DOCSLIB.ORG

Government Lawyer by Barbara A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Government Lawyer by Barbara A StanfordLawyer Fall/Winter 1978 Volume 13, No.2 Editor: Cheryl W. Ritchie Graphic Designer: Carol Hilk-Kummer 1 Dean's Page 2 The Role of the Government Lawyer by Barbara A. Babcock, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, and Professor of Law, Stanford Law School 6 Gerald Gunther: Reflections on a Relationship With His Native Germany by David Margolick 77 13 Stanford's Teaching Fellows: Helping Students Master the Language of the Law 16 Impressions of a First-Year Student Drawings by Piotr S. Gorecki 18 Alumni Weekend: November 3-4, 1978 21 Hug vs. Shell Oil: How One Man Beat the Computer 22 School and Faculty News 27 Class Notes Stanford Lawyer is published semi-annually for alumni and friends of Stanford Law School. Materials for publication and correspondence are welcome and should be sent to the Editor, Stanford Lawyer, Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA 94305. Dean's Page portion of this issue of the Stan­ and client counseling competitions at the ford Lawyer recounts the activi­ School; many work for the School's Law A ties of Alumni Weekend, held Fund as Inner Quad or Quad volunteers, this year on November 3 and 4 in con- or as class agents; and perhaps most im­ junction with the Stanford-USC game. It portantly, a large number demonstrate was our most successful alumni gather­ their support through the placement pro­ ing yet. Some 325 people attended the gram by representing their firms during Friday night banquet and over 250 alum­ the School's interview season. Clearly, ni/ae attended their class reunion dinners alumnilae participation in the affairs of on Saturday night. But equally impres­ the School takes myriad forms, and each sive as the numbers was the enthusiastic is vital to the School's educational, as participation of the alumni/ae in the pro­ well as fiscal, welfare. grams presented at the School, about I do not deny that you hear from us the School. For a full day and a half our about money, nor do I apologize for graduates and friends heard about the asking. Private education is beset with School's activities: clinical legal educa­ financial problems: we are a labor-inten­ tion, scholarship in legal history, the re­ sive service institution, and the better we search and teaching interests of profes­ get the more labor intensive we become. sors who have recently joined the faculty, With inflation being the new American new curricular developments, admis­ way of life, it is no wonder that we run sions, faculty appointments, and fund­ short of dollars. Moreover, since there raising and finances. is virtually no foundation or government About the last of these areas, I want support of private law schools, we must to add a word or two. Occasionally look to our alumni/ae and friends to alumni/ae tell me that they never hear make up the difference between our in­ from the School except when we ask for come and our expenses. money. That accusation, in my view, is The programs described during Alum­ unfounded. It is undeniable that the ni Weekend-clinical training, research in School relies heavily on contributions legal history, curricular innovation-are from alumni/ae and friends, but just as expensive, but it is through scholarship vital to our well-being are the time, in­ and teaching that a law school makes its terest, and emotional and intellectual contribution to legal education and to participation that we also ask you to the profession. It is for these essential give. We seek your support through sev­ functions that we ask your support. eral means, one of which is our publi­ As I said earlier, I am not ashamed to cations, such as the Stanford Lawyer, talk about money, but I don't think we which you are reading this moment, and should ask for it without describing the Board of Visitors Report, which you what we are doing with it. The Stanford received in November. The Alumni Lawyer and our other publications seek Weekend, with its many hours of pro­ to do exactly that. Please read the mate­ grams about the School, is still another. rials we send you. Please come to pro­ Many graduates offer their support grams like Alumni Weekend to learn through participation in the School's and observe firsthand what we are trying various