DOCSLIB.ORG

On Treating Unlike Cases Alike Book Review Symposium: Settled Versus Right: a Theory of Precedent Frederick Schauer

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
On Treating Unlike Cases Alike Book Review Symposium: Settled Versus Right: a Theory of Precedent Frederick Schauer University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 2018 On Treating Unlike Cases Alike Book Review Symposium: Settled versus Right: A Theory of Precedent Frederick Schauer Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Schauer, Frederick, "On Treating Unlike Cases Alike Book Review Symposium: Settled versus Right: A Theory of Precedent" (2018). Constitutional Commentary. 1186. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/1186 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Constitutional Commentary collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 6 - SCHAUER.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 10/6/18 10:56 AM ON TREATING UNLIKE CASES ALIKE SETTLED VERSUS RIGHT: A THEORY OF PRECEDENT. By Randy J. Kozel.1 Cambridge University Press. 2017. Pp. x + 180. $99.99 (hardcover), $34.99 (paper). Frederick Schauer2 Perhaps we should blame Aristotle. In his enduring discussion of justice in the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle offered the now-ubiquitous maxim that like cases should be treated alike.3 Yet despite the fact that a raft of scholars over the years have exposed the almost complete emptiness of the “treat like cases alike” maxim,4 the maxim persists,5 often blinding those who use it, or see it applied, to the way in which some substantive criterion 1. Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School. 2. David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia. This paper was prepared for the symposium honoring and discussing Randy Kozel’s Settled Versus Right: A Theory of Precedent, held at the University of Richmond School of Law on April 20–21, 2018. 3. ARISTOTLE, ETHICA NICOMACHEA 5.1131a10–b15 (W. D. Ross trans., Oxford Univ. Press 1925) (c. 350 B.C.E.). See also ARISTOTLE, MAGNA MORALIA 1.1193b–1194b (W. D. Ross trans., Oxford Univ. Press 1925) (n.d.); ARISTOTLE, POLITICS, 3.1280a8–16, 1282b18–23 (Ernest Barker ed. & trans., Oxford Univ. Press 1946) (c. 350 B.C.E.); W. VON LEYDEN, ARISTOTLE ON EQUALITY AND JUSTICE: HIS POLITICAL ARGUMENT (1985). 4. E.g., LARRY ALEXANDER & EMILY SHERWIN, THE RULE OF RULES: MORALITY, RULES, AND THE DILEMMAS OF LAW 136–56 (2001); H. L. A. HART, THE CONCEPT OF LAW 159 (Penelope A. Bulloch et. al. eds., 3d ed. 2012) (1961); DAVID LYONS, On Formal Justice, in MORAL ASPECTS OF LEGAL THEORY: ESSAYS ON LAW, JUSTICE, AND POLITICAL RESPONSIBILITY 13 (1993); JOSEPH RAZ, THE MORALITY OF FREEDOM 239–44 (1986); Christopher J. Peters, Foolish Consistency: On Equality, Integrity, and Justice in Stare Decisis, 105 YALE L.J. 2031 (1996); Adam M. Samaha, Randomization in Adjudication, 51 WM. & MARY L. REV. 1 (2009); Peter Westen, The Empty Idea of Equality, 95 HARV. L. REV. 537 (1982); Kenneth I. Winston, On Treating Like Cases Alike, 62 CALIF. L. REV. 1 (1974); Ben Johnson & Richard Jordan, Should Like Cases be Decided Alike? A Formal Analysis of Four Theories of Justice (Feb. 21, 2018) https://ssrn.com/abstract=3127737. My own contributions to this literature are Frederick Schauer, Precedent, in THE ROUTLEDGE COMPANION TO PHILOSOPHY OF LAW 123 (Andrei Marmor ed., 2012); Frederick Schauer, Precedent, 39 STAN. L. REV. 571 (1987). 5. See, e.g., Marvin Ammori, First Amendment Architecture, 2012 WIS. L. REV. 1, 74 (2012); Joseph William Singer, Normative Methods for Lawyers, 56 UCLA L. REV. 899, 948 (2009). 437 6 - SCHAUER.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 10/6/18 10:56 AM 438 CONSTITUTIONAL COMMENTARY [Vol. 33:437 of likeness is necessary in order to make the maxim anything other than a largely useless tautology.6 Given that any two items in the world share some but not all of the properties of the respective items, any two items can be deemed alike in some respects and unalike in others, thus making the mere idea of likeness or unlikeness singularly unhelpful. Despite the necessity of locating some criterion of similarity (and, conversely, of dissimilarity) in order to fill in this fundamental emptiness of the “treat like cases alike” maxim, the maxim has far too often served as one of the principal justifications for a regime of