DOCSLIB.ORG

Bruce Ackerman, “The New Separation of Powers”

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bruce Ackerman, “The New Separation of Powers” ACKERMAN THE NEW SEPARATION OF POWERS HLR.DOC 10/23/08 – 11:18 AM VOLUME 113 JANUARY 2000 NUMBER 3 THE NEW SEPARATION OF POWERS Bruce Ackerman TABLE OF CONTENTS I. DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY ............................................................................................................642 A. Against Presidentialism ........................................................................................................643 1. The Separationist Response ...............................................................................................644 2. Beyond the Westminster Tradition.....................................................................................653 3. The Cult of Personality ......................................................................................................657 B. Constrained Parliamentarianism..........................................................................................664 1. Bringing the People Back In..............................................................................................666 2. The Court as a Constraint ..................................................................................................668 3. From Theory to Practice ....................................................................................................670 C. The One-and-a-Half House Solution.....................................................................................671 1. Elected Federalist Chambers .............................................................................................673 2. Ambassadorial Chambers ..................................................................................................680 3. Bicameralism without Federalism .....................................................................................683 II. FUNCTIONAL SPECIALIZATION ....................................................................................................688 A. The Intellectual Challenge.....................................................................................................690 1. America .............................................................................................................................690 2. Europe ...............................................................................................................................692 B. Two Modest Proposals ...........................................................................................................693 1. The Integrity Branch ..........................................................................................................694 2. The Regulatory Branch ......................................................................................................696 C. Warring Separationisms.........................................................................................................697 D. From Theory to Practice .......................................................................................................702 1. The Costs of Politicized Professionalism ..........................................................................702 2. From Macro to Micro.........................................................................................................709 E. Separationism and the Rule of Law .......................................................................................712 III. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ..............................................................................................................715 A. The Democracy Branch ..........................................................................................................716 B. Safeguarding Fundamental Rights .........................................................................................722 1. Laissez-Faire Liberalism: Will a Constitutional Court Suffice? ......................................722 2. Activist Liberalism: The Distributive Justice Branch ......................................................723 IV. THE SHAPE OF THE NEW SEPARATIONISM ..................................................................................727 633 ACKERMAN THE NEW SEPARATION OF POWERS HLR.DOC 10/23/08 – 11:18 AM THE NEW SEPARATION OF POWERS Bruce Ackerman∗ This essay in comparative constitutional theory considers whether an American-style separation of powers should serve as a model for other countries. Professor Ackerman argues against the export of the American system in favor of an approach based on the constitutional practice of Germany, Italy, Japan, India, Canada, South Africa, and many other nations. According to this model of “constrained parliamentarianism,” the constitution should not create an independently elected presidency to check and balance a popularly elected congress. Instead, it should authorize a prime minister and her cabinet to remain in power as long as they can retain the support of a democratically elected chamber of deputies. Constrained parliamentarianism tries to check the power of the cabinet and the chamber, however, by granting independence to a variety of other checking institutions, including a constitutional court. Professor Ackerman argues that this model offers a more promising path to constitutional