We have opened this folder for discussion a bit early for several reasons, most important of which is to express our sincere regret at the loss of our discussion leader's husband of many years and to assure her that we still want and need her as part of our group in the hope that our association might in some way soften the blow of her terrible loss.

LJ

I'd like to encourage all of our potential participants to sign in and make any preliminary comments they might deep of interest or help.

I've just finished "CLOSED CHAMBERS" as background reading and, although I won't review the book, I will cite it extensively during the upcoming discussion of "May It Plese The Court".

Before Clinton testifies today I'd like to note that I learned two rather important things from "Closed Chambers". First I found that Kenneth Starr is not just an independant Counsel, He's a leading light in the ultra right wing conservative element of his party.

Second, and more important, I came across a quote from one of Judge Bork's mentors which is intrigueing. It follows: "Our system cannot survive a politics of moral attack"

Best

LJ

Of more distantly related interest, has anyone read the five part expose about the Clinton Investigation in "SALON"?

Best

LJ

I plan to participate. I have the book and am reading it. I do not plan to buy the associated argument tapes. I read "the Brethern" years ago when it was first released.

I have the book and will participate.

Won't be dragged into a discussion about Clinton's sex life however.

Yes, I will join the discussion.....I am looking forward to it. My book has arrived, will start reading it very soon. I, too, read Bretern years ago.

I am saddened by what is happening right now, at this moment, in the Whitehouse...as soon as its over, I think our Chief Justice, the Special Prosicutor, and every member of Congress should be required to answer every question, and suffer every embrassment being afforded the President of the United States....today.

I also wish we had spell check for posting.

Sun

I will participate. I read Brethren. NPR is sounding gloomy about Clinton. The Rhenquist rulings about privilegeseem to me to have dangerous implications. I have often wished to have the ability to see how historians of the future will treat all this sturm und drang.

If anyone wants more information on the cases discussed in "May It Please the Court" go to the following web site:

Court Cases

To get the court reporter's syllibus or the full or edited court decision in a case scroll down the page to the "Collection of Historic Decisions." Then click on "party names" which leades to an alphabetical index by first party name which will take you to the case.

All but three of the cases discussed in the book are available here. Possibly the missing cases can be found elsewhere at the Cornell site.

There is much additional interesting material available from the linked page including biographical information of present and former Justices.

(Larry or etc who might be monitering this page, please feel free to make the above link interactive. hha)

I fixed it for you, Harold, hope the title is OK. What a pleasure to see such a great group assembling!

Ginny

Harold: Thanks for that. A great resource site. Although there is some technical language I don't understand, which I will just ignore.

Some of you may have been wondering where I am, or whether I will be able to lead this discussion as planned. I think most of you are aware that my husband died suddenly of an apparent heart attack July 31, and of course my family and I are reeling from the shock. I am traveling right now, both on business and visiting friends and relatives, and have not had time to get on line much. I'll be back home this coming Thursday, Aug. 27.

I do intend to lead this discussion and am delighted to see so many interested participants. Ella, if there are technical terms that puzzle you, just ask. If I don't know myself, I have ways to find out what they mean. Harold, thanks for the Cornell link to the cases. There is another site that has absolutely everything, which I will post when I find or remember it! The tapes are fun but certainly not necessary.

I will also post some additional bibliography for those who are interested. "The Brethren" will be a good companion to this discussion, and there are other resources as well.

I think it will be fun!

Katie...

Looking forward to it...

Sun

Katie: I'll be here - asking questions.

CLOSED CHAMBERS should also be a terrific companion read.

Best

LJ

This is just my cup of tea, this book, so I promise I will read and join the discussion. Sorry to hear of the leader's loss. All best wishes.I hope she stays with us, tho it will be hard, for She will be a great leader.Glad to see your name here, Ella. For now Jean {caspar}

This is turning into a fairly large group. At present I'm reading the text and collating it with "Closed Chambers". Some of you folks have had extensive experience in this area which is of great concern and interest to all of us. I'm "Chomping at the Bit" to get started and listen to your informed commentary.

Best

LJ

Hi Caspar (Jean): Glad you are joining in; I think it will be a very good discussion. I haven't started reading the book yet, although I bought it. I find if I read it too soon I forget it, but I do want to do some other reading along with it so may start that soon.

Yes, think we have an excellent discussion leader in Katie. She'll be bringing a lot of experience and knowledge to us and know we'll have fun with this topic.

Received the book "CLOSED CHAMBERS" from the Library - Heavens, that's a huge one, LJ. And are you one of those complaining about the length of Katherine Graham's book? This one is not as easy to read - but I will skim it and have it on hand for the discussion.

Ella, I admit I commented on the length of the Graham biography, but it wasn't a comlaint. I read "Closed Chambers" word for word and cover to cover almost with baited breath.

"May it please the court" is more of a very reserved third person approach without the human element of what was going on in the court. The "Please" book is the skeleton, "The Brethren" put some flesh on the bones, and "Closed" puts minds in the heads on the bodies. Sometimes great minds, sometimes not.

Best

LJ

LJ--wonderful discription of all three books. Perfect!

I am going thru all three of them, tho I did read "Brethren" a number of years ago, keep referring back to it.

Sun

Am reading a book called "The Changing Supreme Court" and also just started one by Chief Justice Rehnquist entitled "The Supreme Court: How it was and How it is." Both are very good. With the different books we are all reviewing, it should make for a very good discussion.

On C-Span the other night they were playing a recorded interview of Chief Justice Rehnquist by Brian Lamb - dated in 1992 - on the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, who was indicted by the House but never convicted by the Senate and finished out his term. I'm sure you will all know why they had that on.

But I did like Rehnquist who has a very easy demeanor and could sit down in anyone's living room and be right at home. He was asked by Lamb why he wrote books and the Chief Justice replied honestly for the royalties. Refreshing! Also he was asked if a lawyer should be nervous arguing before the Supreme Court and he answered Yes, he certainly should be! He, as I remember, argued just one case before the court and said he was sweating the whole time.

Am looking forward to our discussion.

KATIE, Do you have any specific suggestions about our approach to the text?

I've kept a list of those who've expressed interest in this book. Will send out a brief reminder

Best

LJ

Here in the preliminary phase of our discussions it is appropriate that anyone who wishes might make general comments about the book and/or the court.

It is of interest that over the past forty years our (my?) perception of the "Sanctity" of the supreme court has faded and become remarkably tarnished.

This has occurred perforce of an increasing familiarity with the personalities of the individual justices. After all, no matter how favorably a biographer pictures his subject, these men become mere mortals when subjected to the diligent biographer's pen.

Many have felt that the publication of the "BRETHREN" about twenty years ago was a watershed in the popularization of the "Court" and the "Humanizing" of the people and proceedures which previously shrouded the sacro-sanctity of the instutution in an almost occult shell.

These recent texts have melted the facade that once clothed the Court with unquestioning respect and exposed its members as ordinary human beings with a whole lot of power which is often well used but frequently abused. Men who are usually very bright and learned, but some who are clearly not so bright and are quite small minded, make up this judicial edifice which ultimately is no more sacred or respectable than are the other two branches of our government.

There are obvious advantages to a healthy mixture of both conservative and liberal interpretations of the constitution on the court bench. It is however, disturbing that the most important questions in modern american life are so often decided by 5-4 majorities. such that what is legal today or illegal tomorrow may be contingent upon which political party is presently or recently has been in control of court appointments. Such a situation, I think, puts the lie to the oft repeated phrase that we are a "Nation of Laws and not Men"

As we review the book, I think we should keep an eye out for the instances of reversal of "Stare Decisis" (Decisions previously rendered by the court). Where-ever possible all of our discussants should express their personal opinions and add any information which might be germaine to the discussion, no matter how miniscule.

Except for the introductory material in the text, comment, though adequate, is limited.. Footnotes are very scarce and often conspicuously absent so that at times extremely controversial opinions are stated as facts without comment. (e.g. see p222) Thus, any comments made by our readers will be genuinely and thoroughly appreciated.

Best

LJ

Teacher, the dog ate my homework, really. Have not started yet, but will catch up soon. All I can remember of The Brethren is the cover, even though the inside, about 2/3 of the way through, was decorated with pizza sauce. Now you know why they called me class clown.

That's an interesting observation, LJ, and one I did not take into consideration when reviewing the books I have.

We have, unwittingly, taken on what seems to me, a huge task with this book. There are varying approaches to looking at the Supreme Court; i.e., personalities, decisions, history, conservatives vs. liberals, the Constitution, our changing society, etc., etc.

We will wait until Katie arrives and gives us some direction, but meanwhile I can make a few observations on a chapter I just finished reading. Can you imagine my indignation when I read this: "In 1873, Supreme Court Justice Joseph P. Bradley, in a case denying women the right to practice law, said that "the natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life. This is the law of the Creator."

We must get Ginny into this conversation - she once told me she was interested in a law degree and she would make an excellent lawyer. I'd love to hear her comments on the above!!!!

And again, "as recently as 1961, the Supreme Court upheld a law making jury service mandatory for men but optional for women."

The way in which one of the books is organized appeals to me. Each chapter presents a societal question such as Freedom of Religion, Civil Rights, Abortion, Sex Discrimination, Capital Punishment, etc., and then gives the cases on each decided by the Warren Court, the Burger Court, and the Rehnquist Court. You can therefore see the changing of the guard, so to speak, or ways in which our society has progressed (although not all may see it as progress - SMILE!).