volunteer activities. For example, to do at the School. Please consider several alumni/ae are involved in the ways that you might become involved "Godparent" and Liaison Programs, in programs such as the ones I've men­ which provide a means for prospective tioned. We want to keep you informed students around the country to learn about the School because we believe that about the School from its graduates; the better informed you are, the more others act as "judges" for moot court willing you will be to help. 1 TheBoleofthe Government Lawyer any times over the last year All of these expressions amount to and a half I have reflected on saying that government lawyers have M the good old days when I was more than a single client. We represent in private practice and later a public de­ client agencies, the government as a fender. Life was relatively simple, al­ whole, and the people of the United though we had to make many difficult States. As a matter of rhetoric, whether decisions about which defenses to raise, you express it in governmentese or in a which witnesses to call, whether to go to law journal or in an engraving, this is trial at all. Nevertheless, within the bal­ all fine. But the application of the ideal ance of law and ethics the clients' best in daily life is full of tensions and diffi­ interests dictated the choices. In those culties. For one thing, our client agen­ days my job as a lawyer was to serve cies are just like every other client: they my client and to let justice be served require soothing and hand-holding, they by the adversary system. Now, as a gov­ are demanding, and they expect miracles ernment lawyer, I find that those were from their lawyers. halcyon days. Added to the problems which all law­ In this job I, and all the lawyers in the yers have with their clients is the fact Civil Division of the Justice Department, that in most instances our clients are face almost daily great tensions which also lawyers. We deal with our clients arise from playing what is essentially a through their General Counsels' offices, triple role. It is a triple role because the and it has been my experience that there Civil Division represents: (1) over 200 is nothing worse than having a lawyer government agencies, including Congress as a client! Why? Because as we all itself; (2) some abstraction, which is know, no lawyer ever saw another law­ called "The People of the United States," yer perform brilliantly or even ade­ or "The Interest of the United States"; quately, since he or she didn't do it and (3) the government itself in its inter­ exactly as you would have done it. by Barbara Allen Babcock, est in consistency and in its interests that So, I take it with a grain of salt when Assistant Attorney General, go beyond those of an individual agency. our client agencies call me and complain U.S. Department So, we do not have the kind of straight­ about the performance of our lawyers. of Justice, Civil Division, forward representation of a client, which But they do call and they do complain­ and Professor of Law, is the essence of the "normal" lawyer's regularly. Moreover; in any particular Stanford Law School "normal" role. case, it is often difficult to discern what This concept of the triple role has the public interest is or to define what been stated in many ways, perhaps most is justice. The client agencies whom we classically in the engraving above the at Justice are in the habit of characteriz­ Attorney General's office door, which ing as having narrow, parochial inter­ reads, "The United States wins its point ests nevertheless have a claim to an equal whenever justice is done its citizens in or, perhaps even better, discernment the courts." Or, stated in governmentese, about what is best for the people of the a government manual for lawyers reads, United State<s. "As the largest law firm in the nation, Perhaps most problematic is the fact the Department of Justice serves as that we are dealing with clients who do counsel for its citizens. It represents them not have a choice of lawyers. In the vast in enforcing the law in the public in­ majority of cases, once a problem comes terest." And finally, in academese, Judge to court the litigating authority is placed Weinstein wrote in the Maine Law Re­ in the Attorney General. If we at Justice view, "One of the most important func­ decide that an