precedent,7 a regime in which decision-makers have an obligation to follow previous “like” decisions even if and when they find those decisions mistaken.8 But although there may be rare instances in which the question presented to a current court is genuinely identical to the question presented to the same court on some previous occasion,9 those instances are sufficiently rare as to make the “treat like cases alike” maxim an unsatisfactory basis for a norm or regime of precedential constraint. Rather, such a norm or regime is important when, in the interests of stability, predictability, decision-maker constraint, or, perhaps most importantly, systemic integrity or internal coherence, the norm (presumptively10) 6. See FREDERICK SCHAUER, PROFILES, PROBABILITIES, AND STEREOTYPES 199– 223 (2003). To the same effect, although more obliquely, are HANS KELSEN, Aristotle’s Doctrine of Justice, in WHAT IS JUSTICE? JUSTICE, LAW, AND POLITICS IN THE MIRROR OF SCIENCE 110–136 (1957), and RICHARD A. WASSERSTROM, THE JUDICIAL DECISION: TOWARD A THEORY OF LEGAL JUSTIFICATION 112–13 (1961). 7. See, e.g., RUPERT CROSS, PRECEDENT IN ENGLISH LAW 4 (3d ed., 1977); NEIL MACCORMICK, LEGAL REASONING AND LEGAL THEORY 73–99 (1978); Alfonso Ruiz Miguel, Equality Before the Law and Precedent, 10 RATIO JURIS 372 (1997). An important rejoinder is LYONS, supra note 4. 8. On the importance of understanding that a genuine argument from precedent is not dependent on the precedent-follower’s belief in the correctness of the precedent decision, see Kimble v. Marvel Entm’t, LLC, 135 S. Ct. 2401, 2409 (2015); WASSERSTROM, supra note 6, at 52. 9. See Causeway Med. Suite v. Ieyoub, 109 F.3d 1096, 1113 (5th Cir. 1997) (Garza, J., concurring) (regretting that he was compelled by a directly applicable precedent to make a decision he believed was “inimical to the Constitution”). 10. In theory, the force of a precedent might be conclusive, such that ignoring (or overturning) a precedent was simply impermissible. This may well have been English practice prior to 1966, when the view was that a court could not overrule or override even its own precedent—that was for Parliament to do, and not even for the court that had originally decided it. This understanding of the infinite weight of a precedent was changed with the famous 1966 Practice Statement (see CROSS, supra note 7, at 109–13; R. W. M. DIAS, JURISPRUDENCE 127 (5th ed., 1985)), and Great Britain has now joined the rest of the common law world in considering even plainly applicable precedents as presumptive 6 - SCHAUER.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 10/6/18 10:56 AM 2018] ON TREATING UNLIKE CASES ALIKE 439 requires decision-makers to ignore even relevant differences, and thus to treat unlike cases alike. Or so I will suggest here, and in doing so I will be using Randy Kozel’s important justification for a precedential regime as the platform for my analysis. I. In defending the desirability of a regime of stare decisis— horizontal precedent11—for the Supreme Court of the United States, Kozel offers an account that is generally more normative than descriptive.12 As a matter of empirical description, strong precedential constraint has rarely characterized Supreme Court decision-making.13 Saul Brenner and Harold Spaeth’s wonderfully titled Stare Indecisis14 captures well the conclusion of and not absolute. Nevertheless, if the presumptivity of a precedent does not require that there be better reasons for overriding, ignoring, or overruling a precedent than there would have been for reaching a different result in the first instance, then the precedential force of a presumptive precedent disappears. See FREDERICK SCHAUER, PLAYING BY THE RULES: A PHILOSOPHICAL EXAMINATION OF RULE-BASED DECISION-MAKING IN LAW AND IN LIFE 181–87 (1991); WASSERSTROM, supra note 6, at 52–53. 11. On the distinction between vertical precedent (the obligation of judges to follow the decisions of those above them in the judicial hierarchy) and horizontal precedent (or stare decisis), and the obligation of judges to follow the previous decisions of their own court, even when that court is now populated by different judges, see FREDERICK SCHAUER, THINKING LIKE A LAWYER: A NEW INTRODUCTION TO LEGAL REASONING 36–41 (2009) [hereinafter, SCHAUER, THINKING]; Larry Alexander, Constrained By Precedent, 63 S. CAL. L. REV. 1 (1989). 