले...: The long term effect of this will be more companies doing less business California.; १२/११/०९, ३:५० PM
From Inwood म्हणाले...: This just in:

Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor Wants To Forcibly Guest-Edit Blog Comments About Own Questions From Bench!; १२/११/०९, ३:५७ PM
Widmerpool म्हणाले...: Trad Guy,

Unfortunately, I'd bet Sonia the Wise is plumping for the exact opposite: let's use factors so that wise people like me can reach the right result every time.; १२/११/०९, ३:५९ PM
Kirby Olson म्हणाले...: All Latinas are wiser than all white males (but not because they have more empathy).; १२/११/०९, ४:०५ PM
Fred4Pres म्हणाले...: Is she dicussing law or English grammar? Actually both are kinda similar.; १२/११/०९, ४:१० PM
Will Cate म्हणाले...: Ouch. Makes my brain hurt.

Hell, why have tests at all? Reality is such a malleable thing, ya know. If only we had a constitutionally authorized body to make such determinations --

-- oh, wait. Never mind...; १२/११/०९, ४:३१ PM
अनामित म्हणाले...: "The problem with every test is that you can find an exception that makes the application ridiculous."

Thank you Mr. Quayle - you can sit down now.

Next time you didn't do your reading for class, just tell us before hand and don't waste everyone's time.; १२/११/०९, ४:४३ PM
Lem Vibe Bandit म्हणाले...: "Justice Sonia Sotomayor says: "the problem with every test is that you can find an exception that makes the application ridiculous."

I didn't see it in the article but I trust that Sotomayor has wisely set aside applying Max Factor ;); १२/११/०९, ५:१३ PM
Ann Althouse म्हणाले...: The Drill SGT said..."Multi-factor seems the way to go, else you get Delaware as an answer for all firms or gaming of the system to avoid taxes and gain a friendly legal environment."

Under §1332, what is at stake is only whether there is federal court jurisdiction based on the plaintiffs being citizens of different states from any of the defendants. When a party is a corporation, it is a citizen of both its place(s) of incorporation and THE principal place of business. This case is only about determining what the principal place of business is, and the dispute is over whether it should be the corporate headquarters or a factors-based analysis. The place of incorporation also counts, so there are often multiple citizenships for a corporation.

Your concern is with things other than whether there is diversity jurisdiction. You are talking about what law applies to duties and transactions and where taxes should be paid and so forth. The tests for those things are not what the court will decide in this case.; १२/११/०९, ६:१८ PM
Mutaman म्हणाले...: What would you expect when you appoint a sodomite to the Supreme Court?; १२/११/०९, ८:२० PM
Adjoran म्हणाले...: As Althouse points out in her last comment, this is a diversity question which is to be decided.

In truth, the mother of "diversity" questions is indeed jurisdiction-shopping. That doesn't mean a rule isn't needed, even if the current rule is incorrect.

The "multi-factor" approach in practice functions against any rule, empowering judges to assign weight to each "factor" capriciously. The result will rely more upon the predilections and prejudices of individual jurists and less upon the rule of law - standing on its head the concept of equality before the bar of justice.; १३/११/०९, ३:२७ AM