issue or argument should tions of the government lawyer is to not be raised, the client does not have provide a bridge or neutral meeting the choice of finding a lawyer who will ground between opposing forces so that do a more satisfactory job of representa­ viable compromises, which are the hall­ tion. And there are real and significant mark of a functioning democracy, can tensions that arise from having clients be developed." who are in this position. In many ways, 3 the situation is the reverse of that of the phone and rejecting his written work sector Title VII cases courts have held lawyer in private practice who must at and she said to me, "It turned out this that a prevailing defendant could be times feel like a slave to his major clients, guy is a sixty-two-year-old grandfather­ awarded attorney's fees.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nysba Fall 2020 | Vol
    NYSBA FALL 2020 | VOL. 25 | NO. 3 NYLitigator A Journal of the Commercial & Federal Litigation Section of the New York State Bar Association Inside n Protecting Privilege in Cyberspace, the Age of COVID-19 and Beyond n The Parameters of Electronic Communication Discovery by Foreign Litigants n The Federal Procedure Committee Report: The Fifth Amendment Privilege ...and more Commercial and Federal Litigation Section OFFICERS Delegates to the The NYLitigator House of Delegates: Chair Editor Gregory K. Arenson Jonathan B. Fellows Orna Artal Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP Bond, Schoeneck Ramos & Artal LLC 850 3rd Ave, Ste 1400 & King, PLLC 535 5th Ave, Fl 4 New York, NY 10022 1 Lincoln Ctr New York, NY 10017 [email protected] Syracuse, NY 13202 [email protected] [email protected] Robert N. Holtzman Deputy Editor Kramer Levin Naftalis Chair-Elect & Frankel LLP Joam Alisme, Esq. Daniel K. Wiig 1177 Avenue Of The Americas Alisme Law LLC NYC Housing Authority New York, NY 10036 195 Montague St, Fl 14 90 Church St [email protected] Brooklyn, NY 11201 New York, NY 10007 [email protected] [email protected] Paul D. Sarkozi Tannenbaum Helpern Vice-Chair Syracuse & Hirschtritt LLP Ignatius A. Grande 900 3rd Ave Former Chairs Berkeley Research Group LLC New York, NY 10022 810 7th Ave, Ste 4100 [email protected] Laurel Kretzing Lauren J. Wachtler New York, NY 10019 Robert L. Haig Stephen P. Younger [email protected] Alternate Delegate to the Michael A. Cooper Lesley F. Rosenthal House of Delegates Shira A. Scheindlin Carrie H. Cohen Secretary Laurel R. Kretzing Harry P.
    [Show full text]
  • Gerald Gunther Papers
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt3g5037g0 Online items available Guide to the Gerald Gunther Ppapers Daniel Hartwig Stanford University. Libraries.Department of Special Collections and University Archives Stanford, California October 2010 Copyright © 2015 The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved. Note This encoded finding aid is compliant with Stanford EAD Best Practice Guidelines, Version 1.0. Guide to the Gerald Gunther SC0753 1 Ppapers Overview Call Number: SC0753 Creator: Gunther, Gerald, 1927-2002. Title: Gerald Gunther papers Dates: 1807-2002 Bulk Dates: 1940-2002 Physical Description: 140 Linear feet Summary: Collection includes correspondence; Gunther's writings; biographical materials; files from his work on the Constitutional Law casebook; research files on Learned Hand, including photocopies of original documents; and microfilmed records of Supreme Court cases dating back to 1807. Language(s): The materials are in English. Repository: Department of Special Collections and University Archives Green Library 557 Escondido Mall Stanford, CA 94305-6064 Email: [email protected] Phone: (650) 725-1022 URL: http://library.stanford.edu/spc Information about Access This collection is open for research. Ownership & Copyright All requests to reproduce, publish, quote from, or otherwise use collection materials must be submitted in writing to the Head of Special Collections and University Archives, Stanford University Libraries, Stanford, California 94304-6064. Consent is given on behalf of Special Collections as the owner of the physical items and is not intended to include or imply permission from the copyright owner. Such permission must be obtained from the copyright owner, heir(s) or assigns. See: http://library.stanford.edu/depts/spc/pubserv/permissions.html.