development than the American approach. He shows how it can generate a variety of institutional strategies that better serve the three great principles that motivate the modern doctrine of separation of powers ⎯ democracy, professionalism, and the protection of fundamental rights. [T]he Federalist Constitution has proved to be a brilliant success, which uni- tary nation states and parliamentary democracies all over the world would do well to copy. I give it most of the credit for the fact that ours is the wealthiest, most technologically advanced, and most socially just society in human his- tory, not to mention the fact that we have with ease become a military super- power . The rest of the world is quite rightly impressed with us, and it is thus no accident that the United States of America has become the biggest sin- gle exporter of public law in the history of humankind. Almost wherever one looks, written constitutions, federalism, separation of powers, bills of rights, and judicial review are on the ascendancy all over the world right now — and for a good reason. They work better than any of the alternatives that have been tried.1 erhaps Steven Calabresi’s triumphalism is typical today, but it contrasts P sharply with previous American attitudes. A half-century ago this country stood even taller in the world than it does now. As the only great power escaping massive destruction during World War II, America’s mor- alistic pretensions were at their apogee. Yet its constitutional prescriptions ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ∗ Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale University. Many thanks to Akhil Amar, Olivier Beaud, Aharon Barak, Alexander Blankenagel, James Boyle, Robert Dahl, Mirjan Damaska, Bill Eskridge, Victor Ferreres, Owen Fiss, Larry Lessig, Juan Linz, Jerry Mashaw, Ugo Mattei, David Mayhew, Carol Rose, Susan Rose-Ackerman, Cass Sunstein, Giuseppe de Vergottini, Patrick Weill, and the participants at faculty workshops at Harvard and Yale Law Schools. I am also grateful to Serena Hoy, Ilya Somin, and Rivka Weill for outstanding research assistance. 1 Steven G. Calabresi, An Agenda for Constitutional Reform, in CONSTITUTIONAL STUPIDITIES, CONSTITUTIONAL TRAGEDIES 22, 22 (William N. Eskridge, Jr. & Sanford Levinson eds., 1998) [hereinafter CONSTITUTIONAL STUPIDITIES]. 634 ACKERMAN THE NEW SEPARATION OF POWERS HLR.DOC 10/23/08 – 11:18 AM 2000] NEW SEPARATION OF POWERS 635 were a good deal more discriminating. To be sure, the United States sup- ported written constitutions, bills of rights, judicial review — and, on oc- casion, federalism.2 But the separation of powers? American influence reached its zenith in post-war Japan — with Gen- eral MacArthur’s legal staff presenting a draft constitution to the Japanese within a ridiculously short space of time.3 For all the rush, the draftsmen did not propose an American-style separation of powers. In particular, they did not require Japan to embrace an American-style presidency as part of the price of its defeat.4 There emerged instead a distinctive regime- type: one that I will call “constrained parliamentarianism.” As in Great Britain, Japan’s Prime Minister and his Cabinet must retain the confidence of the Diet to remain in office. But, in contrast to the Westminster model, the Japanese Parliament is not fully sovereign. Its legislative powers are limited by a written constitution, a bill of rights, and a supreme court. Nor did the Americans impose a strongly bicameral legislature — fea- turing an upper house checking and balancing the lower with full Madison- ian vigor. The Japanese House of Representatives plays the dominant role in selecting the Cabinet. Although the upper House of Councillors has significant powers, it is not the constitutional equal of the lower House.5 Call this the “one-and-a-half house solution.” ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 2 Of the three defeated Axis powers, Japan and Italy became unified nation states, and only Ger- many was required by the Allies to adopt a federal form of government. See, e.g., PETER H. MERKL, THE ORIGIN OF THE WEST GERMAN REPUBLIC 8–11, 19, 121 (1963) (recounting American and Al- lied insistence that Germany adopt a federal structure). 3 See
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Henry Friendly and the Law of Federal Courts
    Michigan Law Review Volume 112 Issue 6 2014 Some Kind of Judge: Henry Friendly and the Law of Federal Courts Aaron P. Brecher U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Judges Commons, Legal Biography Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Aaron P. Brecher, Some Kind of Judge: Henry Friendly and the Law of Federal Courts, 112 MICH. L. REV. 1179 (2014). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol112/iss6/16 This Book Notice is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BOOK NOTICE Some Kind of Judge: Henry Friendly and the Law of Federal Courts Aaron P. Brecher* Henry Friendly, Greatest Judge of His Era. By David M. Dorsen. Fore- word by Richard A. Posner. Cambridge and London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 2012. Pp. xiii, 498. $35. Introduction Uberfans¨ of the federal judiciary owe a lot to David Dorsen.1 His illumi- nating biography of Judge Henry Friendly is a fitting tribute to the contribu- tions of a jurist that many consider to be among the finest judges never to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. Judicial biography is a difficult genre to do well,2 and most authors choose to focus on Supreme Court justices.3 But Henry Friendly, Greatest Judge of His Era is an excellent source of informa- tion on Friendly’s life and, far more important, his views on the law and his relationships with some of the most fascinating figures in twentieth-century legal history.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Federalism on National Party Cohesion in Brazil
