DOCSLIB.ORG

Section 8: Judicial Modesty Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Section 8: Judicial Modesty Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Supreme Court Preview Conferences, Events, and Lectures 2007 Section 8: Judicial Modesty Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School Repository Citation Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School, "Section 8: Judicial Modesty" (2007). Supreme Court Preview. 220. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview/220 Copyright c 2007 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview VIII. JUDICIAL MODESTY In This Section "Adam Cohen on 'Conservative Judicial Activism"' p. 457 Ilya Somin "Bowing to Precedent" p. 459 Robert F. Nagel "Roberts, Alito and the Rule of Law" p. 462 Geoffrey R. Stone "In Praise of Judicial Modesty" p. 464 Stuart Taylor, Jr. "Last Term's Winner at the Supreme Court: Judicial Activism" p. 467 Adam Cohen "Confirmation Report" p. 469 DahliaLithwick "Originalism, Stare Decisis and the Promotion of Judicial Restraint" p. 471 Thomas W. Merrill "Narrow Victories Move Roberts Court to Right: Decisions Ignore Precedent, Liberal Justices Contend" p. 474 Charles Lane "The Intrinsically Corrupting Influence of Precedent" p. 477 Michael Stokes Paulsen "Precedents Begin Falling for Roberts Court" p. 479 Linda Greenhouse "Process Makes Perfect" p. 481 Roger Citron "Split Decision" p. 484 Cass R. Sunstein "So, Do You Believe in Superprecedent?" p. 487 Jeffrey Rosen "Supreme Confusion" p. 490 Charles Fried 455 "Supreme Humility" p. 492 Michael W. McConnell "The Assault on 'Faux Judicial Restraint"' p. 495 Lyle Denniston "The Roberts Court and the Role of Precedent" p. 497 Nina Totenberg Excerpt from "The Power of Precedent" p. 500 Michael Gerhardt 456 "Adam Cohen on 'Conservative Judicial Activism' The Volokh Conspiracy July 9, 2007 Ilya Somin [Excerpt: Some citations and portions omitted.] [Adam] Cohen's argument equates FEC, Stenberg v. Carhart, Grutter v. conservative criticism of "judicial activism" Bollinger) mentioned in Cohen's post, all of with criticism of striking down laws enacted which were decided within the last few by elected officials. That may be Cohen's years by narrow 5-4 majorities. Such view, but it is not shared by the vast precedents have failed to gain general majority of conservative jurists and legal acceptance in the legal community (as their scholars. For decades, legal conservatives narrow 5-4 margins suggest), and are too have criticized the Court for failing to strike recent to have engendered much in the way down what they see as unconstitutional of reliance by the general public. The degree laws, particularly in the areas of federalism, to which the Court should defer to its own property rights and (more recently) free flawed precedents is controversial among speech. Most conservative (and even more conservatives (as it also is among liberals so libertarian) jurists would agree that and libertarians). There is no general failure to strike down unconstitutional laws conservative consensus in favor of following is no less a departure from the proper wrong precedents, and indeed most right of judicial role than judicial overruling of laws center legal scholars tend to the view that that the Constitution perm-its. A few judicial flawed precedents should be overruled, or at conservatives (such as Robert Bork and least severely constricted. The same points University of Texas law profiessor] Lino apply to flawed decisions by federal Graglia) have called for the virtual abolition agencies. It is also worth noting that the of judicial review; so have a few liberals, Court did not in fact "overturn" the such as Harvard professor Mark Tushnet, precedents Cohen discusses, but merely and Stanford's Larry Kramer. But such limited the scope of their application. views are very much in the minority among Perhaps Cohen means to say that they have conservative jurists and legal scholars- been so severely limited as to virtually almost as much so as among liberals. overturn them. If so, he needs to provide an argument justifying this far from obvious Cohen also implies that conservatives conclusion instead of a bald and misleading contradict themselves by supporting assertion. "overturning" of the Court's precedents and invalidation of decisions by federal Cohen also contradicts himself on these agencies. Few if any conservative jurists issues. If judicial conservatives are supposed believe that the Court's precedents are to applaud judicial restraint in overruling somehow sacrosanct, especially not if they laws enacted by legislatures, why shouldn't conflict with the text and original meaning they support the overruling of precedents of the Constitution. That is particularly true that themselves struck down legislative of the very recent precedents (McConnell v. enactments (as was true of Roe v. Wade and 457 Stenberg v. Carhart)? Yet Cohen criticizes action decisions that the Constitution conservatives as inconsistent for supporting "protects society from integration." As the Court's partial retreat from Stenberg in Cohen surely knows, the Court merely ruled Gonzales v. Carhart. that the Constitution forbids some types of racial assignment of students. In no way did Finally, Cohen commits an egregious factual the justices claim that "integration" is itself error in claiming that the Supreme Court unconstitutional-especially if it is achieved conservatives ruled in its school affirmative by racially neutral policies. 