12. Kozel describes Chapter 1 of his book as, in part, “descriptive” (p. 7), but Chapter 1 is in reality a description of the history, theory, and doctrine of precedent. It is not a description of the extent to which that theory and doctrine actually influence judicial decisions. 13. Much of the empirical research is summarized in Frederick Schauer, Stare Decisis and the Selection Effect, in PRECEDENT IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 121 (Christopher J. Peters ed., 2013) [hereinafter PRECEDENT IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT]; Frederick Schauer, Has Precedent Ever Really Mattered in the Supreme Court?, 24 GA. ST. U. L. REV. 381 (2007). 14. SAUL BRENNER & HAROLD J. SPAETH, STARE INDECISIS: THE ALTERATION OF PRECEDENT ON THE SUPREME COURT, 1946–1992 (1995). See also HAROLD J. SPAETH & JEFFREY A. SEGAL, MAJORITY RULE OR MINORITY WILL: ADHERENCE TO PRECEDENT ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT (1999); Jeffrey A. Segal & Harold J. Spaeth, The Influence of Stare Decisis on the Votes of Supreme Court Justices, 40 AM. J. POL. SCI. 971 (1996). The empirical literature on the role of precedent in the Supreme Court is large and growing.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Jerome Frank's Impact on American Law
    Michigan Law Review Volume 84 Issue 4 Issues 4&5 1986 The Iconoclast as Reformer: Jerome Frank's Impact on American Law Matthew W. Frank University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Judges Commons, and the Legal Biography Commons Recommended Citation Matthew W. Frank, The Iconoclast as Reformer: Jerome Frank's Impact on American Law, 84 MICH. L. REV. 866 (1986). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol84/iss4/29 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]. 866 Michigan Law Review [Vol. 84:861 THE ICONOCLAST AS REFORMER: JEROME FRANK'S IMPACT ON AMERICAN LA w. By Robert Jerome Glennon. Ithaca: Cornell Uni­ versity Press. 1985. Pp. 252. $24.95. In the first half of this century, Jerome Frank achieved prominence as a corporate attorney, a legal realist, a New Deal administrator, and finally as a federal appellate court judge. A study of Frank's career does more than testify to the man's extraordinary breadth of interest, energy, and ability; it serves as a pane through which one may witness the enormous changes in law and legal theory from 1930 to 1957. In The Iconoclast as Reformer: Jerome Frank's Impact on American Law, Professor Robert Glennon 1 traces Frank's career and attempts to evaluate Frank's influence in these areas.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Investor Tom C.W
    The New Investor Tom C.W. Lin EVIEW R ABSTRACT A sea change is happening in finance. Machines appear to be on the rise and humans on LA LAW LA LAW the decline. Human endeavors have become unmanned endeavors. Human thought and UC human deliberation have been replaced by computerized analysis and mathematical models. Technological advances have made finance faster, larger, more global, more interconnected, and less human. Modern finance is becoming an industry in which the main players are no longer entirely human. Instead, the key players are now cyborgs: part machine, part human. Modern finance is transforming into what this Article calls cyborg finance. This Article offers one of the first broad, descriptive, and normative examinations of this sea change and its wide-ranging effects on law, society, and finance. The Article begins by placing the rise of artificial intelligence and computerization in finance within a larger social context. Next, it explores the evolution and birth of a new investor paradigm in law precipitated by that rise. This Article then identifies and addresses regulatory dangers, challenges, and consequences tied to the increasing reliance on artificial intelligence and computers. Specifically, it warns of emerging financial threats in cyberspace, examines new systemic risks linked to speed and connectivity, studies law’s capacity to govern this evolving financial landscape, and explores the growing resource asymmetries in finance. Finally, drawing on themes from the legal discourse about the choice between rules and standards, this Article closes with a defense of humans in an uncertain financial world in which machines continue to rise, and it asserts that smarter humans working with smart machines possess the key to better returns and better futures.
