DOCSLIB.ORG

The Emergency Constitution

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Emergency Constitution JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SPECIAL EDITION EMERGENCY FRAMEWORK JUNE 2020 VOLUME 1 / 2020 BRUCE ACKERMAN THE EMERGENCY CONSTITUTION ERIC A. POSNER DEFERENCE TO THE EXECUTIVE IN THE UNITED STATES AFTER SEPTEMBER 11 BRUCE ACKERMAN STATES OF EMERGENCY CLARISA LONG PRIVACY AND PANDEMICS NODAR KHERKHEULIDZE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PROCESS OF EMERGENCY-RELATED NORM-MAKING AND THE PRINCIPLE OF THE LEGAL STATE IN LIGHT OF A STATE OF EMERGENCY IN GEORGIA DECLARED ON 21 MARCH 2020 TAMAR KHAVTASI THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY IN A STATE OF EMERGENCY ANA JABAURI STATE OF EMERGENCY: A SHORTCUT TO AUTHORITARIANISM NANA UZNADZE, GIORGI MELIKIDZE PARLIAMENTS DURING THE EMERGENCY REGIMES CONSTITUTIONAL GRIGOL ROBAKIDZE COURT OF GEORGIA UNIVERSITY UDC (უაკ) 34 ISSN-2587-5329 CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF GEORGIA GRIGOL ROBAKIDZE UNIVERSITY CHAIRMAN OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD ZAZA TAVADZE MEMBERS OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD TEIMURAZ TUGHUSHI GIORGI MIRIANASHVILI ANNA PHIRTSKHALASHVILI IRINE URUSHADZE BESIK LOLADZE VAKHTANG MENABDE GIORGI CHKHEIDZE ECKHARD PACHE EDITING AND PUBLISHING – IRINE URUSHADZE STYLIST – EVA CHIKASHUA TRANSLATING – ANA JABAURI, IRINE URUSHADZE COVER DESIGN – MIKHEIL SARISHVILI This material, with the exception of the works by Bruce Ackerman, Eric A. Posner and Clarisa Long, is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 2.0. To view a copy of this license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode The papers by Bruce Ackerman “The Emergency Constitution” and “States of Emergency”, Eric A. Posner “Deference To The Executive In The United States After September 11” and Clarisa Long “Privacy And Pandemics” are distributed under Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike 3.0 License. To view a copy of this license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ 8/10 K. Gamsakhurdia str. | 16/18 M. Abashidze str. Batumi 6010, Georgia E-MAIL: [email protected] FOREWORD The Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic fun- damentally transformed life in the world. By a scale of their reach in such a short period of time, the measures taken by the states to contain the spread of the virus are unprecedented. The critical need to protect public health prompted the states to restrict human rights by instant decision-making. It will not be exaggerated to assert that the foregoing tendency puts a present-day liberal democracy to a test, since it risks the concen- tration of excessive powers within the executive. Intrinsically, against a backdrop of crisis governance caused by the pandemic, questions were raised from the standpoint of modern constitutionalism and the existing literature, due to insufficiency of research, did not prove to be able to answer those. The need to engage into academic discussion on managing the containment of the pandemic and, in general, on a crisis governance model thus becomes evident. This is further attested by several cases pending before the Constitutional Court of Georgia, whereby emergency legislation on measures adopted by the state is subjected to a dispute. In order to ensure the effectiveness of the existing constitutional order and strengthen its viability, it is es- sential to set forth clear, consistent and uniform constitutional standards in relation to the functioning of emergency regime and crisis governance. The present publication of the “Journal of Constitutional Law” is a special issue, which is devoted to the emergency regulation in constitutional law and the protection of human rights. The publication consists of eight academic pieces both from Georgian and foreign authors. The journal combines the articles of young Georgian researchers on important legal topics, such as the law-making procedure during the emergency (by Nodar Kherkheulidze), the protection of the right to property during the pandemic (by Tamar Khavtasi), the threats emanating from the emergency regime (by Ana Jabauri), and the functioning of the parliament during the emergency (by Giorgi Melikidze and Nana Uz- nadze). I am glad that the present issue, also encompasses the work of three authoritative and highly-cited foreign scholars – Bruce Ackerman, Eric A. Posner and Clarisa Long – on the regulation of emergency in the United States of America, alongside the protection of private information during the pandemic. The article by Professor Bruce Ackerman, which discusses the accordance of power to the executive in the aftermath of 9/11 terror- ist attacks from the constitutional perspective, is one of the most authoritative contributions regarding the emergency governance. He