Honorable June L. Green
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
One Man's Token Is Another Woman's Breakthrough - the Appointment of the First Women Federal Judges
Volume 49 Issue 3 Article 2 2004 One Man's Token is Another Woman's Breakthrough - The Appointment of the First Women Federal Judges Mary L. Clark Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr Part of the Judges Commons Recommended Citation Mary L. Clark, One Man's Token is Another Woman's Breakthrough - The Appointment of the First Women Federal Judges, 49 Vill. L. Rev. 487 (2004). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr/vol49/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Villanova Law Review by an authorized editor of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. Clark: One Man's Token is Another Woman's Breakthrough - The Appointment 2004] Article ONE MAN'S TOKEN IS ANOTHER WOMAN'S BREAKTHROUGH? THE APPOINTMENT OF THE FIRST WOMEN FEDERAL JUDGES MARY L. CLARK* I. INTRODUCTION NIO women served as Article III judges in the first one hundred and fifty years of the American republic.' It was not until Franklin Del- ano Roosevelt named Florence Ellinwood Allen to the U.S. Court of Ap- peals in 1934 that women were included within the ranks of the federal 2 judiciary. This Article examines the appointment of the first women federal judges, addressing why and how presidents from Roosevelt through Ford named women to the bench, how the backgrounds and experiences of these nontraditional appointees compared with those of their male col- leagues and, ultimately, why it matters that women have been, and con- tinue to be, appointed. -
Celebrating the 200Th Anniversary of the Federal Courts of the District of Columbia
Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2002 Celebrating the 200th Anniversary of the Federal Courts of the District of Columbia Susan Low Bloch Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1516 90 Geo. L.J. 549-605 (2002) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Courts Commons, and the Legal History Commons Celebrating the 200th Anniversary of the Federal Courts of the District of Columbia SUSAN Low BLOCH* AND RUTH BADER GINSBURG** INTRODUCTION February 27, 2001 marked the 200th anniversary of the federal courts of the District of Columbia, the courts we know today as the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The history of these courts is complex, and sometimes enigmatic. Their names changed no fewer than six times since their creation; for some thirty years, from 1863 until 1893, the two courts existed as one umbrella tribunal, named the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.' The courts' location in the nation's capital and their dual jurisdiction as both federal and local forums rendered the District of Columbia courts unique tribunals destined to make substantial contributions to American jurisprudence. This Essay describes the evolution of these courts from a three-judge circuit court with both trial and appellate jurisdiction to the two courts whose 200th anniversary we celebrated this past year.2 It then examines two main themes characteristic of these unique tribunals. -
Pathfinderlegal00mattrich.Pdf
University of California Berkeley This manuscript is made available for research purposes. No part of the manuscript may be quoted for publication without the written permission of the Director of The Bancroft Library of the University of California at Berkeley. Requests for permission to quote for publication should be addressed to the Regional Oral History Office, 486 Library, and should include identification of the specific passages to be quoted, anticipated use of the passages, and identification of the user. The Bancroft Library University of California/Berkeley Regional Oral History Office Suffragists Oral History Project Burnita Shelton Matthews PATHFINDER IN THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF WOMEN With an Introduction by Betty Poston Jones An Interview Conducted by Amelia R. Fry Copy No. (c) 1975 by The Regents of the University of California Judge Burnita Shelton Matthews Early 1950s THE YORK TIMES OBITUARIES THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 1988 Burnita 5. Matthews Dies at 93; First Woman on U.S. Trial Courts By STEVEN GREENHOUSE Special to The New York Times WASHINGTON, April 27 Burnita "The reason I always had women," Shelton Matthews, the first woman to she said, "was because so often, when a serve as a Federal district judge, died woman makes good at something they here Monday at the age of 93 after a always say that some man did it. So I stroke. just thought it would be better to have Judge Matthews was named to the women. I wanted to show my confi Federal District Court for the District dence in women." of Columbia President Truman in by Sent to Music School 1949. -
The Appointment of the First Women Federal Judges
American University Washington College of Law Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals Scholarship & Research 2004 One Man's Token is Another Woman's Breakthrough - The Appointment of the First Women Federal Judges Mary Clark Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/facsch_lawrev Part of the Judges Commons, and the Law and Gender Commons Clark: One Man's Token is Another Woman's Breakthrough - The Appointment 2004] Article ONE MAN'S TOKEN IS ANOTHER WOMAN'S BREAKTHROUGH? THE APPOINTMENT OF THE FIRST WOMEN FEDERAL JUDGES MARY L. CLARK* I. INTRODUCTION NIO women served as Article III judges in the first one hundred and fifty years of the American republic.' It was not until Franklin Del- ano Roosevelt named Florence Ellinwood Allen to the U.S. Court of Ap- peals in 1934 that women were included within the ranks of the federal 2 judiciary. This Article examines the appointment of the first women federal judges, addressing why and how presidents from Roosevelt through Ford named women to the bench, how the backgrounds and experiences of these nontraditional appointees compared with those of their male col- leagues and, ultimately, why it matters that women have been, and con- tinue to be, appointed. To better understand the significance of the appointments of these first women, what follows are brief highlights of two traditions shaping federal judicial appointments and women's participation therein: (1) the Senate's advice and consent power; and (2) the ABA Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary's evaluation of judicial candidates. -
2000 Term (Bound Volume 533)
Job: 533BV$ Take: SPN1 12-17-02 11:10:29 The dashed line indicates the top edge of the book. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES REPORTS 533 OCT. TERM 2000 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The dashed line indicates the bottom edge of the book. This camera copy was created for books with spines up to 31⁄4Љ wide. For smaller books, it must be centered on the spine and trimmed left and right as needed. 533BV$TITL 09-23-02 16:49:00 UNITED STATES REPORTS VOLUME 533 CASES ADJUDGED IN THE SUPREME COURT AT OCTOBER TERM, 2000 June 11 Through September 25, 2001 Together With Opinion of Individual Justice in Chambers End of Term FRANK D. WAGNER reporter of decisions WASHINGTON : 2002 Printed on Uncoated Permanent Printing Paper For sale by the U. S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328 533BV$ Unit: $UII [10-31-02 06:46:52] PGT: FRT Errata 524 U. S. 115, n. 5: delete lines 11 and 12 and the words “taxation if it remains freely alienable’,” in line 13, and substitute: “this issue is outside the question presented in the petition for certiorari, see Pet. for Cert. i (question is whether land is ‘subject to state and local taxation if it remains freely alienable’),”. 532 U. S. 53, lines 23–24: “343 S. C. 342,” should be “343 S. C. 350,”. ii 533BV$ Unit: UIII [10-07-02 18:34:32] PGT: FRT JUSTICES of the SUPREME COURT during the time of these reports* WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, Chief Justice. JOHN PAUL STEVENS, Associate Justice.