    [Show full text]
  • Gerald Gunther
    GERALD GUNTHER 26 may 1927 . 30 july 2002 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY VOL. 148, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2004 biographical memoirs ERALD GUNTHER had one of the greatest careers in G American constitutional law in the second half of the twenti- eth century. Many thousands of American lawyers first en- countered the complexities of the Constitution in Gunther’s widely adopted casebook, which carries the simple title Constitutional Law (at the time of his death, it was in its fourteenth edition, then co- authored with Kathleen Sullivan). The casebook places constitutional issues and Supreme Court decisions in a context that is historical and philosophical as well as legal. His scholarly standards were exacting and his overall approach to the law subtle and humanistic, learned, re- flective, and skeptical. His casebook gives the reader Gerald Gunther’s own sense that the law is a worthy subject matter, to be taken seriously. On 21 April 1995, Professor Gunther read a paper before the American Philosophical Society, “Judge Learned Hand: The Choices and Satisfactions of a Biographer.” Gunther had spent more than twenty years on his exhaustive biography of the most distinguished lower court judge in American history. The book was published, to wide acclaim, in 1994. In the paper he delivered at Philadelphia, Gunther stressed the qualities of Learned Hand: “disinterestedness, non-dogmatic evenhandedness, incessant skeptical probing.” These were also Gunther’s qualities. One of Gunther’s favorite passages from Learned Hand was the remarks the judge made upon receiving an honorary degree from Har- vard: “I am thinking of what the scholar imposes upon himself; better, perhaps, of what he may fail to impose upon himself; of those abnega- tions which are the condition of his preserving the serenity in which alone he can work; I am thinking of an aloofness from burning issues, which is hard for generous and passionate natures, but without which they almost inevitably become advocates, agitators, crusaders, and propagandists.
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut Law Review
    CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW VOLUME 36 SUMMER 2004 NUMBER 4 An Open Discussion with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg On March 12, 2004, the University of Connecticut School of Law welcomed Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, of the Supreme Court of the United States, to campus as the Day, Berry & Howard Foundation Visiting Scholar. As part of her visit, Justice Ginsburg gave some brief remarks on "The Lighter Side of Life at the Court" to an assembled gathering and then participated in a question-and-answer session moderated by Professor Paul Schiff Berman, who clerked for Justice Ginsburg during the 1997-98 term. Pro- fessor Berman gathered the questions in advance from stu- dents and faculty members, but Justice Ginsburg was not given the questions before the session. What follows is the text of Justice Ginsburg'sprepared remarks, followed by an edited transcriptof the question-and-answersession. Justice Ginsburg: Thank you. I appreciate the most hearty welcome I have received here, and am glad to devote most of this hour to a conversation with you based on the questions Paul has gathered. As a lead into that conversation, I will speak not of the heavy work of the U.S. Supreme Court, but of some things less grave--customs that promote collegiality among the nine Justices, and the lighter side of life in our Marble Palace. Before each Court day begins and before each of our conference dis- cussions, as we enter the robing room or the conference room, we shake 1034 CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW [Vol. 36:1033 hands, each Justice with every other.
    [Show full text]
  • REGULATING RACIST SPEECH on CAMPUS: a MODEST PROPOSAL?T
    REGULATING RACIST SPEECH ON CAMPUS: A MODEST PROPOSAL?t NADINE STROSSEN* TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................... 487 I. Some Limited Forms of Campus Hate Speech May Be Regulable Under Current Constitutional Doctrine .......... 495 A. General ConstitutionalPrinciples Applicable to Regulating Campus Hate Speech ...................... 495 B. ParticularSpeech-Limiting Doctrines Potentially Applicable to Campus Hate Speech .................... 507 1. Fighting Words ................................... 508 2. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ......... 514 t The title is drawn from Jonathan Swift's essay A Modest Proposalfor preventing the Children of poor Peoplefrom being a Burthen to their Parentsor the Country, andfor Making them Beneficial to the Public (Dublin 1729), in JONATHAN SwIFr 492 (A. Ross & D. Woolley eds. 1984). This Article not only responds to the specific points made in Lawrence, If He Hollers Let Him Go: Regulating Racist Speech on Campus, 1990 DUKE L.J. 431 [hereinafter Lawrence], but also addresses the general issues raised by the many recent proposals to regulate racist and other forms of hate speech on campus. Professor Strossen's Article, as well as Professor Lawrence's, are expanded versions of oral presentations that they made at the Biennial Conference of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in Madison, Wisconsin on June 16, 1989 (available from author). After discussion of these presentations, the Conference adopted the following resolution: The ACLU should undertake educational activities to counter incidents of racist, sexist, anti-semitic and homophobic behavior (including speech) on school campuses and should encourage school administrators to speak out vigorously against such incidents. At the same time, the ACLU should undertake educational activities to counter efforts to limit or punish speech on university campuses.