authors the second piece where he presents an opinion on what may be done to balance the executive power during the emergency. The article by Professor Eric A. Posner considers the doctrine of deference to the executive authority and its scope in the United States of America. The newly pub- lished article by Professor Clarisa Long on the collection of private information by the states during the COVID-19 pandemic is just as interesting and pertinent. I wish to express my sincere gratitude towards foreign Scholars – Bruce Ackerman, Eric A. Posner and Clarisa Long, as well as Professor Cass R. Sunstein for their cooperation with the publication of the Constitutional Court of Georgia and for making their academ- ic work available to Georgian readership. I wholeheartedly hope that the present issue of the “Journal of Constitutional Law” will be a valuable contribution in understanding the emergency regulatory regime from con- stitutional law perspective and will facilitate further academic discourse in this direction. ZAZA TAVADZE PRESIDENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF GEORGIA TABLE OF CONTENTS BRUCE ACKERMAN THE EMERGENCY CONSTITUTION ................................................................... 9 Abstract ................................................................................................................................. 9 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 9 I. Between War And Crime ............................................................................................ 12 A. War? ......................................................................................................................... 12 B. Crime? ...................................................................................................................... 14 C. Reassurance ............................................................................................................. 16 II. Re-Rationalizing Emergency ...................................................................................... 17 III. The Model Of Judicial Management ........................................................................... 20 IV. Checks And Balances .................................................................................................. 24 A. From Ancient to Modern .......................................................................................... 24 B. The Supermajoritarian Escalator ............................................................................ 25 C. Minority Control of Information .............................................................................. 28 D. The Need for Constitutional Revision ...................................................................... 30 V. Questions Of Scope ..................................................................................................... 33 VI. Compensation .............................................................................................................. 38 VII. The Place Of Judges .................................................................................................... 42 A. Macromanagement ................................................................................................... 42 B. Microadjudication .................................................................................................... 44 C. The Power of Hindsight ........................................................................................... 49 D. An Overview ............................................................................................................. 50 VIII. Tragic Compromise .......................................................................................... 51 A. Past Experience ........................................................................................................ 51 B. A Thought Experiment .............................................................................................. 54 C. Constitutional Questions .......................................................................................... 57 1. Suspension of Habeas Corpus ............................................................................... 57 2. Supermajorities? .................................................................................................... 60 IX. The Race Against Time ............................................................................................... 63 ERIC A. POSNER DEFERENCE TO THE EXECUTIVE IN THE UNITED STATES AFTER SEPTEMBER 11 ...................................................................................................... 65 Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 65 Introduction........................................................................................................................