LJ: In rebuttal to your intimation that the Supreme Court is more partisan or political in recent years, I quote from Chief Justice Rehnquist's book, which is a fascinating and very readable one for the lay person:

"The Chief Justice has some authority that the associate justices do not have, but this is relatively insignificant compared to the extraordinary independence that each justice has from every other justice. Tenure is assured no matter how one votes in any given case; one is independent not only of public opinion, of the president, and of Congress, but of one's eight colleagues as well. When one puts on the robe, one enters a world of public scrutiny and professional criticism which sets great store by INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE, and much less store upon the virtue of being a 'team player.' "

And again:

"The institution is so structured that a brand-new presidential appointee, perhaps feeling himself strongly loyal to the president who appointed him, and looking for colleagues of a similar mind on the Court, is immediately beset with the institutional pressures I have described. He identifies more and more strongly with the new institution of which he has become a member, and he learns how much store is set by his BEHAVING INDEPENDENTLY OF HIS COLLEAGUES. "

Throughout this book Rehnquist emphasizes the independence of EACH MEMBER. A unanimous decision is not sought in the Supreme Court by any means. And when one thinks of countless lawyers, bar associations, law schools, judges, interested parties, etc., scrutinizing every aspect of the decisions made, I cannot believe that the court has become more political.

There is an interesting chapter on presidents who have tried to pack the Court, with only partial success. An amusing remark of Teddy Roosevelt who appointed Oliver Wendell Holmes to the Court, and after being disappointed by Holmes in one decision, T.R. commented: "Out of a banana I could have carved a Justice with more backbone than that."

As for being "awed" by the justices, or for that matter any person, title, wealth, etc., I believe most of us at our age have forsook (is that a word?) any previous notions that these people are somewhat above the norm. I still envy talent of any kind, since I was born with none, but not position or fame as we all know "they put their pants on one leg at a time such as we all do."

I will be back later to comment on the first few cases mentioned in our book under discussion.

Gee, Ella, I have so many references to Rhenwuist as a Chief Justice that I must hold my finger (as opposed to my tongue) till the approprioate discussions come up. (The best or at least most controversial will be toward the last) In spite of what he says (in your quote) it would appear that he is intensely and single-mindedly partisan. Judicially he seems to be a would be word craftsman without success for want of any original thinking.

In this first case, I learned most from Frankfurter's dissent even though I agreed with the decision. After you comment on the case in general I'll have some material on Frankfurter's tenure on the court.

Best

LJ

The operative phrase I was debating was "more partisan or political in recent years." There have always been conservatives/liberals on the Court; always will be, and rightly so. You mentioned the 5-4 decisions of recent years, and my point was this is no indication of the Court being MORE divided politically in modern times vs. the past.

In my limited knowledge, and I do not care to make this discussion a political science course in which I must study intensively, I count 5 conservatives, one liberal and 3 moderates on the Court today. Would this be your estimate? Of course, they all cross the lines from time to time.

You do not care for Rehnquist? Perhaps because he is a conservative or traditionalist?

This redistricting or gerrymandering case of Baker v. Carr is rather dull, I think. Federalism v. states' rights. It certainly took the Court a long time, didn't it, to intervene on behalf of citizens' voting rights against state's rights using the 14th amendment. But they made up for lost time in all the redistricting cases that came before it in civil rights cases as we shall see later. Why do you see this case as a landmark case? Simply because it set a precedent in forcing the redistricting of the boundaries of the states? I'm sure there are many nuances in this case that I am simply glossing over for lack of interest.

Before we get into the Nixon tapes, there is a question that has lingered in my mind for a long time; one that I have not been either interested enough or studious enough, to find an answer to. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to where and when a president came up with this "executive privilege" idea? Certainly, it has some history behind it. Because of Clinton we find ourselves once again hearing this old argument and I don't have the knowledge I need to make a judgment on the subject. I do not want to get into the Clinton saga - HEAVENS NO! - but he tried it and came to the conclusion apparently that it was a no-go.

I don't want to get into the Clinton Saga either, but there have been some dangerous precedents set here, I think. For one, the publication of Grand Jury testimony. Not only the testimony, but video tapes!

I don't have the book yet, but I have recently read Adams vs. Texas, the book written by the man who was on deathrow in the movie, Thin Blue Line. His case went before the Supreme Court; the issue concerned the way juries were picked in capital cases. Is this case, by any chance, one of the ones in the book?

Wow, Judicial interests have always been farthest from my mind, but I find myself embroiled by all of this material so if I may , I'd like to respond to several questions you-all have raised with several posts.

First Ella, I agree in general with your scorecard of 5-3-1, but my reason for having a bit of contempt for Rhenquist is his strident, arrogant declamations in the absence of intellectual quality. Somewhat similar to Thomas who at least is not strident (and although growing in arrogance with time hasn't yet arrived at a Rhenquist level). The others are somewhat to the right of Genghis Kahn, but at least they are bright, articulate and able to think on their own.

JACKIE and ELLA

I agree, we can't waste our time on presidential sex lives, an arena in which Clinton is a Bush-Leaguer. Since the Clinton thing is an outgrowth of the Bork nomination, we will undoubtedly have to refer to it eventually in the framework of civil and individual as well as women's rights.

ELLA

My knowledge of executive privilege dates to grade school where it was commonly believed that presidents couldn't be assaulted by judicial shenanigans of a civil nature while in office. Everything else dates to the Nixon era and I'm sure you remember that as well as I. I still can't get over the idea that the Atty. General went to prison as a common criminal

More Coming

Best

LJ

Jackie - HURRY AND GET THE BOOK, WE NEED YOUR INPUT HERE! No, the Adams v. Texas case is not in this book, but it sounds very interesting. I'll get it at the Library one of these days and read it, although I have enough at the moment to do. To put in a plug for an upcoming discussion, after this book we are going to be discussing Nov. lst "The Other Side of the River" that is an eye-opener to racial relations and the fact we have a long way to go in that area before America truly has overcome prejudice - if we ever do!

LJ brought up the Bork confirmation hearings and his rejection. Thank goodness and enough said on that!

LJ: Certainly this "executive privilege" idea has more to it than just common knowledge! Wish we had a lawyer in the crowd, perhaps he could enlighten us. This is amusing, but do you suppose there is a job description for the Presidency and this phrase is in it? Hahaha!

Jackie - Yes, Yes, precedents being set today in the Clinton scandal that will be debated from now on. Imagine how this is being treated in law schools everywhere, wouldn't it be interesting to drop in on them and see how professors and students alike are discussing these issues. The lawyer-client confidentiality was one that astounded me when Clinton's personal lawyer had to testify before the grand jury! Well, another day, perhaps???

LJ: Poor little fellow, this Rehnquist, I'm truly beginning to feel sorry for him! He graduated from Stanford Law with honors, was law clerk to Justice Black, later appointed as Associate Justice to the Supreme Court and then Chief Justice - one of the highest honors, certainly, that the country can bestow on an attorney - and the poor fellow hasn't an original idea in his head, I believe you said, and also is lacking in intellectual quality. My heart bleeds for him!!!!

Back later!

I'll sign in to this discussion with a few comments. First my participation will be rather low key since I have not had the opportunity to do the background preparation I had planned. While I have read the "The Bretheren" many years ago when it was first published, I was not able to reread it or read other current material as I intended to do. I am, however, familar with the cases and have or will reread them all.

Here are some comments on the present court. Only one members of the present court first appointed by President Nixon survives. This is the now C.J., Rehnquist who in 1986 was upgraded to C.J. by President Reagan. One current member was appointed by President Ford, John Stephens; President Carter had no opportunity to appoint a member; Reagan named three, Scalia, O'Connor, and Kennedy; President Bush named two- Souter and Thomas; and President Clinton has named two-Gingsburg and Breyer. Based on the politics of the president making the appointment there are 7 appointed by Republican Presidents to 2 appointed by democratats.

All but one of the current members had at least some Judicial experience on the appealate level before receiving their appointment. Most were elevated from the U.S. Court of Appeals the next lower Federal tribunal; one, David Souter came from the Supreme Court of New Hampshire. The one member who came without prior Judicial credentials was the Senior member, C.J. Rehnsquist whose prior background was private and governmental practice.

Four of the present members came to the court with significant experience as law professors as well as judicial experience. These are Gingsburg, Breyer, Scalia, and Kennedy.

In all I feel the members of the present Court were selected by the various Presidents only after making a conscious effort to choose a qualified candidate. This is in marked contrast to some prior Presidents who appointed political cronies. An example of this practice was my fellow Texan, LBJ who appointed his former lawyer and political adviser and before leaving office nominated him to be Chief Justice nominating another political sidekick to the Associate Justice position. These nominations were not confirmed by the Senate leaving the C.J. position to be filled by Nixon.

Does this mean they selected the very best person available? Of course not! A President views the filling of a Supreme Court vacancy as an opportunity to extend his influence many years into the future beyond his term. So they consider candidates who they feel generally reflect their philosphy. In recent years the appointment of a candidate of the opposing party has not happened.

How successful have our Presidents been in influencing the Court? Since Republicans appointed 7 members of the present court by that measure shouldn't there be 7 conservatives to 2 liberals? I don't think any counts place the conservatives at near that number. And what about all those five to four decisions! This indicates to me that the Justices take their work very seriously in deciding the case in accordance with the law as it has been decided in the past subject to change only when change has been shown to be desirable by the arguments and counter arguments made by the parties of the case before them.

Harold, a good summation and commentary.

Ella, Like presidents, Justices need be held to a higher standard than run of the mill lawyers about half of whom, like run of the mill doctors lie between mediocre and incompetant. Chief Justices above all should be held to the highest of standards

Best

LJ

Welcome Harold! If you are rereading all the cases, you are doing more than I. It is a daunting task. I am merely reviewing a few books that I have on various cases.