    National Party Cohesion in Brazil 259 SCOTT W. DESPOSATO University of Arizona The Impact of Federalism on National Party Cohesion in Brazil This article explores the impact of federalism on national party cohesion. Although credited with increasing economic growth and managing conflict in countries with diverse electorates, federal forms of government have also been blamed for weak party systems because national coalitions may be divided by interstate conflicts. This latter notion has been widely asserted, but there is virtually no empirical evidence of the relationship or even an effort to isolate and identify the specific features of federal systems that might weaken parties. In this article, I build and test a model of federal effects in national legislatures. I apply my framework to Brazil, whose weak party system is attributed, in part, to that country’s federal form of government. I find that federalism does significantly reduce party cohesion and that this effect can be tied to multiple state-level interests but that state-level actors’ impact on national party cohesion is surprisingly small. Introduction Federalism is one of the most widely studied of political institutions. Scholars have shown how federalism’s effects span a wide range of economic, policy, and political dimensions (see Chandler 1987; Davoodi and Zou 1998; Dyck 1997; Manor 1998; Riker 1964; Rodden 2002; Ross 2000; Stansel 2002; Stein 1999; Stepan 1999; Suberu 2001; Weingast 1995). In economic spheres, federalism has been lauded for improving market competitiveness and increasing growth; in politics, for successfully managing diverse and divided countries. But one potential cost of federalism is that excessive political decentralization could weaken polities’ ability to forge broad coalitions to tackle national issues.1 Federalism, the argument goes, weakens national parties because subnational conflicts are common in federal systems and national politicians are tied to subnational interests.
    [Show full text]
  • An Open Letter to Congressman Gingrich
    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 1995 An Open Letter to Congressman Gingrich Bruce Ackerman Akhil Amar Jack Balkin Susan Low Bloch Philip Chase Bobbitt Columbia Law School, [email protected] See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Taxation-Federal Commons, and the Tax Law Commons Recommended Citation Bruce Ackerman, Akhil Amar, Jack Balkin, Susan L. Bloch, Philip C. Bobbitt, Richard Fallon, Paul Kahn, Philip Kurland, Douglas Laycock, Sanford Levinson, Frank Michelman, Michael Perry, Robert Post, Jed Rubenfeld, David Strauss, Cass Sunstein & Harry Wellington, An Open Letter to Congressman Gingrich, 104 YALE L. J. 1539 (1995). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/2193 This Response/Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Authors Bruce Ackerman, Akhil Amar, Jack Balkin, Susan Low Bloch, Philip Chase Bobbitt, Richard Fallon, Paul Kahn, Philip Kurland, Douglas Laycock, Sanford Levinson, Frank Michelman, Michael Perry, Robert Post, Jed Rubenfeld, David Strauss, Cass Sunstein, and Harry Wellington This response/comment is available at Scholarship Archive: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/ faculty_scholarship/2193 Comment An Open Letter to Congressman Gingrich* We urge you to reconsider your proposal to amend the House Rules to require a three-fifths vote for enactment of laws that increase income taxes.' This proposal violates the explicit intentions of the Framers.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Are “The People”? Introduction
    WHO ARE “THE PEOPLE”? ROMAN J. HOYOS* INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 26 I. THE PEOPLE AND THE POPULAR TURN ................................................ 31 A. Who are the People?: The Other Question .............................. 31 B. Ackerman and the Procedural People ..................................... 34 C. Amar and the Textual People ................................................... 41 D. Kramer and the Interpreting People ....................................... 45 E. The Popular Turn’s People ...................................................... 53 II. CARL SCHMITT’S PEOPLE ................................................................... 54 A. The Three Moments of Democracy ......................................... 55 B. Sovereignty and the Exception ................................................ 57 C. Dictatorship ............................................................................ 60 D. Acclamation ............................................................................. 67 E. Schmitt’s People ....................................................................... 73 III. SCHMITT AND THE POPULAR TURN ................................................... 74 A. Amar and the Constituent Power ............................................. 75 B. Ackerman and the Exception .................................................... 78 C. The Popular Turn and Acclamation ....................................... 82 D. Schmitt, the Popular Turn, and the
