
396 - Hard Cases Make Bad Precedent
11/20/23 • 18 min
1 Listener
There is an adage in the legal profession, “Hard cases make bad law.” Well, since cases in this country to not truly make law only precedent, you might be tempted to dismiss this saying. However, since our courts are so devoted to their precedent, we should be very careful when hard cases come to the Supreme Court. For example, one case heard by the court has a very unsavory respondent. The question is, will Mr. Zackey Rahimi’s shady past be used to infringe on the right of the rest of Americans?
There is an adage in the legal profession, “Hard cases make bad law.” Well, since cases in this country to not truly make law only precedent, you might be tempted to dismiss this saying. However, since our courts are so devoted to their precedent, we should be very careful when hard cases come to the Supreme Court. For example, one case heard by the court has a very unsavory respondent. The question is, will Mr. Zackey Rahimi’s shady past be used to infringe on the right of the rest of Americans?
Previous Episode

395 - Social Media and Government Communications
Social media has become so much of everyday lives that we often don’t think about its use. This has led to what appears to be a large percentage of Americans developing what can at best be described as “interesting ideas” about the relationship between government and the various social media platforms. Some recent cases heard before the Supreme Court bring the question of the relationship between government actors and social media companies into question. Probably the best well known would be Missouri v. Biden, where the states of Missouri and Louisiana have brought suit claiming that members of the Biden Administration violated the First Amendment by attempting to influence what content would be deleted or deemphasized on various platforms. However, two other cases involving local officials focus on under what circumstances government actors can block access to their social media accounts. While most of the country seems to be focused on Missouri, these two cases bring up some questions the American people should really think about.
Next Episode

398 - Will America be Destroyed From the Inside?
In 1837, Daniel Webster wrote: "I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe... Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger." I’ve been thinking about that statement lately. I came across a video that I had forgotten about. It’s part of an interview with Soviet defector Yuri Bezmanov. Mr Bezmanov was a former KGB agent who defected to Canada in 1970. Then, in 1984, he gave an interview to G Edward Griffin where he exposed a long-term Soviet plan to defeat America not by force of arms, but through psychological warfare. You may be asking, what does a late 20th century defector have to do with a 19th century lawyer and statesman, and how could it possibly be relevant to our situation in the 2020s? Come to find out, both of these men were quite prescient in their warnings to the American people.
If you like this episode you’ll love
Episode Comments
Featured in these lists
Generate a badge
Get a badge for your website that links back to this episode
<a href="https://goodpods.com/podcasts/the-constitution-study-podcast-9032/396-hard-cases-make-bad-precedent-37352930"> <img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/goodpods-images-bucket/badges/generic-badge-1.svg" alt="listen to 396 - hard cases make bad precedent on goodpods" style="width: 225px" /> </a>
Copy