DOCSLIB.ORG

Top of Page Interview Information--Different Title

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

1 Regional Oral History Office University of California The Bancroft Library Berkeley, California Donald M. Cahen THE LAW CLERKS OF CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN: DONALD M. CAHEN Interviews conducted by Laura McCreery in 2005 Copyright © 2014 by The Regents of the University of California 2 3 4 Since 1954 the Regional Oral History Office has been interviewing leading participants in or well-placed witnesses to major events in the development of Northern California, the West, and the nation. Oral History is a method of collecting historical information through tape-recorded interviews between a narrator with firsthand knowledge of historically significant events and a well-informed interviewer, with the goal of preserving substantive additions to the historical record. The tape recording is transcribed, lightly edited for continuity and clarity, and reviewed by the interviewee. The corrected manuscript is bound with photographs and illustrative materials and placed in The Bancroft Library at the University of California, Berkeley, and in other research collections for scholarly use. Because it is primary material, oral history is not intended to present the final, verified, or complete narrative of events. It is a spoken account, offered by the interviewee in response to questioning, and as such it is reflective, partisan, deeply involved, and irreplaceable. ********************************* All uses of this manuscript are covered by a legal agreement between The Regents of the University of California and Donald M. Cahen dated April 5, 2005. The manuscript is thereby made available for research purposes. All literary rights in the manuscript, including the right to publish, are reserved to The Bancroft Library of the University of California, Berkeley. Excerpts up to 1000 words from this interview may be quoted for publication without seeking permission as long as the use is non-commercial and properly cited. Requests for permission to quote for publication should be addressed to The Bancroft Library, Head of Public Services, Mail Code 6000, University of California, Berkeley, 94720-6000, and should follow instructions available online at http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ROHO/collections/cite.html It is recommended that this oral history be cited as follows: Donald M. Cahen “THE LAW CLERKS OF CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN: DONALD M. CAHEN” conducted by Laura McCreery in 2005, Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, 2014. i Table of Contents—Donald M. Cahen Interview 1: March 29, 2005 Audio File 1 1 Birth and upbringing in San Francisco — Lowell High School and UC Berkeley — Military service — Boalt Hall Law School at UC Berkeley— Outstanding faculty — Professor Adrian A. Kragen — Clerkship for Chief Justice Earl Warren — Other clerks — Workload — In forma pauperis petitions — Oral argument — Camara v. Municipal — The American Civil Liberties Union — Formal and informal relations on the Court — Formal and informal relations on the Court — Justice Harold Hitz Burton and other justices — “Liberals” and “not liberals” — Warren’s political skills — Saturday luncheons — Jon Newman, Chief Clerk — Ivy Leaguers — Writing for the Chief — A controversy about the role of clerks — The Chief, “a great leader” — Mrs. Margaret McHugh’s effectiveness — Confidentiality Audio File 2 22 Luncheons and guest speakers — A visit from Senator John F. Kennedy — The clerkship as a step in a legal career — The centrality of the Court — Appellate court experience — Narrator’s politics — Supreme Court clerkship: “Marvelous” opportunity — Returning to San Francisco, legal career, love of history and the city — Involvement in local politics — Work with the ACLU — The Chief’s retirement and his legacy — The importance of political parties — Narrator’s career as arbitrator — Looking back on the clerkship [End of Interview] 1 Interview 1: March 29, 2005 [Begin Audio File 1] McCreery: Tape 1 or March 29, 2005. This is Laura McCreery speaking, and on this tape we’ll be interviewing Donald M. Cahen at his law firm in San Francisco. We’re in the Ferry Building on a rainy day. We’re going to be collaborating today on the oral history project Law Clerks of Chief Justice Earl Warren. Mr. Cahen, would you start us off by simply stating your date of birth and talk about where you were born? 1-00:00:32 Cahen: I was born June 21, 1930, and I was born in San Francisco, California. McCreery: What was your family circumstance at that time? 1-00:00:40 Cahen: In what respect? McCreery: I just wonder where in the city you were living and what sort of— 1-00:00:46 Cahen: Well, for about a year, the first year, we lived down on Silver Avenue in San Francisco. We then moved up to the Fillmore District about 1931, and we lived on Fulton Street in the Fillmore District across from Alamo Square Park until about 1946, after which my folks moved out to the Sunset. I finished my high school and then went over to UC Berkeley. McCreery: I understand you went to Lowell High School, is that right? 1-00:01:13 Cahen: That’s right. McCreery: I assume one didn’t have to apply to get in in those days. 1-00:01:20 Cahen: I was supposed to go to High School of Commerce, and my folks worked very hard to get me into Lowell High School, and they were successful in that, and I was there. McCreery: How did you like Lowell? 1-00:01:34 Cahen: Oh, very much, enjoyed it very much. McCreery: I know from talking before we started that you went to college across the bay at Cal. 2 1-00:01:43 Cahen: That’s right. McCreery: How did you decide to go there, or was there a decision involved? 1-00:01:48 Cahen: Oh, I imagine a lot of reasons. UC Berkeley was a fine school. So it seemed to be the perfect place to go. It was a public school, so obviously it was a lot less expensive than a private one. So all in all it just made sense to go there. McCreery: So you began in what must have been the war years. 1-00:02:16 Cahen: Well, I graduated high school in ’48. So I was an undergraduate at Berkeley from ’48 through June of ’52. McCreery: What did you study there? 1-00:02:25 Cahen: Political science was my primary major, for the most part. But I also tool a lot of speech programs, I was on the University debating team, and I also took up just a general—I just wanted a sort of, like a broad education. I sort of assumed I was going to law school afterwards. McCreery: What prompted you interest in the law? Do you recall? 1-00:02:53 Cahen: I had an uncle who was an attorney, went to USF Law School, and my folks thought it would be a good career for me. As I sat and thought about it, it made sense to me. As a young man I worked at various stores in San Francisco as a stock boy and as a clerk and that sort of thing, and I didn’t really want to go into the commercial. Law looked like a good program for me. McCreery: Did you have particular interests in the law? 1-00:03:32 Cahen: Not really. I never said to myself that I wanted to this as against that. I just sort of took it as it went along, and I was fortunate enough to be in a situation as I started practicing to have some experience and some alternatives and things of that sort. McCreery: After finishing your undergraduate career did you go straight into law school; I know you had Army experience. 1-00:03:54 Cahen: I went to the Army. After I graduated Berkeley I was told that I could go to law school—well, I had taken ROTC at Berkeley as an undergraduate, so in a 3 sense I was in the reserve. They told me that I could start law school, but they could not guarantee that I’d finish it. And the last thing in the world I wanted to do was go to a year and a half of law school and be told I had to leave and go to the Army. I was a little tired of school at the time, so I just decided to go in. I spent approximately two years going out having a good time with the Army. McCreery: I take it this was still during the Korean Conflict. 1-00:04:40 Cahen: Yes, I ended up spending about six to eight months in Korea. That was the last six to eight months of my career in the Army. Fortunately, by the time I got there the armistice had been signed so that the only people who shot at me were drunk. I was a military police officer. So I had to do a number of things, but there was no organized shooting going on or anything like that. But I did spend about six to eight months in Korea itself. McCreery: What effect do you suppose that experience had on you as a young man? 1-00:05:21 Cahen: I think the effect it had on me was, first of all, to give me an opportunity to see a part of the world which up to then of course I had not seen at all, the Asian area. At the same time it put me in a situation where I had a good deal of matters where I had to be on my own discretion. Being an officer of the military police you’re a police officer, and I was up there, so that meant that I had to act on my own discretion in charge of various aspects and matters.
Recommended publications
  • Mr. Justice Stanton by James W