    [Show full text]
  • Civil-Military Relations: a Comparative Analysis of the Role of the Military in the Political Transformation of Post-War Turkey and Greece: 1980-1995
    CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF THE MILITARY IN THE POLITICAL TRANSFORMATION OF POST-WAR TURKEY AND GREECE: 1980-1995 Dr. Gerassimos Karabelias Final Report submitted to North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in June 1998 1 ABSTRACT This report attempts to determine the evolution of civil-military relations in Turkey and Greece during the 1980-1995 period through an examination of the role of the military in the political transformation of both countries. Since the mid-1970s and especially after the Fall of the Berlin Wall, the struggle for spreading the winds of democracy around the globe has been the goal of all western states and particularly the United States of America. However, taking into consideration the volatility in the Balkans and in Central Asia, the military institution of Turkey and Greece which gave the impression that it withdrew in the barracks after their last intervention in 1980-83 and 1967-74 respectively, could easily be forced or even tempted to assume a greater responsibility in the conduct of each country’s domestic and foreign affairs. Only through a better understanding of its role during the 1980-95 period, we would be able to determine the feasibility of such scenarios. Using a multi-factorial model as a protection from the short- sighted results which the majority of mono-factorial approaches produce, this report starts with the analysis of the distinct role which the Armed Forces of each country have had in the historical evolution of their respective civil-military relations up to 1980 (Part One of Chapters Two and Three).
    [Show full text]
  • Federalism, Bicameralism, and Institutional Change: General Trends and One Case-Study*
    brazilianpoliticalsciencereview ARTICLE Federalism, Bicameralism, and Institutional Change: General Trends and One Case-study* Marta Arretche University of São Paulo (USP), Brazil The article distinguishes federal states from bicameralism and mechanisms of territorial representation in order to examine the association of each with institutional change in 32 countries by using constitutional amendments as a proxy. It reveals that bicameralism tends to be a better predictor of constitutional stability than federalism. All of the bicameral cases that are associated with high rates of constitutional amendment are also federal states, including Brazil, India, Austria, and Malaysia. In order to explore the mechanisms explaining this unexpected outcome, the article also examines the voting behavior of Brazilian senators constitutional amendments proposals (CAPs). It shows that the Brazilian Senate is a partisan Chamber. The article concludes that regional influence over institutional change can be substantially reduced, even under symmetrical bicameralism in which the Senate acts as a second veto arena, when party discipline prevails over the cohesion of regional representation. Keywords: Federalism; Bicameralism; Senate; Institutional change; Brazil. well-established proposition in the institutional literature argues that federal Astates tend to take a slow reform path. Among other typical federal institutions, the second legislative body (the Senate) common to federal systems (Lijphart 1999; Stepan * The Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa no Estado
    [Show full text]
  • Bruce Ackerman
    BOOK REVIEW CONSTITUTIONAL ALARMISM THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC. By Bruce Ackerman. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 2010. Pp. 270. $25.95. Reviewed by Trevor W. Morrison∗ INTRODUCTION The Decline and Fall of the American Republic is a call to action. Professor Bruce Ackerman opens the book with the claim that “some- thing is seriously wrong — very seriously wrong — with the tradition of government that we have inherited” (p. 3). The problem, he says, is the modern American presidency, which he portrays as recently trans- formed into “an especially dangerous office” (p. 189 n.1) posing “a se- rious threat to our constitutional tradition” (p. 4). Ackerman urges us to confront this “potential for catastrophic decline — and act before it is too late” (p. 11). Concerns of this kind are not new. Indeed, in some respects De- cline and Fall reads as a sequel to Professor Arthur Schlesinger’s 1973 classic, The Imperial Presidency.1 Ackerman writes consciously in that tradition, but with a sense of renewed urgency driven by a convic- tion that “the presidency has become far more dangerous today” than in Schlesinger’s time (p. 188). The sources and mechanisms of that purported danger are numerous; Decline and Fall sweeps across jour- nalism, national opinion polls, the Electoral College, civilian-military relations, presidential control of the bureaucracy, and executive branch lawyering to contend that “the foundations of our own republic are eroding before our very eyes” (p. 188). ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ∗ Professor of Law, Columbia University. For helpful comments on earlier drafts, I thank Akhil Amar, David Barron, Ariela Dubler, Jack Goldsmith, Marty Lederman, Peter Margulies, Gillian Metzger, Henry Monaghan, Rick Pildes, Jeff Powell, John Witt, and participants in faculty workshops at Vanderbilt University and the University of Washington.