In last week's TIME a new biography of Justice Thurgood Marshall was critiqued and perhaps this paragraph will be of general interest:

"In 1980, when his health began to deteriorate, he (Marshall) rebuffed entreaties from President Carter to retire so that a Justice who shared his views could be named to take his place. Instead, Marshall hung on until 1991, when President Bush selected Clarence Thomas, a black conservative, to fill the vacancy. To Marshall, it was an odious and demeaning selection - "they think (Thomas) is as good as I am," he snapped. In fact, even those who most ardently backed Thomas never really thought he was in Thurgood Marshall's league."

LJ: We both agree with TIME on Thomas's qualities. That exposure on TV alone (the Thomas-Hill hearing), if I didn't know another thing about him, would have convinced me he should not have been confirmed. Thomas is a man who profited from affirmative action programs, yet when he "gained entrée", he turned on affirmative action programs denouncing them as being condescending and insulting to blacks. Besides, he is opposed to abortion and I am and always will be pro-choice. But that's for another day!

I'd like to commernt on Frankfurter's dissent in the case under discussion.

Of course his first objection was to the about face on the previous decision of Colgrove vs Green, i.e. "Stare Decesis" which those of us who favor civil, equal, and personal rights hope will keep the present right wing extremists from reversing all of the progress made before the Reagan era.

This was certainly a valid objection on Frankfurter's part. On the other hand, if the court were never willing to reverse itself, we'd still be operating under the Jim Crow laws which it supported for generations.

Frankfurter insisted that the decision was purely political, and in a sense the decision was while the case was not, i.e. it was a case of civil rights, rights opposed by the conservatives (Then and now)

He goes on to state "The notion that representation proportioned to the geographic spread of population is so universally accepted as a necessary element of equality between man and man that it must be taken to be the standard of a political equality preserved by the fourteenth amendment (the basic principle of representative government) ---is, to put it bluntly, not true"

Now, as objectionable as it may be, I suspect that what he said was true and as he states "It wasnot the English system, It was not the colonial system, It was not the system chosen for the national government by the constitution, it was not the system exclusively or even predominantly practiced by the states at the time of the adoption of the fourteenth amendment. It IS NOT predominantly practiced by the states today"

Indeed, it would still be a few years before the principle of "One Man--One Vote" would be adopted.

CERTAINLY this was indeed a landmark case of monumental proportions.

Best

LJ

Interesting aside: The DA in the Adams case was Rowe of Rowe v. Wade.

Jackie, I don't recognize the "Adams" case. Can you teloscopically thumbnail it for us?

My impression of the "Capitol Punishment" question is simmered down to two points (This area of debate, so crucial to an understanding of the Supreme Court is not mentioned in the present book but is treated extensively in "Closed Chambers") is that the present status of the arguement is whether or not capitol punishment is "Cruel and Unusual".

So long as the majority of justices and people firmly believe it to be "Right" it must be recognized as "The law of the land". That being the case, the bickering over these cases is moot and even counterproductive.

I tend to side with the conservatives on most of the issues, but am undecided on the questions of age and mental competance, and I don't think we've gone far enough on the question of racial bias in jury selection to insure fair and equitable trials. The other major question is one of money. It's quite clear that our system of justice is the best money can buy.

Best

LJ

Wasn't that Will Rogers who said we have the best politicians money can buy?

LJ: Jefferson would certainly agree with Frankfurter - the federal government should stay out of the states' business ! As is always true, there are two sides to every question or decision in this case. Frankfurther had a point - I certainly agree with some of his statements such as "The Court's authority ultimately rests on sustained public confidence in its moral sanction. Such feeling must be nourished by the Court's complete detachment….. from political entanglements……." He believed, justifiably, that this was a political issue.

I haven't read much about Frankfurther - will look him up and learn more about him later. He was a central figure in Katharine and Phil Grahams' lives - remember? Phil, as I remember it, was his law clerk and they remained friends and had stag parties with other young men of like persuasions. Must have been a riot!

LJ: Adams was accused of murdering a policeman. He and his brother had recently arrived in Dallas from Ohio, and were young, long haired, working at blue collar jobs, almost casual labor. The case revolved around an eye-witness and a lineup (the shooting occurred on the street in view of passing traffic.) The voir dire questioning of the jury panel was explicit in eliciting reactions to a death penalty. The judge accepted only panelists who were in favor of the death penalty; this was the appeal issue. The Thin Blue Line (documentary movie) was on PBS; I saw it a few years ago. Very interesting, an objective examination of the case. Adams was on death row when the film was made. Its showings resulted in an outpouring of letters to Texas' governor. The book covers the period before Dallas, through the trial, imprisonment, appeals etc. etc., and is subjectively Adams' own story.

ELLA,

Yes, Will Rogers made the comment about politicians in general, and I did not originate the thought that it applies to law. I suspect that we are missing a point relative to this case which I only fairly found comprehensible when studying American History in grade school. That point is that the founders were patrician and expected government to be largely the business of the wealthy, landed and privileged classes.

Jefferson, probable author of the words "All men are created equal" was (as you know) not only a slaveholder but an opponant of efforts to end slavery. Admittedly, the conflict is not all that simple but brings some our legal inconsistancies to the fore. The Bork position that the Constitution should be interpreted in light of what the framers had in mind rather than in terms of modern society is a conservative effort to promulgate the status quo, "Quo" being 1776.

It is indeed amazing how often our book discussions overlap. As you've pointed out the Katherine Graham biography, and as the Jefferson reference brings up "The American Sphinx"

Best

LJ

Jackie: What was the outcome of the Adams case?

I suspect the defendent is no longer with us. Letters to the Governor are useless and a waste of time here as the Texas Governor under our constitution is powerless to act until a recommedation has been made by an administrative board. This stems out of the abuse by a 1920's Govenor who made pardons available on the open market.

In modern times there has been only one favorable recommendation and Governor Bush commuted the sentence. I don't have the details but the defendent was a serial killer. In this case Justice demanded the action because of a obvious major procedural error. As I said I am not familar with the details but as I understanded it the action commuated the death penality to life in prision. This was probably acceptable to the defense instead of a new trial which would have almost certainly resulted in another death sentence.

Believe me when I say that after court appeals are exhausted a condemed defendent has almost no chance of commutation by the executive pardon process.

I am not familar with the Adams case, but from your comment it seems typical of the outlook of the present Court which has allowed the sever limitation on appeals made possible under recent Federal legislation.

I personally am firmly against the Death penality for the simple reason I don't think it is any deterent at all. I am not proud of the box scores that puts My state at the top of the standings for the United States and I'm inclined to suspect world wide.

JACKIE,

I have read about that case, and it illustrates the points I mentioned earlier. There was no real question of guilt, nor of whether it was a capitol crime. In fact, the only question was one of whether a guaranteed hung jury was constitutionally required by the inclusion of death penalty opponants.

As I recall, a subtle distinction between being opposed but being willing to consider the Death Penalty and being unalterably opposed to it was the crux of the outcome. In view of the law, the crime and the lack of question about the propriety of the verdict or the guilt of the criminal, I might be justified in calling the case "Moot" or "Wheel-Spinning"

Best

LJ

Gee, I hate to spoil a good mystery. But, since you ask. Adams was convicted mainly on the work of an eyewitness and a passing motorist who picked him out of a lineup, The constitutional issue was decided in his favor, so a new trial was ordered. To get around that, the governor commuted his sentence to Life. (Whoops. Is commuted correct?) Neat? But the basic question of guilt or innocence raised by the movie was impossible for Texas to sidestep so conviently. The "eyewitness" was a good ole boy of 16 with an accelerating criminal history, who walked away from several felony charges in exchange for his testimony. The lady in the car had described the killer as a mexican or light-skinned black. She was able to pick Adams out of the lineup after his picture had apppeared in all the newspapers. Smelly. The eventual outcome was freedom for Adams, ruined reputations for the Dallas DA and ADA's, and for the judicial (?) system. It does make interesting reading. I can only hope that Texas justice has improved.

WOW, That's not the same one I recall reading about. This business of obtaining convictions on the basis of often false testimony paid for by commuting or forgetting other crimes has risen to monumental proportions which threaten to completely undermine the so called "Justice" system.

Best

LJ

Katie,

You expressed an interest in the next case about executive privelege. As you intimated, we have to figure out for ourselves why some of these cases are considered "Landmark" decisions.

This case "United States vs Nixon" is different from the others in the book in that it has no citations of previous decisions (although "Citatations" are referred to in a generic sense)

This is almost a "Moot" case because most instances of "Executive privelege" are at the level of with-holding evidence in criminal cases in the "National Interest" which the government seems able to do almost without let or hinderance. (The Ellsburg papers come later)

Nixon's position might be summed up by his famous quote, "If the president does it, that makes it legal"

What are your thoughts upon reading the case?

Best

LJ

LJ: This is the same case. The Supreme Court ruled on the issue of jury selection, as you explained. The book relates the struggle of an innocent man to find justice. As you know, guilt or innocence is never the issue when appealing.

Jackie,

Clearly, I'm going to have to read the book.

Best

LJ

Jackie: What is the name of the book again? I, too, want to read it. Fascinating.

As we have taken more than a week to discuss one case, which is fine with me, I love the discussions, I am wondering how everyone feels about selecting 4-6 cases of general interest to all and concentrating our discussion on those few.

If all interested parties agree, I nominate 4 cases to be discussed. These are of particular interest to me and may not be to you, so please speak up and nominate your own cases. We cannot but help touch on others as we discusss any of these - as our previous posts have shown.

Perhaps I'm not looking carefully enough, but I cannot find in this book a case on sex discrimination or women's rights. If I had, it would have been included in my list.