    [Show full text]
  • Jerome Frank's Fact-Skepticism and Our Future*
    JEROME FRANK'S FACT-SKEPTICISM AND OUR FUTURE* EDMOND GAHNt I WHEN Dean Rostow asked me to describe the main features of Jerome Frank's legal philosophy, I resolved that-no matter how tentative my sum- mary might be-I must speak in the perspective of the future. For one thing, this is the way he habitually faced and spoke and wrote; it is the way to be faithful to his thought. For another, his philosophy-which he called "fact- skepticism"'-is nothing more or less than a bold confrontation of the future and a flinging of gages at its feet. I believe that Jerome Frank's fact-skepti- cism represents an epoch-making contribution not only to legal theory and procedural reform, but also to the understanding of the entire human condition. The history of our time will record whether we profited by the challenges he bequeathed to us. For about twenty-five years Jerome Frank's coruscating and marvelously restless mind planned and built and developed the meaning of fact-skepticism. Fully aware that his approach was novel, he deliberately repeated and reiter- ated his doctrines, phrased them first this way then that, and summoned analogies from every corner of the cultural world to make his ideas clearer. To justify the repetitions, he used the following story: "Mr. Smith of Denver was introduced to Mr. Jones at a dinner party in Chicago. 'Oh,' said Jones, 'do you know my friend Mr. Schnicklefritz, who lives in Denver?' 'No,' answered Smith. Later in the evening, when Smith referred to Denver, Jones again asked whether Smith was ac- quainted with Schnicklefritz, and again received a negative reply.
    [Show full text]
  • Antitrust and Baseball: Stealing Holmes
    Antitrust and Baseball: Stealing Holmes Kevin McDonald 1. introduction this: It happens every spring. The perennial hopefulness of opening day leads to talk of LEVEL ONE: “Justice Holmes baseball, which these days means the business ruled that baseball was a sport, not a of baseball - dollars and contracts. And business.” whether the latest topic is a labor dispute, al- LEVEL TWO: “Justice Holmes held leged “collusion” by owners, or a franchise that personal services, like sports and considering a move to a new city, you eventu- law and medicine, were not ‘trade or ally find yourself explaining to someone - commerce’ within the meaning of the rather sheepishly - that baseball is “exempt” Sherman Act like manufacturing. That from the antitrust laws. view has been overruled by later In response to the incredulous question cases, but the exemption for baseball (“Just how did that happen?”), the customary remains.” explanation is: “Well, the famous Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. decided that baseball was exempt from the antitrust laws in a case called The truly dogged questioner points out Federal Baseball Club ofBaltimore 1.: National that Holmes retired some time ago. How can we League of Professional Baseball Clubs,‘ and have a baseball exemption now, when the an- it’s still the law.” If the questioner persists by nual salary for any pitcher who can win fifteen asking the basis for the Great Dissenter’s edict, games is approaching the Gross National Prod- the most common responses depend on one’s uct of Guam? You might then explain that the level of antitrust expertise, but usually go like issue was not raised again in the courts until JOURNAL 1998, VOL.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Supremacy and the Modest Constitution
    Judicial Supremacy and the Modest Constitution Frederick Schauert INTRODUCTION Judicial supremacy is under attack. From various points on the politi- cal spectrum, political actors as well as academics have challenged the idea that the courts in general, and the Supreme Court in particular, have a spe- cial and preeminent responsibility in interpreting and enforcing the Constitution. Reminding us that treating Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution as supreme and authoritative has no grounding in constitu- tional text and not much more in constitutional history, these critics seek to relocate the prime source of interpretive guidance. The courts have an important role to play, these critics acknowledge, but it is a role neither greater than that played by other branches, nor greater than the role to be played by "the people themselves."' The critics' understanding of a more limited function for the