458 "Bowing to Precedent" The Weekly Standard April 17, 2006 Robert F. Nagel [Excerpt: Some citations and portions omitted.] At the outset of Samuel Alito's confirmation overrule it. Other Republican appointees- hearings, Judiciary Committee Chairman including Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Arlen Specter asked a series of questions Souter-refused in Planned Parenthood v. about the rather arcane subject of stare Casey to overrule Roe largely because they decisis, which is the judicial practice of think it is entitled to a special degree of following prior decisions. Eventually the respect as precedent. If the original abortion questions took an odd turn, with Specter decision is super-precedent and the Court in asking Alito whether he agreed that the right Casey emphatically affirmed that to abortion had special immunity from extraordinary status, then Casey must be reconsideration, that is, whether it is "super- super-duper precedent. precedent." Alito parried this by declining to "get into categorizing precedents as super- That Alito should have a bit of fun with this precedents or super-duper precedents." That logic is encouraging, but it does not tell us sort of terminology, Alito said, reminded how willing he would be to reconsider him "of the size of the laundry detergent in constitutional precedents. This is crucial, the supermarket." This exchange, which because 35 years of Republican domination must have puzzled most Americans, was of the Court has not resulted in the highly significant. Indeed, it touches on overruling of a single revolutionary Warren ideas that are basic to understanding why the Court decision-not Miranda v. Arizona, Court has become such a dangerous which imposed a new interrogation institution and whether the appointments of procedure on police departments across the Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts are country, not Griswold v. Connecticut, which likely to change things. began the constitutionalization of sexual freedom, not New York Times v. Sullivan, Although the practice of sticking with which turned the regulation of defamatory precedent is often associated in popular speech over to the courts, and not understanding with stodgy legalism, it was a Brandenburgv. Ohio, which even in this age shrewd subject for Specter to choose. Alito, of terrorism continues to protect most like any good lawyer, makes his living by advocacy of violence. working from the logic of prior cases. Moreover, a reluctance to disrespect or to The Roberts Court now faces not only unsettle prior understandings is especially Warren Court precedents but also, even natural for someone with conservative putting the abortion issue aside, dozens of instincts. Thus, while it is doubtful that Alito far-reaching precedents established during thinks the Court's famous 1973 abortion the Burger and Rehnquist eras. Those decision, Roe v. Wade, was solidly based in include cases prohibiting virtually all gender the Constitution, it is certainly possible that distinctions in the law, protecting he might be too devoted to precedent to homosexual sodomy, severely limiting 459 public religious observances, and preventing weighty considerations discussed in Casey, states from regulating profanity. nominee Alito replied blandly, "I think that the Court . should be insulated from Respect for precedent means not only that public opinion. [Courts] should do what the the justices should follow the specific law requires in all instances." But that is not outcomes of prior cases but also that they precisely the argument made in Casey. In must follow their logic. The logic of legions fact, Casey comes close to insisting on the of cases demands that judges second-guess opposite: that the Court should stay with a legislative and executive decisions on the decision wrongly interpreting the most sensitive moral and political issues and Constitution because a reversal of that that judges decide for themselves on the wrong decision would meet with public appropriate means for achieving preferred criticism and disapproval. Insofar as Casey policies. The simple fact is that rests on the relationship between judicial constitutional law as set out in the cases now legitimacy and stare decisis, the Court is requires judges to legislate from the bench. arguing that public opinion-in the form of Nominees to the Court can repeat endlessly attitudes about the Court-should trump that judges should interpret, not make, law. law. But unless they are willing. once on the Court, to rethink the logic of prior cases, Of course, the Casey Court does not say they will have to make law. outright that Roe was bad law.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Conflicts of Interest in Bush V. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally? Richard K
    Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship Spring 2003 Conflicts of Interest in Bush v. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally? Richard K. Neumann Jr. Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship Recommended Citation Richard K. Neumann Jr., Conflicts of Interest in Bush v. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally?, 16 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 375 (2003) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship/153 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES Conflicts of Interest in Bush v. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally? RICHARD K. NEUMANN, JR.* On December 9, 2000, the United States Supreme Court stayed the presidential election litigation in the Florida courts and set oral argument for December 11.1 On the morning of December 12-one day after oral argument and half a day before the Supreme Court announced its decision in Bush v. Gore2-the Wall Street Journalpublished a front-page story that included the following: Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 76 years old, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 70, both lifelong Republicans, have at times privately talked about retiring and would prefer that a Republican appoint their successors.... Justice O'Connor, a cancer survivor, has privately let it be known that, after 20 years on the high court,'she wants to retire to her home state of Arizona ...