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]
  • 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]
  • En En Motion for a Resolution
    European Parliament 2014-2019 Plenary sitting B8-0415/2017 13.6.2017 MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION with request for inclusion in the agenda for a debate on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law pursuant to Rule 135 of the Rules of Procedure on the case of Afgan Mukhtarli and the situation of media in Azerbaijan (2017/2722(RSP)) Ulrike Lunacek, Rebecca Harms, Heidi Hautala, Ignazio Corrao, Fabio Massimo Castaldo on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group RE\P8_B(2017)0415_EN.docx PE605.528v01-00 EN United in diversity EN B8-0415/2017 European Parliament resolution on the case of Afgan Mukhtarli and the situation of media in Azerbaijan (2017/2722(RSP)) The European Parliament, - Having regard to its previous resolutions on Azerbaijan and Georgia, particularly the ones concerning the human rights situation and the rule of law, - having regard to its previous resolutions on the European Neighbourhood Policy and in particular to the ones on the Eastern Partnership, - Having regard to Association Agreement with Georgia which entered into force on 1 July 2016, - Having regard to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Azerbaijan of 1996 and to the adoption by the Council on 14 November 2016 of a mandate to the European Commission and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the European Commission (HR/VP) to negotiate a comprehensive agreement with Azerbaijan, - having regard to the statement by the Spokesperson of the HR/VP on the “reported abduction and illegal detention of Azerbaijani nationals residing in Georgia”, - having regard to the statement of the HR/VP on the sentencing of Mehman Huseynov in Azerbaijan of 7 March 2017, - having regard to the Council conclusions on the Eastern Partnership of the Foreign Affairs Council of 14 November 2016, - having regard to Rules 135(5) and 123(4) of its Rules of Procedure, A.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 1, Issue 1 Editorial Board
    Volume 1, Issue 1 Editorial Board Editor-in-Chief Keith Findley Anat Horovitz Myles Frederick McLellan University of Wisconsin Law Faculty of Law, The Hebrew Department of Law and Politics, School, University of University of Jerusalem, Algoma University, Canada Wisconsin-Madison, Israel United States Editorial Board Richard Leo James Acker Jonathan Freedman Law and Psychology, University School of Criminal Justice, Psychology Department, of San Francisco, United States University at Albany, University of Toronto, United States Canada Bruce MacFarlane Barrister & Attorney, Winnipeg, Ira Belkin Maryanne Garry Canada and Phoenix, NYU School of Law, New York School of Psychology, New United States University, United States Zealand Institute for Security and Crime Science Carole McCartney Stephen Bindman The University of Waikato, School of Law, Northumbria Faculty of Law, University of New Zealand University, United Kingdom Ottawa, Canada Gwladys Gilliéron Daniel Medwed Gary Botting Faculty of Law, University of School of Law and School of Barrister, Vancouver, Canada Zurich, Switzerland Criminology and Criminal Justice Northeastern University, Kathryn M. Campbell Adam Gorski United States Department of Criminology, Faculty of Law and University of Ottawa, Administration, Jagiellonian Robert Norris Canada University, Poland Department of Criminology, Law and Society, George Mason Kimberly Cook Jon Gould Department of Sociology and University,United States School of Criminology and Criminology, University of Criminal Justice and Sandra Day
    [Show full text]
  • Georgia: Background and U.S
    Georgia: Background and U.S. Policy Updated September 5, 2018 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45307 SUMMARY R45307 Georgia: Background and U.S. Policy September 5, 2018 Georgia is one of the United States’ closest non-NATO partners among the post-Soviet states. With a history of strong economic aid and security cooperation, the United States Cory Welt has deepened its strategic partnership with Georgia since Russia’s 2008 invasion of Analyst in European Affairs Georgia and 2014 invasion of Ukraine. U.S. policy expressly supports Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders, and Georgia is a leading recipient of U.S. aid in Europe and Eurasia. Many observers consider Georgia to be one of the most democratic states in the post-Soviet region, even as the country faces ongoing governance challenges. The center-left Georgian Dream party has more than a three-fourths supermajority in parliament, allowing it to rule with only limited checks and balances. Although Georgia faces high rates of poverty and underemployment, its economy in 2017 appeared to enter a period of stronger growth than the previous four years. The Georgian Dream won elections in 2012 amid growing dissatisfaction with the former ruling party, Georgia: Basic Facts Mikheil Saakashvili’s center-right United National Population: 3.73 million (2018 est.) Movement, which came to power as a result of Comparative Area: slightly larger than West Virginia Georgia’s 2003 Rose Revolution. In August 2008, Capital: Tbilisi Russia went to war with Georgia to prevent Ethnic Composition: 87% Georgian, 6% Azerbaijani, 5% Saakashvili’s government from reestablishing control Armenian (2014 census) over Georgia’s regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Religion: 83% Georgian Orthodox, 11% Muslim, 3% Armenian which broke away from Georgia in the early 1990s to Apostolic (2014 census) become informal Russian protectorates.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • GEORGIA (Acting Through the Ministry of Finance of Georgia) U.S.$500,000,000 2.750% Notes Due 2026 ISSUE PRICE: 99.422%