    Mr. Justice Stanton by James W

    At Sidebar Mr. Justice Stanton by James W. Satola I love U.S. Supreme Court history. Sometimes, the more arcane the better. So, for my At Sidebar con- tribution, I want to share a little bit of what I love.1 Perhaps calling to mind the well-known story behind Marbury v. Madison, here is a lesser-known story of a presidential commission not delivered on time (though in this case, it was not anyone’s fault). The story of Mr. Justice Edwin M. Stanton.2 James W. Satola is an As one walks through the Grand Concourse of attorney in Cleveland, Ohio. From 2010 to the Ohio Supreme Court building in Columbus, Ohio 2016, he served as (officially, the Thomas J. Moyer Ohio Judicial Center, an FBA Circuit Vice which had a first life as the “Ohio Departments Build- President for the Sixth ing,” opening in 1933, then restored and reopened as Circuit, and from 2002 the home of the Ohio Supreme Court in 2004), one’s to 2003, he was Presi- dent of the FBA Northern eye is drawn to nine large bronze plaques mounted District of Ohio Chapter. on the East Wall, each showcasing one of the U.S. © 2017 James W. Satola. Supreme Court justices named from Ohio.3 This story All rights reserved. is about the fourth plaque in that series, under which reads in brass type on the marble wall, “Edwin Mc- Masters Stanton, Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1869-1869.” Justice Stanton? One finds no mention of “Justice Stanton” among the lists of the 113 men and women who have served on the Supreme Court of the United States.
  • BROWN V. BOARD of EDUCATION: MAKING a MORE PERFECT UNION