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Citizen Journalists: Why Congress Should Adopt a Broad Federal Shield Law
    YALE LAW & POLICY REVIEW Protecting Citizen Journalists: Why Congress Should Adopt a Broad Federal Shield Law Stephanie B. Turner* INTRODUCTION On August 1, 20o6, a federal district judge sent Josh Wolf, a freelance video journalist and blogger, to prison.' Wolf, a recent college graduate who did not work for a mainstream media organization at the time, captured video footage of an anti-capitalist protest in California and posted portions of the video on his blog.2 As part of an investigation into charges against protestors whose identi- ties were unknown, federal prosecutors subpoenaed Wolf to testify before a grand jury and to hand over the unpublished portions of his video.' Wolf re- fused to comply with the subpoena, arguing that the First Amendment allows journalists to shield their newsgathering materials.4 The judge disagreed, and, as * Yale Law School, J.D. expected 2012; Barnard College, B.A. 2009. Thank you to Adam Cohen for inspiration; to Emily Bazelon, Patrick Moroney, Natane Single- ton, and the participants of the Yale Law Journal-Yale Law & Policy Review student scholarship workshop for their helpful feedback on earlier drafts; and to Rebecca Kraus and the editors of the Yale Law & Policy Review for their careful editing. 1. See Order Finding Witness Joshua Wolf in Civil Contempt and Ordering Con- finement at 2, In re Grand Jury Proceedings to Joshua Wolf, No. CR 06-90064 WHA (N.D. Cal. 2006); Jesse McKinley, Blogger Jailed After Defying Court Orders, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 2, 2006, at A15. 2. For a detailed description of the facts of this case, see Anthony L.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Chambers?
    Michigan Law Review Volume 97 Issue 6 1999 Open Chambers? Richard W. Painter University of Illinois College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Richard W. Painter, Open Chambers?, 97 MICH. L. REV. 1430 (1999). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol97/iss6/11 This Review 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]. OPEN CHAMBERS? Richard W. Painter* CLOSED CHAMBERS: THE FIRST EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT OF THE EPIC STRUGGLES INSIDE THE SUPREME COURT. By Edward LazarU,S. New York: Times Books. 1998. Pp. xii, 576. $27.50. Edward Lazarus1 has written the latest account of what goes on behind the marble walls of the Supreme Court. His book is not the first to selectively reveal confidential communications between the Justices and their law clerks. Another book, Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong's The Brethren2 achieved that distinction in 1979. Closed Chambers: The First Eyewitness Account of the Ep ic Strug­ gles Inside the Supreme Court, however, adds a new twist. Whereas The Brethren was written by journalists who persuaded former law clerks to breach the confidences of the Justices, Lazarus was himself a law clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun.