judiciary in constitutional interpretation appears to rest, however, primarily on a highly contestable conception of the point of having a written constitution in the first place. According to this conception, a constitution, and espe- cially the Constitution of the United States, is the vehicle by which a de- mocratic polity develops its own fundamental values. A constitution, therefore, becomes both a statement of our most important values and the vehicle through which these values are created and crystallized. Under this conception of the role of a written constitution, it would indeed be a mis- take to believe that the courts should have the preeminent responsibility for interpreting that constitution. For this task of value generation to devolve Copyright © 2004 California Law Review, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • JUDGE JEROME FRANK Tamm Arnoldt
    JUDGE JEROME FRANK Tamm ARNOLDt EW SUCH brilliant, original and many-sided men as Jerome Frank have ever attained judicial eminence in the history of any bench, here or abroad. He was an economist in the sense that he knew and could com- pare all of the different theories by which men of various and conflicting doc- trinaire views strove to create principles which, if followed, would make a na- tion's economy rational, scientific and neat as a trivet or an apple pie. He also knew, perhaps better than any other living judge, the practical problems of finance. As Mr. Justice Douglas recently pointed out,' Jerome Frank "had no superior when it came to an understanding of the ways of high finance and to an analysis of regulatory measures dealing with it." This practical knowledge prevented him from ever being caught in the web of any economic doctrine. He was a lawyer of great technical skill, and he had an extraordinary grasp of the deductive system of wheels within wheels which gives the law its appearance of predictability. He also read widely and with complete skepticism the litera- ture of that brooding omnipresence in the sky known as Jurisprudence or the higher law. He was a student of psychiatry and was able to use that knowledge in his treatment of legal problems. As a writer, he developed a legal philosophy which had tremendous impact on the legal thinking of our time. On the bench, he produced a series of judi- cial opinions outstanding in their uniform fairness, equity and economic soundness.
    [Show full text]
  • “Clean Hands” Doctrine
    Announcing the “Clean Hands” Doctrine T. Leigh Anenson, J.D., LL.M, Ph.D.* This Article offers an analysis of the “clean hands” doctrine (unclean hands), a defense that traditionally bars the equitable relief otherwise available in litigation. The doctrine spans every conceivable controversy and effectively eliminates rights. A number of state and federal courts no longer restrict unclean hands to equitable remedies or preserve the substantive version of the defense. It has also been assimilated into statutory law. The defense is additionally reproducing and multiplying into more distinctive doctrines, thus magnifying its impact. Despite its approval in the courts, the equitable defense of unclean hands has been largely disregarded or simply disparaged since the last century. Prior research on unclean hands divided the defense into topical areas of the law. Consistent with this approach, the conclusion reached was that it lacked cohesion and shared properties. This study sees things differently. It offers a common language to help avoid compartmentalization along with a unified framework to provide a more precise way of understanding the defense. Advancing an overarching theory and structure of the defense should better clarify not only when the doctrine should be allowed, but also why it may be applied differently in different circumstances. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1829 I. PHILOSOPHY OF EQUITY AND UNCLEAN HANDS ...................... 1837 * Copyright © 2018 T. Leigh Anenson. Professor of Business Law, University of Maryland; Associate Director, Center for the Study of Business Ethics, Regulation, and Crime; Of Counsel, Reminger Co., L.P.A; [email protected]. Thanks to the participants in the Discussion Group on the Law of Equity at the 2017 Southeastern Association of Law Schools Annual Conference, the 2017 International Academy of Legal Studies in Business Annual Conference, and the 2018 Pacific Southwest Academy of Legal Studies in Business Annual Conference.