    BROWN V. BOARD of EDUCATION: MAKING a MORE PERFECT UNION

    File: Seigenthaler.342.GALLEY(7) Created on: 5/9/2005 4:09 PM Last Printed: 7/5/2005 9:17 AM BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION: MAKING A MORE PERFECT UNION John Seigenthaler* It is impossible for me to reflect on Brown v. Board of Educa- tion1 and its meaning these five decades later without revisiting in my mind’s eye the white Southern racist society of my youth and young adulthood. That was a time when my hometown, Nashville, Tennessee, was as racially segregated as any city in South Africa at the height of Apartheid; when every city in the South, large and small, was the same; when African-American residents of those communities were denied access to any place and every place they might need or wish to go. The legal myth of “separate but equal” had cunningly banned black citizens from every hospital, school, restaurant, trolley, bus, park, theater, hotel, and motel that catered to the white public. These tax-paying citizens were denied access to these places solely on the basis of their race by tradition, custom, local ordi- nance, state statute, federal policy, and by an edict of the United States Supreme Court fifty-eight years before Brown in Plessy v. Ferguson.2 In too many of these cities, black citizens were even denied access to the ballot box on election day. The posted signs of the times read, “White Only.” If you never saw those signs, it is difficult to imagine their visible presence in every city hall, county courthouse, and public building, including many federal buildings.
  • "Slow Dance on the Killing Ground": the Willie Francis Case Revisited

    "Slow Dance on the Killing Ground": the Willie Francis Case Revisited

    DePaul Law Review Volume 32 Issue 1 Fall 1982 Article 2 "Slow Dance on the Killing Ground": The Willie Francis Case Revisited Arthur S. Miller Jeffrey H. Bowman Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review Recommended Citation Arthur S. Miller & Jeffrey H. Bowman, "Slow Dance on the Killing Ground": The Willie Francis Case Revisited, 32 DePaul L. Rev. 1 (1982) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol32/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. "SLOW DANCE ON THE KILLING GROUND":t THE WILLIE FRANCIS CASE REVISITED tt Arthur S. Miller* and Jeffrey H. Bowman** The time is past in the history of the world when any living man or body of men can be set on a pedestal and decorated with a halo. FELIX FRANKFURTER*** The time is 1946. The place: rural Louisiana. A slim black teenager named Willie Francis was nervous. Understandably so. The State of Louisiana was getting ready to kill him by causing a current of electricity to pass through his shackled body. Strapped in a portable electric chair, a hood was placed over his head, and the electric chair attendant threw the switch, saying in a harsh voice "Goodbye, Willie." The chair didn't work properly; the port- able generator failed to provide enough voltage. Electricity passed through Willie's body, but not enough to kill him.
  • 60459NCJRS.Pdf

    60459NCJRS.Pdf

    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov.1 1 ------------------------ 51st Edition 1 ,.' Register . ' '-"978 1 of the U.S. 1 Department 1 of Justice 1 and the 1 Federal 1 Courts 1 1 1 1 1 ...... 1 1 1 1 ~~: .~ 1 1 1 1 1 ~'(.:,.:: ........=w,~; ." ..........~ ...... ~ ,.... ........w .. ~=,~~~~~~~;;;;;;::;:;::::~~~~ ........... ·... w.,... ....... ........ .:::" "'~':~:':::::"::'«::"~'"""">X"10_'.. \" 1 1 1 .... 1 .:.: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .:~.:.:. .'.,------ Register ~JLst~ition of the U.S. JL978 Department of Justice and the Federal Courts NCJRS AUG 2 1979 ACQlJ1SfTIOI\fS Issued by the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 'U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1978 51st Edition For sale by the Superintendent 01 Documents, U.S, Government Printing Office WBShlngton, D.C. 20402 Stock Number 027-ootl-00631Hl Contents Par' Page 1. PRINCIPAL OFFICERFI OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1 II. ADMINISTRATIV.1ll OFFICE Ul"ITED STATES COURTS; FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 19 III. THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY; UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS AND MARSHALS. • • • • • • • 23 IV. FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS 107 V. ApPENDIX • • • • • • • • • • • • • 113 Administrative Office of the United States Courts 21 Antitrust Division . 4 Associate Attorney General, Office of the 3 Attorney General, Office of the. 3 Bureau of Prisons . 17 Civil Division . 5 Civil Rights Division . 6 Community Relations Service 9 Courts of Appeals . 26 Court of Claims . '.' 33 Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 33 Criminal Division . 7 Customs Court. 33 Deputy Attorney General, Offico of. the 3 Distriot Courts, United States Attorneys and Marshals, by districts 34 Drug Enforcement Administration 10 Federal Bureau of Investigation 12 Federal Correctional Institutions 107 Federal Judicial Center • .
  • One of Nine--Mr. Justice Burton's Appointment to the Supreme Court