    [Show full text]
  • No. 19-1392 THOMAS E. DOBBS, State Health Officer
    No. 19-1392 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ___________________ THOMAS E. DOBBS, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al., Petitioners, v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION, et al., Respondents. ___________________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ___________________ BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE AFRICAN- AMERICAN, HISPANIC, ROMAN CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT RELIGIOUS AND CIVIL RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS AND LEADERS SUPPORTING PETITIONERS ___________________ Mathew D. Staver Counsel of Record Anita L. Staver Horatio G. Mihet Roger K. Gannam Daniel J. Schmid LIBERTY COUNSEL P.O. BOX 540774 Orlando, FL 32854 (407)875-1776|[email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................. iii INTEREST OF AMICI ............................................ 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ........................................................... 4 ARGUMENT ........................................................... 6 I. ABORTION GREW OUT OF AND REMAINS ROOTED IN EUGENICS IDEOLOGY THAT ELIMINATES “LESS DESIRABLE” RACES AND CERTAIN CLASSES OF PEOPLE TO EVOLVE A SUPERIOR HUMAN POPULATION. .............. 6 A. The Birth Control Movement, Abortion Advocacy, and Eugenics Are All Rooted In Social Darwinism and the Elimination of Undesirable Populations. .................................................. 7 B. The Eugenics Movement’s Racist Roots. 10 C. A Dark Stain Upon This Court, Buck v. Bell Legitimized the Eugenics Movement.
    [Show full text]
  • SYLLABUS the ROBERTS COURT – from BAD to WORSE 1. INTRODUCTION I Went to Law School When the Decisions of the “Liberal” Su
    SYLLABUS THE ROBERTS COURT – FROM BAD TO WORSE 1. INTRODUCTION I went to law school when the decisions of the “liberal” Supreme Court presided over by Chief Justice Earl Warren defined what our Constitution meant – an end to “separate but equal”, limits on police power, the right to a lawyer even if you couldn’t afford one, separation of Church and State, ‘one man, one vote’ – the list goes on and on. These decisions are in fact why I went to law school, with the fantasy of fighting for justice, truth, and the American Way….as the Warren Court had defined it. But I instead have lived a professional lifetime under the Burger Court, the Rehnquist Court, and most awful of all, the Roberts Court of the last 15 years – a Court that seems determined to turn our Constitutional clock back to pre-New Deal, if not further. From 2011, when Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives, until the present, Congress has enacted hardly any major legislation outside of the tax law President Trump signed in 2017. In the same period, the Supreme Court dismantled much of America's campaign finance law, severely weakened the Voting Rights Act, permitted states to opt-out of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion, weakened laws protecting against age discrimination and sexual and racial harassment, gave corporations control over much of our economy, but held that every state must permit same-sex couples to marry. This powerful unelected body, now controlled by six very conservative Republicans, has become and will continue to be the locus of policymaking in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • The Senate Has No Constitutional Obligation to Consider Nominees
    File: Adler_Macro1_Approved.docx Created on: 10/22/16 8:10:00 PM Last Printed: 10/22/16 8:10:00 PM 2016] 15 THE SENATE HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION TO CONSIDER NOMINEES Jonathan H. Adler* INTRODUCTION Justice Antonin Scalia’s tragic and unexpected death sent shockwaves through the American legal community.1 Few justices to sit on the Supreme Court have had as great an impact.2 Justice Scalia’s death also reignited the judicial confirmation wars. Conflict over judicial nominations had been smoldering,3 but burst into flames once it became clear that President Obama would have the opportunity to nominate Justice Scalia’s successor and, just prior to a presidential election, dramatically alter the ideological and doctri- nal balance on the Court.4 * Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Business Law & Regu- lation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law. The author thanks Michael Ramsey and Alan Meese for helpful comments and Shannon Meyer for research assistance. Any remaining errors, omissions or inanities are solely the fault of the author. 1 See Robert Barnes, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dies at 79, WASH. POST (Feb. 13, 2016), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dies-at-79/2016 /02/13/effe8184-a62f-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html; Adam Liptak, Antonin Scalia, Justice on the Supreme Court, Dies at 79, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 13, 2016), http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/us/ antonin-scalia-death.html?_r=0; see also Richard Wolf, At Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia's Im- pact Still Felt, USA TODAY (May 9, 2016), http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/05/ 09/supreme-court-antonin-scalia-death-cases-decisions/83892680/.