    [Show full text]
  • A Model of Praetorian States
    MIDDLE EAST INITIATIVE A Model of Praetorian States Yasser El-Shimy 2014-2015 Predoctoral Research Fellow Middle East Initiative, Belfer Center Harvard Kennedy School Co-Director Program on Civil-Military Relations in Arab States Carnegie Middle East Center Carnegie Endowment for International Peace MEI WORKING PAPER 2016-01 JUNE 2016 Middle East Initiative Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs Harvard Kennedy School 79 JFK Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 617-495-4087 www.belfercenter.org/MEI The Middle East Initiative at Harvard Kennedy School is dedicated to advancing public policy in the Middle East by convening the world’s foremost academic and policy experts, developing the next generation of leaders, and promoting community engagement on campus and in the region. Statements and views expressed in this working paper are solely those of the authors and do not imply endorsement by Harvard University, the Harvard Kennedy School, the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, or the Middle East Initiative. This working paper has not undergone formal review and approval. This working paper and the research presented herein were completed by the author as part of a Middle East Initiative (MEI) Research Fellowship. MEI Research Fellowships are made possible by the generosity of the Emirates Leadership Initiative at Harvard Kennedy School, a collaboration between MEI and the Center for Public Leadership at HKS, supported by the Government of the United Arab Emirates. This paper is a part of the Middle East Initiative Research Series, which presents the work of MEI Research Fellows, Harvard Faculty Research Grant Recipients, and other MEI research affiliates.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Moments and Punctuated Equilibria: a Political Scientist Confronts Bruce Ackerman's We the People
    Constitutional Moments and Punctuated Equilibria: A Political Scientist Confronts Bruce Ackerman's We the People Walter Dean Burnhamt INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW For some years past, Professor Bruce Ackerman has been engaged in a mighty effort to reconceptualize American constitutional development. We the People: Foundations,1 sets forth his basic model. This model can be said to rest on a liberal, historicist (or contextualist) perspective on the subject, a perspective in sharp conflict with a standard narrative that has held sway in the relevant research community. Anyone who proposes a new paradigm in any scholarly field is nearly certain to prompt controversy, and Professor Ackerman is no exception to this rule. As a political scientist, albeit one with some background in American constitutional law and history, I necessarily bring an outsider's perspective to these intramural controversies. But this monumental work, now completed through Ackerman's second volume, Transfonnations,2 is clearly the most ambitious effort to rethink our political system as a whole-and its legal dimensions in particular-that has been offered in decades. This is a magisterial work. Moreover, in Transformations, the author has demonstrated qualities of a first-rate historian. But, as usual, there is more to be said. This is a particularly congenial task since, far more than most works in either history or political science, We the People virtually invites cross-disciplinary discourse. This Essay falls into four parts. The first assesses the major element of the argument of We the People in the context of a professional milieu that has striking differences from those that most political scientists encounter.
    [Show full text]
  • The Perfect Dictatorship? Comparing Authoritarian Rule in South Korea and in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico1
    The Perfect Dictatorship? Comparing Authoritarian Rule in South Korea and in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico1 Jorge I. Domínguez Harvard University Abstract The Perfect Dictatorship: Comparing Authoritarian Rule in South Korea and in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico What is a “perfect dictatorship”? Such a regime provokes little societal resistance at installation. Its leaders act jointly to consolidate the regime and to broaden the support coalition by agreeing upon succession rules to rotate the presidency within the authoritarian regime. They delegate policy-making authority to civilians in areas of their competence. They emphasize consultation, not open contestation, prefer cooptation to repression, eschew ideological appeals, compel social actors into regime-licensed organizations, and deactivate civil society. South Korea under Park Chung Hee is compared on these dimensions to Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico, all at a time when authoritarian regimes governed them. Prepared for delivery at the 2002 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 29-September 1, 2002, Boston. Panel 11-25. Copyright by the American Political Science Association. Authoritarian rule established through an act of force, such as a military coup, poses several distinct challenges to the authoritarian ruler. The first is how to install the regime, that is, how to survive past the initial moments of the overthrow of the old regime in order to establish a pattern of rule that will last. This requires reducing the need for initial repression, consolidating unity within the coup leadership group, and arranging for succession rules in order to stabilize and broaden the support coalition for the new dictator.