    One of Nine--Mr. Justice Burton's Appointment to the Supreme Court

    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 4 Issue 2 Article 6 1953 One of Nine--Mr. Justice Burton's Appointment to the Supreme Court Daniel S. McHargue Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Daniel S. McHargue, One of Nine--Mr. Justice Burton's Appointment to the Supreme Court, 4 W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 128 (1953) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol4/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. [Winter One of Nine - Mr. Justice Burton's Appointment to the Supreme Court Daniel S. McHargue IN TWO WAYS Associate Justice Harold Hitz Burton is one of nine. First, he is one of the nine Justices currently comprising the personnel of the Supreme Court of the United States and the only Republican member thereof. Second, he is one of the nine men appointed to or promoted on our nation's highest tribunal by Presidents belonging to a different political party and the only Republican placed upon that bench by a Democratic President. The nine tenures held by Justices whose partisan affiliation differed from that of the chief executive responsible for their selection comprise only about 10% of a total of some ninety-one Sn- ofeme nietyone Su- THE AuTHOR (A.B., 1938, M.A., 1941, Ph.D., 1949, University of California) is Assistant reme Court tenures.
  • Justices of the Supreme Court Justices of the Supreme Court, 1789 to 2014 1

    Justices of the Supreme Court Justices of the Supreme Court, 1789 to 2014 1

    ø1970¿ 1970 JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT, 1789 TO 2014 1 Years 2 State whence ap- Date of com- Date service Name 3 of pointed mission terminated service CHIEF JUSTICES 1. John Jay ................................. New York .............. Sept. 26, 1789 June 29, 1795 5 2. John Rutledge ........................ South Carolina ..... July 1, 1795 Dec. 15, 1795 (4)(5) 3. Oliver Ellsworth .................... Connecticut ........... Mar. 4, 1796 Dec. 15, 1800 4 4. John Marshall ........................ Virginia ................. Jan. 31, 1801 July 6, 1835 34 5. Roger Brooke Taney .............. Maryland ............... Mar. 15, 1836 Oct. 12, 1864 28 6. Salmon Portland Chase ........ Ohio ....................... Dec. 6, 1864 May 7, 1873 8 7. Morrison Remick Waite ........ ....do ....................... Jan. 21, 1874 Mar. 23, 1888 14 8. Melville Weston Fuller .......... Illinois ................... July 20, 1888 July 4, 1910 21 9. Edward Douglas White ......... Louisiana .............. Dec. 12, 1910 May 19, 1921 5 10 10. William Howard Taft ............ Connecticut ........... June 30, 1921 Feb. 3, 1930 8 11. Charles Evans Hughes .......... New York .............. Feb. 13, 1930 June 30, 1941 5 11 12. Harlan Fiske Stone ............... ......do ..................... July 3, 1941 Apr. 22, 1946 5 4 13. Fred Moore Vinson ................ Kentucky ............... June 21, 1946 Sept. 8, 1953 7 14. Earl Warren ........................... California .............. Oct. 2, 1953 June 23, 1969 15 15. Warren E. Burger .................. Virginia ................. June 23, 1969 Sept. 26, 1986 17 16. William Hubbs Rehnquist .... Virginia ................. Sept. 25, 1986 Sept. 3, 2005 5 19 17. John G. Roberts, Jr ............... Maryland ............... Sept. 29, 2005 ........................ ............ ASSOCIATE JUSTICES 1. John Rutledge ........................ South Carolina ..... Sept. 26, 1789 Mar. 5, 1791 1 2. William Cushing .................... Massachusetts ...... Sept. 27, 1789 Sept.
  • Judicial Ghostwriting: Authorship on the Supreme Court Jeffrey S