    [Show full text]
  • USSYP 2012 Yearbook
    UNITED STATES SENATE YOUTH PROGAM THE HEARST FOUNDATIONS DIRECTORS William Randolph Hearst III UNITED STATE President James M. Asher Anissa B. Balson David J. Barrett Frank A. Bennack, Jr. John G. Conomikes S SENATE YO Ronald J. Doerfler Lisa H. Hagerman George R. Hearst, Jr. Harvey L. Lipton Gilbert C. Maurer U Mark F. Miller T H PROGRAM Virginia H. Randt Paul “Dino” Dinovitz EX ECUTIVE DIRECTOR George B. Irish E ASTERN DIRECTOR fifT T I Rayne B. Guilford E P ROGRAM DIRECTOR H UNITED STATES SENATE YOUTH PROGRAM ANN I V E R S A R Y W A S H I N G T ON WEEK 2012 SPONSORED BY THE UNITED states senate FUNDED AND ADMINISTERED BY THE HEARST Foundations “ I haVE no other VIEW than to promote the puBLIC THE HEARST Foundations GOOD, and am unamBITIOUS of honors not founded 90 NEW Montgomery STREET · SUITE 1212 · SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-4504 WWW.USSENATEYOUTH.ORG IN the approBATION of my COUNTRY.” —G GEOR E WASHINGTON Photography by Jakub Mosur Secondary Photography by Erin Lubin Design by Catalone Design Co. UNITED STATES SENATE YOUTH PROGAM THE HEARST FOUNDATIONS DIRECTORS William Randolph Hearst III UNITED STATE President James M. Asher Anissa B. Balson David J. Barrett Frank A. Bennack, Jr. John G. Conomikes S SENATE YO Ronald J. Doerfler Lisa H. Hagerman George R. Hearst, Jr. Harvey L. Lipton Gilbert C. Maurer U Mark F. Miller T H PROGRAM Virginia H. Randt Paul “Dino” Dinovitz EX ECUTIVE DIRECTOR George B. Irish E ASTERN DIRECTOR fifT T I Rayne B. Guilford E P ROGRAM DIRECTOR H UNITED STATES SENATE YOUTH PROGRAM ANN I V E R S A R Y W A S H I N G T ON WEEK 2012 SPONSORED BY THE UNITED states senate FUNDED AND ADMINISTERED BY THE HEARST Foundations “ I haVE no other VIEW than to promote the puBLIC THE HEARST Foundations GOOD, and am unamBITIOUS of honors not founded 90 NEW Montgomery STREET · SUITE 1212 · SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-4504 WWW.USSENATEYOUTH.ORG IN the approBATION of my COUNTRY.” —G GEOR E WASHINGTON Photography by Jakub Mosur Secondary Photography by Erin Lubin Design by Catalone Design Co.
    [Show full text]
  • INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol
    . The Changing Supreme Court and Prisoners' Rights Christopher E. Smith' Introduction The final years of the Rehnquist Court era represented a period of extraordinary^ compositional stability^ on the U.S. Supreme Court as the same nine Justices^ served together for the period from 1994 to 2005. "^ Beginning in 2005, the Court's composition changed significantly over a relatively short period of time with the departures of Chief Justice William Rehnquist,^ Justice Sandra Day O'Connor,^ Justice David Souter/ and Justice John Paul Stevens^ and their * Professor of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University. A.B., 1980, Harvard University; M.Sc, 1981, University of Bristol (U.K.); J.D., 1984, University of Tennessee; Ph.D., 1988, University of Connecticut. 1 See Mark Tushnet, A Court Divided: The Rehnquist Court and the Future of Constitutional Law 67 (2005) ("You have to go back to the years from 181 1 to 1823 to find a longer period with no changes in personnel on the [Supreme] Court (and then there were only seven justices anyway)."). 2. See, e.g. , JAN CRAWFORD Greenburg, Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court 5 (2007) ("The Court ... had functioned as a unit for more than a decade, unaltered since the seating of Justice Breyer in 1994 . ."). 3. The nine Justices were Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice John Paul Stevens, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice ^\nthony Kennedy, Justice David Souter, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Justice Stephen Breyer. See Christopher E. Smith & Thomas R.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning for Shared Mobility
    UC Berkeley Recent Work Title Planning for Shared Mobility Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0dk3h89p ISBN 9781611901863 Authors Cohen, Adam Shaheen, Susan, PhD Publication Date 2018-03-01 DOI 10.7922/G2NV9GDD eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California PAS REPORTPAS 583 P LANNING FOR SHARED MOBILITY American Planning Association 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60601-5927 planning.org | Cohen and Shaheen and Cohen PAS REPORT 5 8 3 A MERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION PLANNING FOR SHARED MOBILITY Adam Cohen and Susan Shaheen POWER TOOLS ABOUT THE AUTHORS APA RESEARCH MISSION Adam Cohen is a shared mobility researcher at the Transporta- tion Sustainability Research Center at the University of California, APA conducts applied, policy-relevant research Berkeley. Since joining the group in 2004, his research has focused that advances the state of the art in planning on shared mobility and emerging technologies. He has coauthored practice. APA’s National Centers for Plan- numerous articles and reports on shared mobility in peer-reviewed ning—the Green Community Research Center, journals and conference proceedings. His academic background is the Hazards Planning Research Center, and the in city and regional planning and international affairs. Planning and Community Health Research PAS SUBSCRIBERS GET EVERY NEW PAS REPORT, PLUS Center—guide and advance a research direc- Susan Shaheen is an adjunct professor in the Department of Civil THESE RESOURCES FOR EVERYONE IN THE OFFICE TO SHARE tive that addresses important societal issues. and Environmental Engineering and a research engineer with the APA’s research, education, and advocacy pro- Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, grams help planners create communities of Berkeley.