However,the ones I chose are: Roe v. Wade (abortion); Regents of the Univ. of California v. Bakke (Civil Rights); Abington School v. Schempp (Freedom of Religion); and Texas v. Johnson (Freedom of Speech).

HAROLD, LJ, JACKIE - OTHERS LURKING? WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THIS IDEA?

In message 52 Ella Gibbons wrote:

However,the ones I chose are: >Roe v. Wade (abortion); Regents of the Univ. of California v. Bakke (Civil Rights); Abington School v. Schempp (Freedom of Religion); and Texas v. Johnson (Freedom of Speech)<

While I will have no problam with any schedule you set, you might consider the addition of a case from the Criminal Prosecution group. If you agree. I suggest the Gideon v. Wainwright case on the isue of a criminal defendent's right to an attorney in a non-capital case. This was an important early 1960's case that I believe is still largely intact as the law of the land in contrast to the better known Miranda case which in recent years has been significantly modified.

YES, HAROLD, I DO AGREE! That is one that should be included by all means. So let's start with that one, O.K? Be back later with comments.

One thing I have been meaning to say regarding the discussion on capital punishment - and perhaps we can take our own little poll here - are you in favor of it or not? What a lot of decisions the Court has made regarding that!

Personally, it is one of those gray areas that I cannot see clearly. I have yet to decide and may not ever, as the years are dwindling fast,if capital punishment should be inflicted by the courts or juries.

Harold: I think you said you do not believe in it as it has not proven to be a deterrent. I wish I could be as sure in my mind. When I think of the victims of these terrible crimes of murder, I'm for it (an eye for an eye, as the good book says), but then that's the problem, society seeking revenge, and I get all cockeyed thinking of that.

ELLA,

Roe vs Wade IS very, very much a case of Women's rights and individual rights, and is the KINGPIN of the degredation of the court into a political body.

Discussing this one case will be quite an undertaking.

HAROLD. Gideon vs Wainright is a superior choice for discussion

ALL. I've heard from Katie, and she plans to be back with us next week. I'm certain she'll be happy to find that we've moved along and we'll be delighted to have the addition of her commentary.

If anyone would care to make any additional comments on the "Executive Privelege" thing, now is the time to do it.

The summation IS important in clearly limiting and defining the parameters of "Executive Privelege"

I think it reasonable to go ahead with Roe vs Wade unless you (Harold) are ready to post on Gideon vs Wainright. In either case I'll plan on posting N.L.T. Tuesday.

BEST

LJ

P.S. We are under NO time constraints in this discussion.

GIDEON vs WAINRIGHT it is.

I'm looking forward to a chance at responding rather than being "Provocateur"

Best

LJ

GOOD NEWS FROM KATIE! And yes, of course, you are right, LJ, about Roe v. Wade; I was thinking of sex discrimination cases in which my husband and I have differed so throughout the years, and probably most men as a matter of fact! So we'll proceed with Gideon, O.K?

In speaking of the rights of the accused there have been numerous decisions of the Court, but this one is definitely the landmark case and stems from the petition scribbled in jail by Mr. Gideon who had been tried and convicted in 1961 in Florida of petty crimes anad sentenced to 5 years in jail. Here we are again confronted by Federalism v. states' rights in that before this case the Supreme Court had held the position that the states could impose their own rules of defense for criminals except in federal cases. Mr. Gideon in his petition claimed that the Constitution, in the Sixth Amendment, gave him the right to have assistance of counsel and the Court decided to hear the case.

At the time this case was heard, the majority of the states were providing counsel for the poor and illiterate but Florida was not. I was very impressed with Abe Fortas' arguments weren't you? I thought he was succinct and brief and no doubt knew that if the Court was hearing this case, they had their minds made up before this hearing. It was time!! The comparisons between Mr. Fortas and Mr. Gideon were interesting weren't they? For those who do not have the book, both men were 51, southerners, whose families had come through hard times during the depression; however, Abe Fortas was a prominent and powerful attorney in Washington at the time.

The ACLU had to get in the act with their attorney presenting an argument for the poor and downtrodden of this nation. That organization always interests me as they are always poking around in the most unlikely places.

And didn't you feel sorry for the attorney from Florida, he was a bit out of his league with Fortas and the Justices.

Justice Black made a very good point when he stated that former opinions of the Court "impose an unfair burden on the states in that it leaves them uncertain in every criminal case whether it will come up here and the facts will be viewed differently to the way the facts were viewed by the state courts."

We take this for granted now, but this decision was just rendered in 1963 and before that poor people had to defend themselves in Court - not so long ago was it?

Those of you who have read The Brethern perhaps can tell us more about Abe Fortas, I hope.

Either Gideon or Roe v. Wade, either one first on the schedule is ok with me. Let us know?

By the way was there a post a week or so back that cast Roe as the Dallas Texas D.A.? I remember it the other way, ie, Wade as the D.A. Actually as I remember this case it was two cases, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Wade that were combined on appeal. Both Roe and Doe were assumed names (I guess) to protect the privacy of the parties.

As an aside remark on the capital punishment thread, in support of the argument that it is ineffective as a deterent, consider the situation in England in the 18th century when hanging was prescribed for many crimes considered petty today and when executions were public events. It is said that on "hanging day," there would be pickpockets actively practicing their calling in the crowd.

On the Subject of Justice Forta. He was LBJ's attorney in 1948 in litigation coming out of the Senate race that sent LBJ to his first term in the Senate. This was a rather close call in which the future President was finally declared the winer by something like 17 (very controversial and probably fraudulent) votes.

LBJ appointed Fortas to the court in 1965 and just before the end of the Johnson term when Warren submitted his resignation effective when a successor was confirmed, LBJ nominated Fortas as CJ. At the same time Johnson appointed a political cronie to the place being vacated by Fortas. Neither of these positions were confirmed leaving the CJ slot to be filled by Nixon. (from memory).

Harold: It was Wade. CRS strikes again! I, too, would like to take more time. I think four cases at once is too fast.

About Capital Punishment: In the movie "Dead Man Walking", the Dead Man was a composite drawn from two men who were on death row. One of them, last name Willie, kidnapped a young couple and circumstance left his two victims alive. The fellow's wounds resulted in paralysis, and the young woman's injuries were psychological rather than physical. She has written a book about how her life was changed. I read a condensation in a magazine. Each step through his appeals and the subsequent publicity awakened the pain for her. Her pain was not eased by Willie's execution. The movie was another crisis. In other words, the crime itself was such a traumatic event that she could find surcease only through her own efforts; nothing external helped. And punishing the perpetrator, ultimately, was not the answer.

As a society, we have the right to set standards for behavior and sanctions for violations of those standards. But society has not clearly defined the purpose for those sanctions. Are we acting for the victims? Are we punishing? Are we "rehabilitating"? Are we implacably responding to the stimulus of the crime? Are we fiscally weighing the cost of Treatment A vs. Treatment B? Executing murderers IS a deterent. When we kill them, we can be sure that they will not kill any more of us. A part of me, a very logical part, says that anyone who could commit such a abomination cannot be a whole person, and is not fully responsible. Some of them are immune from rehabilitation. We either kill them all or we let them all live. I would rather let them live than kill innocent men like Randall Adams.

Jackie: Did not mean to imply we take all 4-6 cases at once, Heavens, No! Just thinking if we continue on our present path of one case per week, we will be here through the New Year - O.K. with me, also!

Good questions Jackie! After reading them is it true that you are ambivalent, as am I, on capital punishment?

I did a bit of researching the web for "executive privilege" and this is what I found:

The words "executive privilege" appear nowhere in the Constitution, but the court in the Nixon case said that it was grounded in the separation of powers and the president's need, in fulfilling his constitutional duty, to obtain candid information from his advisers.

Starr traced the history of executive privilege to 1792, when George Washington refused to provide documents on military matters that had been requested by Congress. He noted that in the more than 200 years since then,presidents periodically have withheld documents and testimony from Congress, which generally acquiesced. But, he continued, requests from the courts have been "treated differently." He pointed to the example of Thomas Jefferson to illustrate the point: "Mr. Jefferson believed that presidents are free to hold back documents from Congress, but when it came to the courts, he was reluctant to provoke a confrontation."

He cited Supreme Court rulings from Jefferson's era that established three principles underlying the issue of executive privilege. "First, a president is subject to a subpoena in the proper cirrumstances; he is not above the law," Starr said. "Second, the decision to withhold subpoena information or documents must be made by the courts and not unilaterally by the president. And third, only the president can assert executive privilege."

More than 150 years passed before executive privilege found its way into court again when Nixon refused to comply with subpoenas. Starr offered a lengthy retelling of executive-privilege arguments and court actions in the Watergate case.

Ella, that was a very concise and well stated summary.

Gideon vs Wainright again represents a reversal of previous decisions, especially Betts vs Brady wherein the court denied a similar plea, saying that again it was federal interferance with states rights. For us the reversal of a "Stare Decisis" is important for its implications in today's world and "Roe vs Wade". One might argue about the basis of the reversal being on slightly different portions of the constitution and the Bill of Rights, but thats certainly "Moot" to ordinary mortals like me.

Fortas made the logic clear with his statement that the "Adversary System" itself, by nature requires at least two fully trained and qualified attorneys (I'm not so sure the adversary system is the best approach to start with and suspect that fully trained and qualified attorneys aren't in such plentiful supply.)

Justice Black, who had dissented in Betts vs Brady pointed out that the previous case had left the question open on a case by case basis and indeed the Betts vs Brady case itself had appeared to reverse a prior decision (Powell vs Philiadelphia 1932)

Ella has mentioned that this arguement was presented in a handwritten "Habeas" petition by a prisoner. These petitions were (and may still be) the only recourse for poor convicts, especially in capital convictions, for redress in a system geared to wealthy white criminal justice. Of course, the ability to approach the court ultimately resulted in abuses of the system.