    Judicial Ghostwriting: Authorship on the Supreme Court Jeffrey S

    Cornell Law Review Volume 96 Article 11 Issue 6 September 2011 Judicial Ghostwriting: Authorship on the Supreme Court Jeffrey S. Rosenthal Albert H. Yoon Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Jeffrey S. Rosenthal and Albert H. Yoon, Judicial Ghostwriting: Authorship on the Supreme Court, 96 Cornell L. Rev. 1307 (2011) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol96/iss6/11 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. JUDICIAL GHOSTWRITING: AUTHORSHIP ON THE SUPREME COURT Jeffrey S. Rosenthal & Albert H. Yoont Supreme Court justices, unlike the President or members of Congress, perfom their work with relatively little staffing. Each justice processes the docket, hears cases, and writes opinions with the assistanceof only their law clerks. The relationship between justices and their clerks is of intense interest to legal scholars and the public, but it remains largely unknown. This Arti- cle analyzes the text of the Justices' opinions to better understand judicial authorship. Based on the use of common function words, we find thatJus- tices vary in writing style, from which it is possible to accurately distinguish one from another. Their writing styles also inform how clerks influence the opinion-writingprocess. CurrentJustices, with few exceptions, exhibit signif- icantly higher variability in their writing than their predecessors, both within and across years.
  • What Would Justice Holmes Do (WWJHD): Rehnquist's Plessy

    What Would Justice Holmes Do (WWJHD): Rehnquist's Plessy

    What Would Justice Holmes Do (WWJHD)?: Rehnquist's Plessy Memo, Majoritarianism, and Parents Involved BRAD SNYDER* As a law clerk to Justice Robert H. Jackson in December 1952, William Rehnquist wrote a memo during the oral arguments in Brown defending Plessy v. Ferguson. "I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by my 'liberal' colleagues, but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be re-affirmed," Rehnquist wrote.' The memo resurfaced nearly twenty years later in Newsweek magazine on the eve of Senate floor debates over Rehnquist's Supreme Court nomination. 2 Rehnquist's explanation for the memo-that it reflected Jackson's views and not his own3-satisfied a majority of the U.S. Senate in * Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin Law School. I thank John Q. Barrett and Joel Goldstein for their comments and William T. Coleman Jr., Donald Cronson, E. Barrett Prettyman Jr., and many Supreme Court law clerks from the 1951 and 1952 terms for agreeing to be interviewed. Thanks to the following librarians and archivists who have assisted me with this paper and many other projects: Bonnie Shucha at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Law Library; Daun van Ee, Jeff Flannery, Lia Apodaca, Fred Augustyn, Jennifer Brathovde, Patrick Kerwin, Bruce Kirby, Joe Jackson, and the staff at the Library of Congress Manuscript Division; William J. Marshall, Jeff Suchanek, and the staff at the University of Kentucky Special Collections Library; Adrienne Sonder and the staff at the Tarlton Law Library at the University of Texas at Austin; M.
  • Access to the Justices' Papers

    Access to the Justices' Papers

    LAW LIBRARY JOURNAL Vol. 110:2 [2018-8] 185 186 LAW LIBRARY JOURNAL Vol. 110:2 [2018-8] The Justices’ Privacy Interests ........................................202 Supreme Court Clerks’ Privacy Interests ...............................206 Shifting From Privacy to Public Policy ................................207 Proposals for Improvement ............................................208 “Public Papers” as Public Property ....................................208 Congress Changes Ownership Status Only; Judicial Branch Works Out Details ....................................................209 Incentives for Complete Collections and Short Embargos. .210 Archive and Library Guidelines ......................................211 Conclusion . 211 Introduction ¶1 Following the unexpected death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in early 2016,2 it quickly came to the attention of legal scholars that Justice Scalia had not designated a repository for his papers before his passing.3 No law governs the preservation of federal judges’ papers produced in the course of their work as employees of the United States.4 As a result, the fate of Scalia’s papers was left in the hands of his family, who were free to do virtually anything with them. Papers of other Supreme Court Justices have been destroyed, lost, or heavily restricted. We now know that the Scalia family has chosen Harvard Law Library as the repository for the papers, but they have placed restrictions on them that will delay access to many of the papers for an indeterminate (but likely not short) period based on the lifespans of Scalia’s colleagues. This delay will frustrate scholars and other research- ers, and it will hamper further insight into the Court at a time when it appears to be undergoing an ideological shift further to the right. Justice Scalia spent twenty- nine years on the Court participating in many decisions that have shaped modern American society and jurisprudence.
  • Mr. Justice Burton's Appointment to the Supreme Court Daniel S

