Sublimlely Inscrutible
Womble Carlyle's South Carolina Appellate Law Blog highlights an opinion penned by a jurist who, from all appearances, suffers from thesaurophilia:
The cognoscenti of federal preemption jurisprudence bestow panoramic application so as to limit state common law tort actions. We decline to accept this broad-brush federal judicial barricade.
* * *
Importantly, scholars on basic conflict preemption principles inculcate in regard to the fundamental elixir of the rule when juxtaposing federal/state constitutional analysis. If a state statute, administrative rule, or common law cause of action conflicts with a federal statute, it is incontestable that the state law has no efficacy. It is pellucid that the Supremacy Clause does not bless unelected federal judges with carte blanche to utilize federal law as a conduit to impose their own views of tort law on the States. Assumptively, we recognize that common law tort actions are historically within the scope of the States’ police powers and are safe from preemption by a federal statute unless Congress reveals a clear and manifest purpose to preempt.
If you are a budding legal writer, take note how the five-dollar words quickly add up to a two-bit piece of writing. (via the Conspiracy)