To quote from "Closed Chambers: "The conservatives wanted to to end the court's indulgence....They proposed a limit on the number of unsuccessful applications a single litigant could file........(that)justice in America was truly Democratic. (That) Everyone could rerceive the court's attention, however perfunctiry....was a romantic notion....the stuff of sixth grade civics classes......In a series of 5 to 4 votes they started turning away.....the court's nusances"

"The liberals....believed in exactly what the conservatives would deny----that the judicial system had an expansive role to play in solving the dilemmas of American society and protecting its less fortunate members----whether minorities, criminals or women unwantedly pregnant."

Best

LJ

So many thoughts. In a discussion in Adams vs. Texas, it is stated that of the people under penalty of death at least 6,000 are innocent. People who, assuredly, had access to legal counsel.

No, Ella, I am not ambivalent about the death penalty. Although I know that some people are beyond redemption, I believe that a truly just society cannot discriminately kill its unfortunates. The balance Nature seeks seems to result in an underclass, however it may be defined. Using the might of society to kill diminishes us. Isolation, as a protection to the rest of us, yes. Death, no.

Jackie and LJ: We have some common meeting grounds here: (a)a system geared to wealthy white criminal justice; and (b) the balance Nature seeks seems to result in an underclass. I certainly agree with those statements as unfortunate as the facts may be.

I sense a general commonality in our thoughts (and feelings) although I am not an opponant of the Death Penalty as such

Best

LJ

L.J. & Ella & all: In message #61 L.J. wrote:

Ella has mentioned that this arguement was presented in a handwritten "Habeas" petition by a prisoner. These petitions were (and may still be) the only recourse for poor convicts, especially in capital convictions, for redress in a system geared to wealthy white criminal justice. Of course, the ability to approach the court ultimately resulted in abuses of the system.

L.J. goes on to point out that the conservatives "seek to end the Court's indulgence." I think they have been successful in this end. Under recent rulings in Capital Cases the defendent seems limited to a single appeal on the Federal Level. That appeal must address each and every issue on which the defendent relies for reversal of the conviction. When that one appeal has made its way through the Federal Courts there are to be no more Federal appeals even if later new issues emerge that if included might have effected the outcome. Furthermore the new issue might have been excluded from the original Federal appeal because of the incompetence of the attorney making the appeal or maybe as in a recent Virginia case there were obvious mistakes made in the defense strategy at the original trial. After the one Federal appeal has run its course, it becomes a State matter to be dedcided by the State Courts.

If I correctly intrepreted the brief news this morning on PBS radio on the Washington State execution carried out last night a lower Federal Court yesterday afternoon actually issued an order that would have delayed the execution. This order was vacated in a matter of hours by the single Supreme Court Justice having jurisdiction for that district, allowing the excution to be caried out.

I suspect that this "one Shot" Federal Rule will lessen the opportunity for the handwritten Writ by Death Row inmates. I think that in Texas all capital cases get not only the State Court appeals but also the shot at the Federal Courts. True, it is not unusual for the Court of Criminal Appeals which is the highest Trxas Court of criminal jurisdiction to reverse a conviction and order a new trial. Usually such a reversal is based on procedudral errors. It then goes to for the one shot Federal appeal. While in the past the procure has often draged out for 10 to 15+ years, it will now shortened to maybe 5 to 8 years.

The injustice is that the caliber of the attornies handling the case at all levels is rarely the equal of Abe Fortas and in the end the prisoner is often wheeled into the death chamber with out any attorney active in his behalf. The value of the "best attornies" (money can buy)to a criminal defendent is proven by the recent high profile California case.

Harold,

You are absolutely correct both in fact and in interpretation. However, here the arguement has "Run its course" and although I'm extremely liberal (Almost "Libertine") I think we should at least look at the conservative position.

These cases almost in their entirity have "Run the Gauntlet". They are usually thoroughly evaluated and represent the most dastardly of crimes well deserving the most stringent penalty society has to mete out.

The courts and the system have leaned over backward so far as to free admitted murderers who have actually tortured their victims to death. I think that at least a modicum of restraint must be placed upon the unending, frivolous petitioning of these madmen who are wasting our tax dollars in an effort to escape their just desserts.

I do agree that the court has probably over-reacted, and some method must be employed in an effort to instill some "Common" sense into the formula.

Again, however, at this time, in the face of an almost barbarian, iconoclastic, police state mentality embodied by the ultracoservative element on the court, there is virtually NO hope or thought of amelioration.

Best

LJ

Who, other than myself, listened to the House Judiciary Hearings on President Nixon? I was outside painting the trim of our house and had rigged up a small TV to sit on a chair and, while listening, if anything interesting happened I could watch it unfold. I didn't get much painting done after Butterfield (as I remember, but my memory is not the greatest) disclosed the fact that there were tapes of all conversations in the Oval Office.

He was asked how he knew and he said he was the one in charge of replacing them and storing them! It stunned the committee members and myself - unbelievable.

When did you hear?

I read it in the paper, but remember Sam Irwn telling the collegiate looking lawyer that blew the whistle not to try to explain what he had just said in his testimony, in these words "Dont tell me what it means, I speak the English language. Its my Mother Tongue"

Best

LJ

Yes, LJ, Sam Irwin - he was that elderly white-haired man wasn't he? I liked him - I cannot remember all their names now but at the time I knew most of them on the committee, some of whom I thought were pretty stupid and others not. It's been a long time ago. They have shown that picture of Nixon on the plane leaving Washington with that arm wave across his face several times lately - some are hoping, I am sure, that Clinton will repeat that scene.

I'm not asking, I'm not asking!! It's enough that every TV or radio has this scandalous junk on daily. Quiet time with books is best by far!

I believe Sam was speaker of the House, but as you say its been a long time.

What case would suggest next?

Best

LJ

LJ - where's Katie? I was hoping we would have our learned host by now, KATIE - CALLING KATIE!!!

What the heck - let's get into the meat of matters. Let's do Roe v. Wade, O.K? When you consider that there is no mention of abortion in the Constitution, you wonder what all this fuss is about and where it all started!

And AWAY WE GO !!!

Best

LJ

The battle of the sexes is raging in Lifestyles: Feminism. Abortion has, of course, been mentioned. Roe v. Wade will be with us for a very long time. What is the saying, you can't legislate behavior? Something like that.

Roe v. Wade: I was disappointed that the hearing seemed to consume so little space. I am joining this discussion late, so haven't caught up yet. Are these criteria common to the issues discussed so far? 1. Is this issue Policy, which is decided by the Legislative and the Executive branches? 2. What specific provisions of the Constitution does the issue rely on? As the Court must be satisfied on these points before getting to the specifics, these arguments consume some of the limited time allowed for the presentation of the case. How important are the oral arguments? Does the decision rely on those as well as the supporting documentation? I don't have the "feel" of this process yet. But what fun!

Are you ready for a surprise? I have nothing to say. Nothing of substance, that is. I've enjoyed lurking, and might still come up with a comment on Roe v Wade, but I just haven't been able to think of anything that would contribute to the discussion. I am too disheartened by the present state of things; my vocal cords are worn to a frazzle with screaming about the Special Mr. Starr and all the sanctimonious shenanigans that have occurred in the past few months. Now comes the latest fracas about hate-crime legislation, as if that would do anything more than pay lip service to political correctness while people continue to wreak whatever mischief they choose. As soon as the pundits felt they'd wrung maximum attention from the public, they finally decided (or maybe they'd just figured it out themselves) to explain what impeachment really means, and the audience, already getting bored, immediately lost interest. What happened to those high-school courses on Government and the Constitution that every senior had to pass?

When I was active in the League of Women Voters we used to feel quite confident in our Constitutional knowledge, and the byword was "a broad and flexible document." Hence no school-prayer amendments, no curtailment of reproductive rights, no other narrow and restrictive details could be spelled out and attached to it. That also means Our Side sometimes changes places with Their Side, as interpretations change. Which 23 cases will be landmarks 23 years from now? It's a scary world. Thinking of pulling my head in and taking refuge in my shell.

Ros

Ros: What did you think of Whizzer White's reason for dissent in Roe v Wade, i.e. the concept of fetal personhood (A totally new concept in American Jurisprudence); and Rhenquists dissent because he thinks/thought that the constitution contains NO PRIVACY RIGHTS?

Roe v Wade became the blasting cap for a judicial war which has denigrated the supreme court and the justices therein. Following Viet-Nam it is now a second schism which represent(s) the destructive forces in American society.

Starting in '85 Jefferson Sessions became a victim of confirmation scrutiny because of his "Oddball and offensive racist remarks". Other names were withdrawn, but the federal courts were essentially packed with ultraconservative ideologues such as Robert Bork, Kenneth Starr and Lawrence Silberman.

There were many other constitutional bases upon which the case (Roe v Wade) might have been decided e.g. the "Equal Protection" clause, the first amendment's prohibition on the establishment of religion, or the 13th amendment's abolition of involuntary servitude. It has even been called "The wandering Jew of Constitutional Law"

Subsequent decisions begining in 1988 have had little or nothing to do with "Law", being characterized by opinions on both sides of the court which have been "Not only logically wrong and morally inadequate, but......... fundimentally dishonest either by design or through gross negligence." (I quote freely from Edward Lazarus' "Closed Chambers"

Best

LJ

Well, South Texas has just went throught its 100 year record rain storm! Yes a fifty mile wide corredor between San Antonio and Austin has received between 15 and 20 inches during the last 24 hours. As might be expected this has lead to many problems including much property damage an some loss of life.