    GEORGIA (acting through the Ministry of Finance of Georgia) U.S.$500,000,000 2.750% Notes due 2026 ISSUE PRICE: 99.422% The U.S.$500,000,000 2.750% Notes due 2026 (the "Notes") to be issued by Georgia, acting through the Ministry of Finance of Georgia (the "Issuer" or "Georgia"), will mature on 22 April 2026 (the "Maturity Date") and, unless previously purchased and cancelled, will be redeemed at their principal amount on that date. The Notes will bear interest from, and including, 22 April 2021 at the rate of 2.750% per annum payable semi-annually in arear on 22 April and 22 October in each year, commencing on 22 October 2021. This Offering Circular comprises neither a prospectus for the purposes of Part VI of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (as amended) (the "FSMA"), a prospectus for the purposes of Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 as it forms part of domestic law by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (the "UK Prospectus Regulation"), nor listing particulars given in compliance with the listing rules made under Part VI of the FSMA by the UK Financial Conduct Authority (the "FCA") pursuant to the FSMA. Application has been made for the Notes to be admitted to the official list of the FCA (the "Official List") and to trading on the main market (the "Market") of the London Stock Exchange plc (the "London Stock Exchange"). The Notes are being offered (i) in offshore transactions in reliance on, and as defined in, Regulation S (the "Regulation S Notes") under the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliaments for Democracy: Towards More Ambitious Global Cooperation
    2 October 2013 MEETING OF THE CHAIRPERSONS OF THE COMMITTEES ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF PARLIAMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE PARLIAMENTARY FORUM FOR DEMOCRACY Parliaments for democracy: towards more ambitious global cooperation 27-28 November 2013 Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Vilnius DRAFT PROGRAMME Wednesday, 27 November Arrival of the participants 15.00–19.30 Registration at the hotels 19.30 Departure by bus from the hotels for the Museum of Applied Arts 20.00–22.30 Dinner hosted by Prof Benediktas JUODKA, Chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Venue: Museum of Applied Arts, Arsenalo g. 3, Vilnius 22.30 Return to the hotels by bus Thursday, 28 November 8.00 Departure by bus from the hotels for the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania 8.00–8.30 Registration of participants (for those who have not registered yet) Venue: Lobby, Building II of the Seimas Gedimino pr. 53, LT-01109 Vilnius, LITHUANIA Tel. + 370 5 239 6762 E-mail [email protected] 2 OPENING SESSION Venue: Hall of the Act of March 11, Building I of the Seimas 8.30–8.40 Opening address by Prof Benediktas JUODKA, Chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania 8.40–8.50 Opening address by Mr Emanuelis ZINGERIS, Chair of the Parliamentary Forum for Democracy 8.50–9.00 Welcome address by Mr Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Deputy Speaker of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Adoption of the agenda SESSION 1 THE EUROPEAN UNION EASTERN PARTNERSHIP: TOWARDS MORE AMBITIOUS GLOBAL COOPERATION Chaired by
    [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]
  • American Legal Realism and Empirical Social Science: from the Yale Experience
    Buffalo Law Review Volume 28 Number 3 Article 10 7-1-1979 American Legal Realism and Empirical Social Science: From the Yale Experience John Henry Schlegel University at Buffalo School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview Part of the Legal History Commons, and the Legal Theory Commons Recommended Citation John H. Schlegel, American Legal Realism and Empirical Social Science: From the Yale Experience, 28 Buff. L. Rev. 459 (1979). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview/vol28/iss3/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Buffalo Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AMERICAN LEGAL REALISM AND EMPIRICAL SOCIAL SCIENCE: FROM THE YALE EXPERIENCE* JOHN HENRY SCHLEGEL ** We regard the facts as the prerequisiteof reform. Charles E. Clark & Robert M. Hutchins t A s a coherent intellectual force in American legal thought American Legal Realism simply ran itself into the sand.' If proof of this assertion be needed one has only to ask a group of law school faculty members what American Legal Realism was and what it accomplished. If one gets any but the most cursory of re- sponses, the answers will range from "a naive attempt to do em- pirical social science that floundered because of its crude empiri- cism," through "a movement in jurisprudence that quickly played itself out because it really had no technical competence and little 0 Copyright @ 1979, John Henry Schlegel.
    [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]