    [Show full text]
  • Jerome Frank's Views on Trial by Jury
    Missouri Law Review Volume 22 Issue 1 January 1957 Article 8 1957 Jerome Frank's Views on Trial by Jury Julius Paul Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Julius Paul, Jerome Frank's Views on Trial by Jury, 22 MO. L. REV. (1957) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol22/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Paul: Paul: Jerome Frank's Views on Trial by Jury JEROME FRAN'S VIEWS ON TRIAL BY JURY JULIUS PAUL6 I must say that as a litigant I should dread a lawsuit beyond almost anything short of sickness and death.--JumE LEARNED HAND. As one who professes to be a thoroughgoing democrat, Jerome Frank has a respect for the historical basis of trial by jury, but as a lawyer and now a judge, he finds the jury system not only a grossly inefficient system of finding the facts, but also a system that has dangerously outgrown its original functions. In most jury eases, then, the jury determines not the "facts" but the legal rights and obligations of the parties to the suit. For the judgment of the court follows the general verdict of the jury, so that the verdict, since it produces a judgment which determined the respective rights and obligations, decides the law of the par- ticular ease.
    [Show full text]
  • A Colleague's Observation... Jerome Frank As Prophet: Courts on Trial Revisited Damian L
    University of Baltimore Law Forum Volume 22 Article 3 Number 3 Spring, 1992 1992 A Colleague's Observation... Jerome Frank as Prophet: Courts on Trial Revisited Damian L. Halstad Hoffman, Comfort, Offutt, Scott & aH lstad, LLP Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Halstad, Damian L. (1992) "A Colleague's Observation... Jerome Frank as Prophet: Courts on Trial Revisited," University of Baltimore Law Forum: Vol. 22: No. 3, Article 3. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf/vol22/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Forum by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A COLLEAGUE'S OBSERVATION ... JEROME FRANK AS PROPHET: COURTS ON TRIAL REVISITED By Damian L. Halstad, Esquire In 1949, legal philosopher and fed­ edges, are simply attributable to hu­ asks, ifthe facts to which we are apply­ eraljudge Jerome Frank published his man nature. An honest witness may ing the rule are wrong? Further, how most important legal treatise, Courts erroneously observe, recollect, or ar­ remedial is an appellate court when it On Trial. J Widely received as a com­ ticulate the facts, or may be uncon­ too is basically constrained by the fac­ prehensive and incisive criticism of sciously swayed by subtle subliminal tual findings of the trial court? The our trial courts, the book sought to biases.
    [Show full text]
  • William O. Douglas As a Common Law Judge
    ESSAY WILLIAM 0. DOUGLAS AS A COMMON LAW JUDGE MELVIN I. UROFSKY* Few Justices of the United States Supreme Court created as much controversy during their lifetimes as did William 0. Douglas.1 During his record thirty-six years on the bench, he forcefully spoke on issues as wide-ranging as American foreign affairs and the environment; traveled around the world, visiting "strange lands and strange people"; 2 wrote dozens of books and articles on a variety of topics aimed at the general public; 3 and divorced and remarried three times.4 In addition, he cham- pioned the liberal position on nearly every issue before the Court. Justice Douglas's political and judicial liberalism, as well as his idiosyncratic lifestyle, infuriated conservatives. In 1970, these conservatives, led by then-Congressman Gerald R. Ford, attempted to impeach him.5 Of course, Douglas has not been without his champions. Upon his retirement from the Court, his former pupil, lifelong friend, and occa- sional colleague, Abe Fortas, declared that "[t]hroughout his life, Doug- las has fiercely occupied high ground-the highest that life on this earth offers. He is, of course, an idealist; but, for him, ideals are not abstrac- tions; they are objectives demanding present fulfillment."'6 One of his favorite law clerks, Vern Countryman, wrote extensively on Douglas and the enduring impact his opinions and dissents have had on American * Professor of History, Virginia Commonwealth University. B.A., Columbia University, 1961; Ph.D., Columbia University, 1968; J.D., University of Virginia, 1983. 1. Justice William 0. Douglas served on the Supreme Court from 1939-1975.