Here at my place South of Seguin, I did not get so much but surely 8 to 12 inches fell during the period. While normally dry Cottonwood creek a quarter of a mile down the hill is a raging river, I am high and dry. Though I am temporarily isolated and my ponds are full with the normally dry run-off creeks through my pastures in full flow, the only problems so far is a reduced potable water pressure and a 15 hour outage of my dial-up access to Texas Net. The telephone problem was on their end, not mine. The isolation has given me some time to formulate some comments on the basis for the Roe v. Wade decision. Most of the material in the comments which follow come from a paper I wrote for a Civil Rights Seminar in May, 1973.

In the past the Court has relied on the following legal principals to suport decision invalidating a State statute regulating the personal activities of citizens:

The 9th Ammendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." These words have been interpreted to mean there are unnamed rights retained by individuals on which the State may not tread.

The Due Process Clause of the 14 Amendment. One view of this basis would limit its scope to simply making the provisions of the Bill of Rights amendments, initially applicable only to the Federal Government, applicable to the States. Another less restrictive view would allow Court invalidation a State Statute involving other issues on a showing that the right being curtailed was fundemental and that there was no overriding reason for State interest in limiting the exercise of the right.

The Peripheral Rights Approach. This theory had first been suggested in a 1890 Harvard Law Revies Article by Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis (4 Harv. L. Rev.,193). This Article theorized that certain of the Bill of Rights Amendments created Penumbras or impliied, though unwritten, peripheral provisions necessary to give the amendment meaning and effect. Later one of the authors as Mr Justic Brandeis wrote a well accepted dissent in Olmstead v. U.S. promoting this theory (277 U.S. 438, 1927).

The Peripheral Rights theory finally received the acceptence of a majority of the Court in a 1965 case styled Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479 (1965). This case involved a Connecticut law severely regulating and restricting the sale of birth control products. The law even restricted the ability of health care professionals to give patients information on the use of these products. The language of at least 5 of the justices indicated a clear acceptance of the principals of the Brandeis dissent in the Olmstead Case. Two of the Justices concurred in the illegality of the State Statute but appeared to rely more on the 9th amencment or the Due Process Clause. Only two Justices disented basing their action on the lack of any expressed Right to Privacy in the Bill of Rights amendments.

During the years following the Griswold decision the courts extended Privacy Rights to other situations mostly related to personal relationships and other areas requiring individual decision. The Roe v. Wade decision is one of these. Here of course the issue was the right of a Woman to terminate (for what ever reason) a pregnancy. Here the court appeared to continue to accept the right to privacy theory, but the 9th amendment and the Due Process clause also were factors. Also limitations to the right were attached. To quote from the majority opinion:

We herefore conclude that the right to personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important State interests in regulations.

The Court then went on to say that during the first trimester of a pregency the decision rested solely with the woman and her doctor. The state must not interfer during this stage. During the second trimester, the State begins to acquire an interest allowing it to make regulations, but not prohibit the event. During the third trimeste, after the fetus is deemed viable and capable of living outside the womb, the States interest in a potential human life justifies the State, if it chooses, in prohibiting abortion except where necessary to protect the mother's life.

I suspect that the Courts apparent lack of enthusiasm in allowing the privacy right, reflects the Court's concern for too much privacy in what is increasingly becoming an un-private world. Think of the effect of unlimited privacy in our modern credit card society and on a tax structure which by its nature requiring the revelation of the most personal financial and business details. In any case it is my observation that the court has been quite reluctant to firmly embrace privacy as a basic indivual right. This fact is evident in the second of our book cases on the privacy issue,Bowers v. Hardwick. Here, in 1986, the Supreme court majority refused to sustain the lower Federal Court decision supporting a privacy claim under facts that would seemingly put it squarely within the precedent of the Griswold and Roe opinions.

The fallout from Roe is still with us today (especially today) largely in the person of Kenneth Starr who was so pathologically conservative that he couldn't be nominated for vacancies in the supreme court. In an arguement for over-ruling Roe, Starr said, "No credible foundation exists for the claim that a woman enjoys a fundimental right to abortion". Further, he defended ANY state regulation of abortion short of being "Arbitrary or capricious"

Ultimately, in spite of the ultra-right-wing dedication of the court, the latest attack on Roe and attempt to reverse it completely, failed by one vote. Upon exiting, "A lawyer from Kenneth Starr's Soliciter General's office mumbled angrily, 'One more vote, we need one more f____ing vote,'" however on the "Abortion-Rights" side it is felt that Roe v Wade has been gutted.

Best

LJ

Haven't forgotten this discussion, and have a lot to say about Roe v. Wade, but have been out of town and now catching up. Will do some reading and be back.

For those of us who do not have the book, a summary of the case and arguments would be in order, don't you agree?

LJ: Do you want to do this or shall I?

Harold: I want to read thoroughly what you posted a few days ago. For now though I hope the water has receded in Texas - we watched the flood news last night - terrible! Are you still O.K?

Ella, Please go ahead.

Best

LJ

Harold - are you still safe? I have written a short summary of this case and have simplified your statements concerning the amendments of the Constitution.

I agree with Justice Souter who emphasized the importance of adhering to a Court precedent such as Roe v. Wade and said "An entire generation has come of age free to assume Roe's concept of liberty in defining the capacity of women to make reproductive decisions..." Although Chief Justice Rehnquist opposes abortion, it is still valid, although as LJ stated it is being gutted.

Roe v. Wade, the abortion case, is a highly emotional issue for all of us and it doesn't seem to have a neutral ground; you are either pro-choice or pro-life and it took tremendous courage on the part of the Justices to make this decision. The case's history began with the liberal Warren Court which overturned a Connecticut law forbidding the use of contraceptives by married couples in 1962 (Griswold v. Connecticut). It seems astonishing that this law existed in any state at that time and I don't know if Connecticut is/was a primarily Catholic state,does anyone know?

In summarizing this case, I am not going into vast details of amendments cited, statements made by various justices, etc., although they are fascinating to read. However, for purposes of simplicity I will try to state just facts.

When Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, it followed upon the turbulent '60's and 70's and the feminist movement which demanded that women should have control of their bodies. By a 7-2 vote the Burger Court overturned the Texas law banning abortion, but gave the states the right to assert interests in the pregnancy, especially in the trimesters. It is only in the 1st trimester in which a woman may have an abortion without interference of any regulation.

Presidents Reagan and Bush, both of whom opposed abortion, sought to "pack the court" with justices whom they believed might overturn the Roe decision and much to their disappointment they did not succeed However, the Court has heard numerous cases involving abortion and states' rights, but the basic decision still stands.

Bless her heart, Justice O'Connor, I believe, had an impact on the Court. She stated "The central holding of Roe v. Wade must be reaffirmed….Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code."

Personally, I am a product of the '60's feminist movement in many aspects; however I do not endorse them all. On this point I am adamant - a woman's body belongs to her, be that body pregnant or not and I resent a bunch of men deciding this issue. If we allow this decision to be overturned, we are taking two big steps backward in women's rights; back to those dark days when women were the property of men and no rights whatsoever.

We are aware of all the arguments put forth by religious leaders (mostly men), fathers of the unborn children who would like to control the issue and yet not support the unwanted child in many instances, and on and on (time is getting the better of me).

That's a simplification of this case, but perhaps it will open up a discussion? Those who are pro-life step up and let us debate the issues!

I well remember my best girlfriend, who was Cathholic and married just a few months before I did, telling me, in answer to my question, that she most certainly was going to use contraceptives and when the Pope informed her that he would finance the care and education of her children, then she would have a bushel full; in the meantime she was going to have 2 and that was it. And that is exactly what she did! This happened in 1950 long before women's rights came to the forefront of conversation - and my friend was a staunch Catholic in all other regards.

Is the Catholic church's influence waning? Should it in this regard, particularly in third world countries where so many children are being born in poverty?

Ella, you will never know I relieved I am to see your views on this issue! See you next week!

Ella, L.J. and all:

South Texas is drying out now, Here I was high enough to avoid flood damage. I was cut off from both San Antonio and Seguin from Saturday noon until Tuesday morning. The rains continued through Monday with light drizle and showers continuing through Wednesday. Finally, yesterday we saw the sun. So the drying has begun though the damage along the rivers and creeks will take a long while to obliterate. I heard this morning that the fatality count in the several counties in the storm area was up to 29.

Back to Roe, I might offer the following additional comments. I have not reviewed the several major recent cases for this discussion, but I did read them when they were issued and distributed over the past 3 years by the Cornell Mailing list which I mentioned earlier. I agree the recent decisions have been somewhat restrictive. I do not, however, believe the word, "gutted" is descripive. To the great disappointment of the so called "religious right" the basic right remains. I think this is due to the meticulous design of the Roe opinion which took great pains in spelling out the nature of the abortion right and where the interests of the State might justify regulation or denial.

As I view the recent decisions, the restrictions allowed are those contimplated by the Roe opinion or otherwise are allowed under some other fundimental constitutional provision. As I understand the present law, the right of an adult woman to make the abortion decision during the first trimester remains intact. If any restrictions have been allowed in this area, do they not relate to notification of parents of teen age girls? The right of the female minor is such a case yields the to other fundamental constitutional rights, the right of parents to bring up their childern as they see fit. Other decisions have maintained the right of opponents to picket abortion clinics in a manner that might be considered agressive, but again the allowanced comes from the injection of other fundamental rights involing first amendment rights applied in the abortion situation. This is not the gutting of Roe.