    [Show full text]
  • Travel Behavior: Shared Mobility and Transportation Equity August 2017 6
    Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers' names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Quality Assurance Statement The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement. Shared Mobility Primer | 2 TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. PL-18-007 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Travel Behavior: Shared Mobility and Transportation Equity August 2017 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report Susan Shaheen (UC Berkeley), Corwin Bell (UC Berkeley), Adam No. Cohen (UC Berkeley), Balaji Yelchuru (Booz Allen Hamilton) 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Booz Allen Hamilton Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Justice and the Supreme Court: Lessons from the Past
    Mitchell Hamline Law Journal of Public Policy and Practice Volume 42 Issue 1 Article 2 2021 Social Justice and the Supreme Court: Lessons from the Past Vicki Lens Follow this and additional works at: https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/policypractice Part of the Jurisprudence Commons, Legal Remedies Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Lens, Vicki (2021) "Social Justice and the Supreme Court: Lessons from the Past," Mitchell Hamline Law Journal of Public Policy and Practice: Vol. 42 : Iss. 1 , Article 2. Available at: https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/policypractice/vol42/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at Mitchell Hamline Open Access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mitchell Hamline Law Journal of Public Policy and Practice by an authorized administrator of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact [email protected]. © Mitchell Hamline School of Law Lens: Social Justice and the Supreme Court SOCIAL JUSTICE AND THE SUPREME COURT: LESSONS FROM THE PAST Vicki Lens TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 49 PART I: THE EARLY YEARS ........................................................................................................ 52 A. Expanding Educational Opportunity: The Quest to End Segregation ............................. 53 B. “Right to Live”: Advocating for the Economic
    [Show full text]
  • I America's Great Modern Justice
    n the spring of 1864, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. was fight- circumstances—with the survival of the nation, as well as of the ing in the Civil War as a Union Army captain. He had enlisted multitudes fighting, so uncertain. In part because of changes that three years earlier, soon after the war began, when he was 20 Holmes himself brought to the law, and ultimately to the Court, it and in his last term at Harvard College, in the class of 1861. As an is now a very different institution from the one he served on. The infantry officer in Virginia, he had received a near-fatal wound lives of the justices appear distant from the experiences of their fel- at Ball’s Bluff in his first battle, where he was shot through the low citizens. Yet there are important parallels between Holmes’s era chest in a Union raid that backfired. He had proved his valor and the current one, and between the challenges for the Court in by rejoining his men af- his time and now. A century ter he was shot, defying ago, as today, politics splin- an order to have his tered the nation and inequal- wound tended. At ity segregated it. The Court Antietam a year later, where was subject to ideology, un- he was briefly left for dead checked partisanship, and Ion the bloodiest day in U.S. America’s the kind of political warfare Army history, a bullet ripped expected only in high-stakes through his neck. At Chan- campaigns. cellorsville, in another eight In these circumstances, months, an iron ball from Budiansky’s new Oliver Wen- cannon shot badly wounded Great dell Holmes: A Life in War, Law, him in the heel.
    [Show full text]