    [Show full text]
  • Types of Government
    TYPES OF GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS, INSTITUTIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS THAT EXERCISE POLITICAL AUTHORITY ON BEHALF OF A GROUP OF PEOPLE CITIZEN A LEGAL MEMBER OF A COUNTRY CONSTITUTION A WRITTEN PLAN OF GOVERNMENT TYPES OF GOVERNMENT Limited Unlimited In a limited government even the people !Power in the hands of one person" who make the laws have to obey them." !In unlimited governments all the power !Usually limited by constitution (plan of belongs to the ruler." government)" !There are no rules or laws that the ruler !Examples:" must obey." ­! Direct Democracy" !Examples:" ­! Representative Democracy" ­! Totalitarianism" ­! Constitutional Monarchy" ­! Monarchy" ­! Dictatorship" DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS DEMOCRACY: RULE BY THE PEOPLE lGovernment! is elected by the people POWER TO THE PEOPLE lEveryone! over a certain age is able to vote and has a say in who is elected to lead lElections! are held to determine who is in charge DIRECT DEMOCRACY “ALL VOTERS IN A COMMUNITY MEET IN ONE PLACE TO MAKE LAWS AND DECIDE WHAT ACTIONS NEED TO TAKE PLACE” !Pros: ­! Every citizen has equal power in matters of government. Every citizen is involved in the decision making. ­! Since all citizens are involved in decision making, there is a broad base of support and loyalty. ­! Individual liberties are protected. !Cons: ­! Only works when a small number of people are involved. Ability to gather all citizens in one place is necessary. ­! Decision making involving all citizens is time-consuming. All citizens give in-put, debate, etc... !Examples: ­! Town Hall ­! Ancient Greece in Athens REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY (REPUBLIC) PEOPLE ELECT REPRESENTATIVES TO CARRY ON THE WORK OF GOVERNMENT !Pros: ­! Citizens are too busy to learn about and vote on all laws, electing representatives that become experts in law making helps the process.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Genealogy (And Mythology) of John Roberts: Clerkships from Gray to Brandeis to Friendly to Roberts
    The Judicial Genealogy (and Mythology) of John Roberts: Clerkships from Gray to Brandeis to Friendly to Roberts BRAD SNYDER* During his Supreme Court nomination hearings, John Roberts idealized and mythologized the first judge he clerkedfor, Second Circuit Judge Henry Friendly, as the sophisticated judge-as-umpire. Thus far on the Court, Roberts has found it difficult to live up to his Friendly ideal, particularlyin several high-profile cases. This Article addresses the influence of Friendly on Roberts and judges on law clerks by examining the roots of Roberts's distinguishedyet unrecognized lineage of former clerks: Louis Brandeis 's clerkship with Horace Gray, Friendly's clerkship with Brandeis, and Roberts's clerkships with Friendly and Rehnquist. Labeling this lineage a judicial genealogy, this Article reorients clerkship scholarship away from clerks' influences on judges to judges' influences on clerks. It also shows how Brandeis, Friendly, and Roberts were influenced by their clerkship experiences and how they idealized their judges. By laying the clerkship experiences and career paths of Brandeis, Friendly, and Roberts side-by- side in detailed primary source accounts, this Article argues that judicial influence on clerks is more professional than ideological and that the idealization ofjudges and emergence of clerks hips as must-have credentials contribute to a culture ofjudicial supremacy. * Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin Law School. Thanks to Eleanor Brown, Dan Ernst, David Fontana, Abbe Gluck, Dirk Hartog, Dan
    [Show full text]