In the case of late term abortion, is it not true that some States today prohibit the so called "partial birth" procedure? This is a 3rd trimester procedure which the Roe decision clearly said the State Interest allowed regulation or even prohibition by State law. The recent controversy has involved Federal legislation that would prohibit the procedure in all States. The Presidental veto is based on objection to the absence of an exception allowing the procedure in cases where the life of the mother is at stake. This is an extreme procedure involving the mutilation and death of a viable fetus. While I do not agree with the denial of the exception in situations involving the life of the mother, I would not consider a properly drafted Federal law (or State law) a refutation of the Roe decision.

Some of the previous comments have concern the political nature of presidential appointments. Since the presidency is a political office, how can it be otherwise? Politics must always be a factor. A really all out political appointment was the 1950's choice of Earl Warren as C.J. I don't think President Eisenhauer thought for a moment about how Warren would decide future issues. He was a Republican to whom Eisenhauer owed a political debt. So Warren got the appointment. Later I don't think Eisenhauer was particularly pleased with his choice. Nixon set out to reconstruct the court with a Republican outlook. But abortion at that date was not an issue. Yet his appoinees were among the majority in the Roe case including the Author of the majority opinion. President Ford was clearely the most socially liberal of the recent Republican Presidents. Yet he appointed Renquist as A.J., who disented in the Roe and later cases. Regan clearly set out to choose candidates who he thought would over turn Roe. Yet he too must later have considered some of his appointees as disappointments. And as for Bush, his confidence in Clarence Thomas on the abortion issue was certainly a factor in the appointment choice. Clinton has had two appointments and again his politics has been factors. But now the President must consider the Senate in choising his nominee.

This brings up the other recent development in the Supreme Court nomination ritual. Historically the Senate hardly questioned the choice. Was it in "The Bretheren" or another book I read a few years back concerning the 1930's Senate confirmation of William O Douglas as A.J.? A hearing was scheduled and the candidate was advised the time. Douglas arrived at the appointed time and waited a few hours in an anteroom until he was advised the Committee had approved his nomination. They did not require his testimony. Years later there were members promoting his impeachment. Contrast this to the Thomas hearings and other recent nominees confirmation procedings.

Certainly the question of Senate confirmation is today a singificant factor in the making of a Presidental choice to fill vacencies on the Court. This may have cost Mario Como the ex New York Governor who would probably have been Clintons choice after his 1994 election defeat. Concern over his confirmation by the newly elected Republican majority in the Senate led to reconsideration and another choice.

HAROLD,

That was an excellent post, balancing the liberal commentary which I partially cited in "Closed Chambers", but I think it makes too little of the venom within the court and the congress since the Bork nomination and the Reagan extremism.

I will defer to the Distaff side for opinion regarding the extent to which Roe has been diluted, but I tend to agree with you that it hasn't been a major setback.

On the other hand I side with the Liberal view on the court's failure to expand privacy rights and failure to fully insure fairness in jury selection. I side with the conservatives to some extent on the present "Death Penalty" issues

In spite of my intensely liberal views and the fact that I consider the ultra-conservatives to be fundimentally evil, I do think the court will survive. This is not the first time that there have been second class thinkers or even a second class chief justice on the court, and some of those have been liberal as well as conservative.

We have come a long way since the Dred Scott decision and there is no reason to believe that justice will not ultimately prevail. It is actually a bit shocking to imagine the extent of bigotry and unfairness that existed in constitutional law when we (I) was/were (a) child(ren)

Best

LJ

LJ, Harold, et al: great discussion going on. The bleak, bare bones write up in the book is developing colorful depth. The Court seems to stumble, sometimes, into its path, in spite the opinions far out in left and right fields. Since definition of unlawful is, somewhat, a political function, it is a process. Sort of like a sculptor cutting off the bits of stone that don't belong. To me, the division into trimesters seems reasonable. Fundamentally, the debate seems to use the fetus for a symbol, but is ultimately about the right to decide. I can't understand why (some) MEN are so vehemently opposed to abortion when they can be immune to the consequences of sex. Sadly, another physician has paid with his/her life for performing abortions. Killed by a sniper. What irony.

Re. L.J. Message #84: I respect your liberal views as expressed in in the subject message. I think this statement deserves a short corresponding outline of my position in the liberal/ conservative debate.

I consider my self quite liberal on social issues. This means that generally on issues involving the basic rights of individuals to live their lives as they see fit, I call myself a liberal. On Economic issues, I tend to be conservative and generally I am sympathetic with the ideas of free market economics.

I think my position in both of these areas results from my libertarian (small "l" intentional) philosophy. Relating this to attitude toward the cases under review, I think the present Court tends to be "populist" which is the antithesis of "libertarianism."

As an aside comment I will add, we have had one rather recent (closet) liberterian on the Supreme Court. I refer to the late William O. Douglas. It is said of him that his approach looked first to the protection of individual rights over those of business and government, and to the rights of business over government. I don't know how well this characterization would survive critical review, but he has acquired the reputation as a liberterian. This in any case was the position of the of the populist,right wing faction which in the 1970's was agitating for his impeachment.

I could go much deeper into this subject which of course could be an endless debate unappropriate here. I will, however, raise this question? Is there or could there be a Senior's Net forum in which to debate in an intelectual and unemotional manner the socal, political, and economic, aspects of the liberal/conservative continum? Sort of like the PBS Bridges Radio program.

Harold: Yes, yes, yes. However, this is from a lurker who has few original thoughts; but I make a great audience! Bridges is broadcast here at 11PM on Sunday nights; I am usually drifting off to sleep while I listen.

I do have a question for a small l libertarian: social programs have a price tag; how, as a fiscal conservative, do you forsee financing them? Some libertarians have told me that services such as fire departments should be available only to those who can pay for them. Schools, medical care, etc, would also be available at a price (I assume with a free market profit built-in). In other words, where does one draw the line?

Harold, We seem to be essentially in agreement, and in this discussion we're not likely to to devolve into hostile factions. Other areas (especially outside of the bookclubs) are another matter.

Would you belteve that at one time, I was politically to the right of Genghis Kahn?

I might add that, that was in the days before Nam, before we knew so much about our leaders and institutions, before hippies, Nixon, and even before the massive T-V popularization of professional wrestling. Back when "Patriotism" was "IN" and when we were and could be proud of it and when "The American Dream" still seemed like a reality. When kids could ramble safely through parks and no-one questioned the motives of Priests and Boy Scout leaders.

Good Grief. What happened? Is this still the same planet? Or was I just uneducated and naive? Or????

Best

LJ Best

LJ

All right, O.K., all you politicians - while you are finding the appropriate forum for your political discussions shall we head on back to the Supreme Court decisions in our selected book?

LJ: Your turn, or Harold or Jackie - choose a case and let us proceed henceforth, if you so desire.

I have a question. Does the same attorney that represented the clients (petitioners) always argue the case when it gets to the Supreme Court? If not, who chooses the appropriate attorney? I would imagine it would be a great honor to argue before the Supreme Court, right? And, if the petitioners cannot afford to carry the case this far, would an attorney step up to do it pro bono? Anyone know how this works?

And is the Attorney representing the other side (respondent) - well, is he most generally the Attorney General of that state or how is he chosen? Who knows?

How about Miranda vs Arizona?

Best

LJ

Hi Folks,

SeniorNet will be down tonight for about 1/2hr to and hour. Read Marcie's message here

Re: Ella Gibbson, Message 88.

I have a question. Does the same attorney that represented the clients (petitioners) always argue the case when it gets to the Supreme Court.

No. Particularly in criminal cases where the defendent is often indigent represented by a Court appointed attorney in the trial court. Often another is appointed for the appeals, somtimes different attornies for the several appeal stages. This was the case in the Gideon case where the lucky defendent had Abe Fortas pro bono. Such good fortune is seldom the experience. This is a great inequity in our system.

In one of the cases in the book (I don't remember which one) the case was first argued by an attorney from the attorney general's office. The court count came up split even since there was a vacancy on the court that had not been filled. Since the issue was considered an important one, the Court decided to hear arguments again in the following term. Since the States attorney had done a very poor job in the initial argument, he was replaced by another attorney the second time around.

If not, who chooses the appropriate attorney? I would imagine it would be a great honor to argue before the Supreme Court, right?

Generally in criminal appeals the State appoints and pays a small fee schedule for mandatory appeals. Often the ACLU or maybe other groups provides an attorney.

In civil cases many are settled short of final appeal simply because it is cheaper. In civil cases involving a defendent who is not indigent many simply end the case without further appeal. In such a case the plaintif collects what he can (As in the O.J. civil case{.

And, if the petitioners cannot afford to carry the case this far, would an attorney step up to do it pro bono? Anyone know how this works?

Not too likely in a civil case. Maybe in some cases a trade association might take up the issue or maybe a consumers group.

And is the Attorney representing the other side (respondent) most generally the Attorney General of that state or how is he chosen?

If a State is involved an Attorney from the Attorney General's Office will most often represent the State. Sometimes because of the nature of the Suit the Attorney General will hire an outside attorney. This happened in the recent Texas tobacco suit. This case was settled earlier this year for billions in damages. Umder the contingent fee agreement the outside attornies were entitled to over a billion dollars as their fee. This led to general public outrage. I think a compromise settlement reducing the fee was worked out with the firm.

I believe that those attorneys who argue before the Supreme Court have gone through some sort of vetting process; in other words, not just anybody can walk in and argue. Will check this out, although I'm not sure where to go for now.

Miranda sounds good.

Thanks Harold for that information.

Jackie: Yes, I was speaking about attorneys for the Supreme Court cases, I guess I did not make that clear. How and by whom are they appointed to argue cases coming before the Court? As you say, not just anybody can do that.

