Talk:Alexander v. Sandoval

message: I don't know what the references to Garrett and other congressional power of enforcement cases are doing in this article.  Sandoval is a case about – and solely about – whether a private right of action may be implied under a particular federal statute.  It's not about congressional power to create such a right of action.  Thus the erasure.  Hydriotaphia 21:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a sensible way of proceeding.  I do think, however, that your discussion of the relevant background legal principles was too intermixed with a discussion of the majority opinion itself.  As (I think) you are suggesting, this page definitely needs more work.  Perhaps the best way of improving it would be to try, as much as possible, to discuss the governing legal principles before discussing the way in which those principles were applied in this particular case.  For what I think is a good attempt at doing just that, see Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs.  Best wishes, Hydriotaphia 22:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Unfortunately, I still can't find any support for the phrase, "At first the majority said the footnote mentioned by the dissent did not refer to disparate impact, but then interpreted the holding of the case to exclude the disputed footnote."  The problem is that the part of the majority opinion which is cited to support the assertion in bold doesn't actually seem to support it.  The new footnote says: "As Scalia said, 'The language in Cannon to which respondents refer does not in fact support their position.'"  However, the full sentence reads:
:"The language in Cannon to which respondents refer does not in fact support their position, as we shall discuss at length below, see infra, at 288–290."
532 U.S. at 282.  
When one actually goes to pp. 288-290 of volume 532 of the U.S. Reports, the only discussion of Cannon concerns the important role which the rights-creating language of § 601 played in that opinion.  See 532 U.S. at 288 ("It is immediately clear that the 'rights-creating' language so critical to the Court’s analysis in Cannon of § 601, see 441 U.S., at 690, n.13, is completely absent from § 602."); id. at 289 (while discussing how § 602 is phrased as a directive to federal agencies, the majority quotes Cannon, which stated that such phrasing provides little support for an implied private right of action); id. at 290 (referring to a discussion in Cannon about the effect of agency enforcement procedures on the existence of an implied private right of action).  Note, however, that none of these citations to Cannon discusses the footnote in Cannon that referred to the plaintiff's disparate-impact theory.  It seems clear, therefore, that Scalia, by saying that "[t]he language in Cannon to which respondents refer does not in fact support their position," was saying that the language of Cannon – which placed great emphasis on the "right-creating" and not "agency-directing" language of § 601 – actually cuts against the argument that Sandoval was trying to make.  Thus I still think the phrase, "At first the majority said the footnote mentioned by the dissent did not refer to disparate impact," should be eliminated.  Am I missing something?
Apart from this, the way the phrase is written ("at first ... but then") implies, in what strikes me as an unintentionally biased way, that the majority was contradicting itself.  At the very least the phrasing should be improved to remove that implication.  Hydriotaphia 03:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Because this case concerns a statute and its interpretation and no constitutional issue under the Fourteenth Amendment or more specifically the Equal Protection Clause, I believe this case should not be categorized as a Fourteenth Amendment case or an equal protection case.  I'm going to go ahead with those changes now.  I notice, however, that many of the other implied-private-right-of-action cases (e.g., Cannon and Cort v. Ash) are categorized as "civil procedure cases."  Hence I'll add that category to this case.  Respectfully,  Hydriotaphia 06:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: Great edits to the overview section, Jim.  The way you've contrasted the majority and the dissent in their views of the footnote is terse, accurate, and well written.  Hydriotaphia 17:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Overview

message: I'm still convinced that the overview section ought to go after "The law" section.  The overview section makes reference to things which simply will be unclear to a reader who is unfamiliar with the law.  What a private cause of action is, what Cannon was about, etc. – these things, it seems to me, cry out for an explanation.  Hydriotaphia 23:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Overview (part 2)

message: I've deleted to History section as it was completely out of date and was mostly plagiarized from the Southern Poverty Law Center's website. This section was likely written prior to the Supreme Court's decision, after judgement for the Plaintiff (Sandoval) in the trial court and in the 11th district court.  However, the Supreme Court subsequently reversed the lower court rulings.  209.20.29.248 (talk) 04:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: History section deletion