    [Show full text]
  • Complete Oral History Package
    , I . " _ MIL.TON V. FRE-EMAN, ESQUIRE .: _ Oral J:listory Project- - ' . '.fheHistorical Socie,ty of the Distri�� of Cohimbia Ci-rcuif .- . .. ·. - .. •' ' Oral History Project United States Courts The Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit District of Columbia Circuit Milton V. Freeman, Esquire Interview conducted by: Phyllis Hurwitz Marcus, Esquire May 18,1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface ................................................................ i Oral History Agreements .. Milton V. Freeman, Esq. ............................................. 11 Phyllis Hurwitz Marcus, Esq. ........................................ iv Biographical Sketches Milton V. Freeman, Esq. ............................................ vi Phyllis Hurwitz Marcus, Esq. ........................................ vii Oral History Transcript of Interview on May 18, 1995 ........................... 1 Index ............................................................... A1 NOTE The following pages record an interview conducted on the date indicated. The interview was electronically recorded, and the transcription was subsequently reviewed and edited by the interviewee. The contents hereof and all literary rights pertaining hereto are governed by, and are subject to, the Oral History Agreements included herewith. 0 1997 Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit. All rights reserved. PREFACE The goal of the Oral History Project of the Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit is to preserve the recollections of the judges who
    [Show full text]
  • The GW Psychiatrist- Spring 2016
    Issue 1 | VolUme 4 | spring 2016 The GW Psychiatrist The Newsletter of the George Washington University Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences GLOBAL MENTAL HEALTH P. 3 RESIDENCY 2016 P. 6 FIVE TRIMESTERS CLINIC P. 8 3 The Chair’s Column: Why Global Mental Health? 4 International Perspectives in Psychosomatic Medicine 5 From the Program Director 6 From the Associate Program Director: On Core Values and Recruitment 6 Reflections on the Residency Fellowship in Health Policy 7 Updates from Children’s National Health System 7 World Handball Champion? Sam Goodman, M.D., Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry 8 Five Trimesters Clinic: Notes on the 2nd Biennial Perinatal Mental Health Conference 9 Great Expectations: The Intern Perspective 9 Kudos & Congrats 10 Emotionally Focused Therapy 11 Changing Faces of Leadership in Psychiatry 11 Sanity and Survival: Grand Rounds Summary ThaNk yoU, WrITerS aND reaDerS! Editor: Jason Emejuru, MD Contributors: Victoria Anderson, Trevor Forde | Advisor: Lori Kels, MD, MPH Senior Marketing Manager: Sean Liphard Design: Kelly Sullivan DeParTmeNT of PSychIaTry aND BehaVIoral ScIeNceS 2120 L Street, NW, Suite 600 | Washington, DC 20037 202.741.2888 | gwdocs.com/psychiatry The Chair’s Column: Why Global Mental Health? treated patients in clinics for immigrants and refugees, and conducted asylum eval- uations for political refugees in our Human Rights Clinic. By 2015, the global mental health track had enabled GW psychiatry residents to train in 10 countries and to publish a number of journal articles. However, our global mental health curriculum provided all our psychiatry residents with expertise as applicable in the U.S., as in low income countries.
    [Show full text]