    Mr. Justice Burton's Appointment to the Supreme Court Daniel S

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Case Western Reserve University School of Law Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 4 | Issue 2 1953 One of Nine--Mr. Justice Burton's Appointment to the Supreme Court Daniel S. McHargue Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Daniel S. McHargue, One of Nine--Mr. Justice Burton's Appointment to the Supreme Court, 4 W. Res. L. Rev. 128 (1953) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol4/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. [Winter One of Nine - Mr. Justice Burton's Appointment to the Supreme Court Daniel S. McHargue IN TWO WAYS Associate Justice Harold Hitz Burton is one of nine. First, he is one of the nine Justices currently comprising the personnel of the Supreme Court of the United States and the only Republican member thereof. Second, he is one of the nine men appointed to or promoted on our nation's highest tribunal by Presidents belonging to a different political party and the only Republican placed upon that bench by a Democratic President. The nine tenures held by Justices whose partisan affiliation differed from that of the chief executive responsible for their selection comprise only about 10% of a total of some ninety-one Sn- ofeme nietyone Su- THE AuTHOR (A.B., 1938, M.A., 1941, Ph.D., 1949, University of California) is Assistant reme Court tenures.
  • Brown V. Board of Education After Fifty Years: Context and Synopsis

    Brown V. Board of Education After Fifty Years: Context and Synopsis

    Mercer Law Review Volume 52 Number 2 Lead Articles Edition - A Symposium - Brown v. Board of Education: An Exercise in Article 2 Advocacy 3-2001 Symposium Introduction - Brown v. Board of Education After Fifty Years: Context and Synopsis James L. Hunt Mercer University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.mercer.edu/jour_mlr Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons Recommended Citation Hunt, James L. (2001) "Symposium Introduction - Brown v. Board of Education After Fifty Years: Context and Synopsis," Mercer Law Review: Vol. 52 : No. 2 , Article 2. Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.mercer.edu/jour_mlr/vol52/iss2/2 This Front Matter is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Mercer Law School Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mercer Law Review by an authorized editor of Mercer Law School Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SYMPOSIUM INTRODUCTION Brown v. Board of Education After Fifty Years: Context and Synopsis by James L. Hunt* For white Southerners, the United States Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education' was important because it challenged racial discrimination in the most important governmental function of their communities: public education. As a consequence, the significance of Brown is not limited to the legal strategies of the parties or the decision-making process on the Supreme Court, however critical those activities were. Of additional usefulness in understanding Brown is the experience of the people who would either defy or support it. The essential political nature of Brown requires an effort to consider its * Assistant Professor of Law, Eugene W.
  • Thurgood Marshall: Warrior at the Bar, Rebel on the Bench by Michael D

    Thurgood Marshall: Warrior at the Bar, Rebel on the Bench by Michael D

    REVIEWS Thurgood Marshall: Warrior at the Bar, Rebel on the Bench by Michael D. Davis & Hunter R. Clark, originally published in 1992. The 1992 print edition has been republished in two parts as two ebooks. The first ebook Thurgood Marshall: From His Early Years to Brown covered Thurgood Marshall’s youth, education, and the cases he argued leading up to the Brown v. Board of Education decision. In the second part, Thurgood Marshall: His Triumph in Brown, His Years on the Supreme Court, the writers describe how Marshall and his team won the Brown case, the massive resistance which followed Brown, and Marshall’s long career on the Supreme Court as he joined fellow justices in majority or minority votes on the Vietnam War, the Pentagon Papers, abortion, the death penalty and other issues in the late 20th century. The reviews below are from the print edition. “Michael D. Davis and Hunter R. Clark offer a masterfully written tale of an American legend.” — Gannett News Service “Filled with the same fire, passion and humor that drove Marshall’s life, Thurgood Marshall is a revealing portrait of a pioneering lawyer.” —National Black Review “Well-written, informative and lively.” —People “This important work, ably chronicled by Davis and Clark, is impressive. Highly recommended.” —Library Journal “As a guide to the legal struggles of this American leader, this book is written clearly and with obvious affection and admiration for Marshall, and the law for which he fought.” —Booklist “Michael Davis and Hunter Clark have crafted a thoughtful, carefully researched and focused biography.” —USA Today “I highly recommend Thurgood Marshall by Mike Davis and Hunter Clark.