Re:Messages 92 & 93

There are separate licensing processes for the State Bars, the Federal Bar, and the Supreme Court Bar. State Bar membership generally entitles members to practice in the State Courts. Federal Bar membership generally entitled successful applicants to practice in the lower Federal Courts, but not the Supreme Court. In contrast to the rigorous examinations given applicants for the State and Federal Bars, during the 1970's at any rate, Supreme Court Bar membership was largely a ceremonial formality for members of a State and the Federal Bar. Many Members of the Federal Bar who never intend to practice before the Supreme Court went through the investure process for the prestige of the impressive certificate to hang on the office wall.

Regarding Miranda, I don't think it is a great case for our discussion because I understand it has been subject to considerable dilution by recent cases. If we are prepared to research the recent cases, I agree it would be a great case to discuss since its 1970's impact on criminal law was significant. We probably have internet resources with which to find more recent cases. I'm game if your are.

THAT I DIDN'T KNOW HAROLD!! Attorneys must pass a Federal bar examination before they can argue in federal courts or the Supreme Court? Good to learn something new always. Perhaps I should have known, the attorneys I worked for many long years ago spoke of the state bar, but I don't remember hearing them talk of the federal bar. I wonder how many attorneys do take this exam! Would it be similar to the states except more general (in contrast to specific state statues)? Very interesting. If I had thought about it more, I would probably have thought that state bar exams would be reciprocal, but that is not the case?

My daughter is a nurse and some states have reciprocal agreements with her boards, but others do not; which means, of course, she would have to take their state RN boards.

As to other cases, I'll list a few from our book and you pick one Harold.

Wisconsin v. Yoder
Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board
New York Times v. United States
Palmer v. Thompson
Regents v. Bakke
Bowers v. Hardwick


I picked cases randomly under headings such as: "Congress Shall Make No Law" - "Equal Protection of the Laws" - and on and on.

Feel free to pick one that is interesting to you. I'm sticking to the ones in the book so we can have some knowledge of the arguments. Just delighted that you are interested in the subject as your posts have shown - knowledgeable too. A good opportunity for me to learn something - always welcome.

The Lazarus book, CR '98 makes no allusion to any significant dilution of Miranda.

I have a friend who, upon graduation from Duke law school (About '62) was "Introduced " to the Supreme Court by his father. I don't "Know", but he gave me to understand that essentially, this was a formality and otherwise nothing major was required to be admitted to practice in that venue.

Best

LJ

I wonder how many attorneys do take this exam! Would it be similar to the states except more general (in contrast to specific state statues)? Very interesting. If I had thought about it more, I would probably have thought that state bar exams would be reciprocal, but that is not the case? , but that is not the case?

I think most attornies in serious practice seek Federal Bar membership. This is particularly true if they intend to do trial work. The Federal exam is centered on the knowledge of Federal laws, rules governing the conflict of laws, and particularly the Rules of Federal Procedure.

Regarding reciprocity, to day subject to limitations, I think practice in different State Courts comes rather easily. This is because of the multi-state design of State Bar examinations today. This means most sections of the State examination test the applicatant for knowledge of the law as he/she might find it in different jurisdictions. This was not always the case. In Texas, prior to 1975 the exam was Texas specific and reciprocity was not easy.

Re: Ella Gibbons, Message 95

As to other cases, I'll list a few from our book and you pick one Harold

You guys go ahead and pick. They are all interesting so far as I am concern. Also relative to Miranda, I checked several recent cases available to me through the internet, and I didn't find it so badly eroded. However, last year, I saw a reference to a law review article that used the "over ruled" word in regard to it. If you choose to do this case, I will check it out at the St Mary's Library and see what I can find.

PS: check my "Holloween" post on the recently inactive History board.

The Miranda case is fairly simple and indeed simply presented here in this book, but it marks not only a BIG leap in the rights of suspects, criminals, and innocent victims of the police. (An admixture which gives one pause), but marks a point of change in attitudes.

(Later) Justice Powell a Virginia Patrician, Past President of the A.B.A. who had overseen the desegregation of the Richmond schools was initially vehemently opposed to this (The Miranda) decision, And Rhenquist was infuriated (Of course He didn't change) when trying to provide legal justification for the dragnet arrests of several thousand 1971 MayDay antiwar protesters by Washington D.C. police. (I was there. It was a nazi, police state, unconstitutional mass arrest and concentration camp in the nation's capitol)

Best

LJ

You were there LJ! Tell us more about being in this protest mob! Were you there as an individual or were you with a group? Were you arrested? Where did they take you and how long did you stay there? Were many injured?

What a dreadful time in this nation's history. It will never be forgotten. I know we all have memories of it and personal stories we could tell.

No I wasn't arrested, I was in D.C. for a meeting but was identifiable by an armband as a protester.

My most vivid memory was the low flying aircraft (Helicoptors) around Embassy Row part of which was cordoned off.

Not only did they make a Concentration Camp out of a sports stadium, they prevented ambulances (Medical Aid) from reaching the "Camp"

That was the day my whole political outlook completed its change and solidified.

Best

LJ

LJ: Where does that event fit on the chronology scale of Watergate? I don't remember when the Break-in occurred. This protest and its subsequent headlines must have contributed mightily to the White House' paranoia. I am sorry for your distress, but it resulted in you joining the "right" side !

Gee Jackie, Its been so long that I don't remember the chronology. The breakin occurred before the election and at the time, almost nobody out in the countryside realized its importance except for McGovern, and nobody was listening to him.

The anti-war movement by that time (i.e. May-Day) had already reached a nearly "Fever" pitch. Nixon's election literally pushed it over the edge, especially when he enlarged the war and restarted the Cambodian bombing.

Do you remember being called "Effete" by the V.P.?

I've been singularly unsuccessful at stirring up interest in the book clubs in reading ANYTHING about that era. One book was pretty convincing that Alex Haag was "Deep-Throat" and nothing more logical has been presented. The "Mea Culpa" chance that McNamara had was blown in his "The Living and the Dead" But then , its hard for anyone to describe his lies without saying "I was a Liar". His blindness to right and wrong springing from his loyalty to the office of President are never resolved. There's a new one out by and about the McBundy Brothers which I'd like to read.

Anyway, I thought and still think that the May-Day attack on "The People" was the lowest point of the era, approached only by "My Lai" and similar episodes which were spoken of in those days but which have not been publicised, and by the "Police Riot" in Chicago. at the convention.

To this day, I consider the right wing to be "Savages" unworthy of the title "Civilized" and have not read a single copy of "TIME" magazine whose editorial policy was deliberately aimed at promulgating government lies.

Enough !!!

Best

LJ Best

LJ

I thought the DESHANEY Vs. Winnebego County case was a good example of the Reagan Court taking the narrow view of questions in its conservative backlash. The decision was a split along standard lines, but one can see the logic on both sides (Rhenquist, probably didn't need to think, but the others may have given it some open-minded thought)

Best<P. LJ

LJ: Had to return all my books back to the Library - even had to pay my fines for them, all of a dime a day. I do have the skeletal "May it Please the Court" which I bought so there will be no references on my part other than that book. And as I'm leaving Sunday for a week am not going to do much reading.

Well, Much depends upon the interest you readers have in discussing any particular case.

The book itself is pretty "Bare Bones", poorly annotated and lacking in any major background material. It lacks any significant cross reference, and I'd give it a 2 on a scale of 1 to 10

We've had a rather rocky course, having lost our discussion leader before we began and I've gathered that (although I've annotated and cross referenced all the cases presented) no-one is realy interested in discussing all of the cases.

The most glareing hiati in our discussions and in the books presentations have been GREGG vs Georgia and Brown vs Board of Ed., so unless someone is interested in either of these ar any other particular case, we can put this one to bed.

I would like to recommend to you very highly, Edward P. Lazarus' "CLOSED CHAMBERS" A most well written, annotated and readable text that gives a genuine "Feel" for the court, but note that "Familiarity Breeds Contempt". He describes such human behavior in those hallowed precincts as an actual fistfight between conservative and liberal firebrands among the clerks (At least it was at a supposedly social gathering outside of "Office Hours")

I've enjoyed all your comments, and I think we gave the book better than it deserved. Unfortunately, it didn't deserve much.

Best

LJ

Re: L.J. Message #106

The book itself is pretty "Bare Bones", poorly annotated and lacking in any major background material. It lacks any significant cross reference, and I'd give it a 2 on a scale of 1 to 10

I'm pretty much inclined to agree with the above judgement. I suspect the impact of this publication was intended to come more through the recordings of the argument than the text. I think most of the editorial comments are in the text of the arguments. Seldon do annotations appear in the decision sections.

With exceptions (as the Roe case and a few others) I don't feel the choices were the best. Yet in a single month we have generated a substantial traffic of over 100 messages. (But perhaps 30 - 40% of these were in the preliminary period before the discussion began). I will follow your lead and will I suspect have comment on any case you care to bring up.

I'm sort of tied up right now but as soon as I get the chance, I will give short reviews of two nitch books on the "History" board. The first book, I will subtitle,"Rank Has its Privleges." It describes an 1876 wild turkey hunt which General Philip H. Sheridan put on for his former staff and associates, apparently at government expense. The other book is an new translation of the 120 page Journal of Cabeza de Vaca who was shipwrecked on the Texas coast in 1526. The short account describes his 10 year trek accross Texas and Mexico and his final link up with Spanish in Western Mexico and return to Mexico City and Spain.

HAROLD, Those both sound great. I'm copying your note and will look forward to seeing the posts on the history board. They sound like two upcoming books for discussion in that area.

Best

LJ

I agree with your assessment LJ, and I have an idea that Jackie feels this way too as she is tied up leading a book discussion.

Without background material, this book does not appeal much. It was a good try though and I enjoyed the conversation.