    [Show full text]
  • Moffatt Hancock Bids Farewell to Stanford Law School by Thomas Boothe 78
    StanfordLawyer FALL 1976/BICENTENNIAL ISSUEIVOLUME 11 Editor: Cheryl W. Ritchie Graphic Designer: Carol Hilk 2 A Message from the Dean 4-19 Three Essays for the Bicentennial 5 Toward "A More Perfect Union": Framing and Implementing the Distinctive Nation­ Building Elements of the Constitution by Gerald Gunther, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law 9 Certain Unalienable Rights: The Declara­ tion of Independence in Constitutional Law by Thomas Grey, Associate Professor of Law 13 Some Thoughts on the History of American Law by Lawrence M. Friedman, Marion Rice Kirkwood Professor of Law 20 Moffatt Hancock Bids Farewell to Stanford Law School by Thomas Boothe 78 24 Stanford Law School, 1893-1907: From Toulumne's Peer to Respectability 32 School News 37 Faculty News 40 Class Notes 54 In Memoriam Stanford Lawyer is published semi-annually for alumni and friends of Stanford Law School. Materials for publication and correspondence are welcome and should be sent to the Editor. notably in the curriculum, in the increased number of applications for admission and (a Dean is obliged to say) in the cost of doing business. But these changes have occurred, have been accomplished is a word that better describes the process, with conscious con­ cern for continuity with the past and with specific attention to the continuing and central goal of the School: The education and training of men and women to excel A Message in the practice of law. That has always been the aim of the School and I trust that it will always continue to be. To attain the goal requires constant attention to the fromtheDean three basic elements that make for excel­ lence in a law school.
    [Show full text]
  • Speaking in a Judicial Voice
    NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW VOLUME 67 DECEMBER 1992 NUMBER 6 SPEAKING IN A JUDICIAL VOICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG* An active participantin the women's movement of the 1970S and,since 19SO, a mem- berof thefederaljudiciary,Ruth Bader Ginsburg has held influentialpositions as both an advocate and a judge. In this Madison Lecture, then Judge Ginsburg drew upon her experiences to examine the 'yudicial voice"from two different perspecti=e± First, she explores the relationshipamong members of the bench, advocating a greatersense of collegiality amongjudge. Second, she contrasts the Supreme Court'ssweeping opin- ion in Roe v. Wade with the Court's more restrained approach in contemporaneous cases involving explicitly gender-baseddiscrimination. offering a vision ofjudicialdeci- sionmaking that recognizes the interdependent role of thejudiciary within the Ameri- can politicalsystem. INTRODUCTION The Madison Lecture series has exposed and developed two main themes: human rights and the administration of justice, particularly in our nation's federal courts.' My remarks touch on both themes; I will speak first about collegiality in style, and next, about moderation in the substance of appellate decisiomaking. My views on these matters reflect experiences over a span of three decades. They have been shaped from my years as a law teacher beginning in the 1960s, through the 1970s when I helped to launch the American Civil Liberties Union's Women's Rights Project, and most recently during the nearly thirteen years I have had the good fortune to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. What I hope to convey about courts, I believe, is in line with the founders'-Madison's and Hamilton's---expec- * Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
    [Show full text]
  • Generations of Constitutional Scholars
    University at Buffalo School of Law Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship Spring 1-1-1981 Men of Great and Little Faith: Generations of Constitutional Scholars Alfred S. Konefsky University at Buffalo School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Legal Studies Commons Recommended Citation Alfred S. Konefsky, Men of Great and Little Faith: Generations of Constitutional Scholars, 30 Buff. L. Rev. 365 (1981). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles/893 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MEN OF GREAT AND LITTLE FAITH: GENERATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS* ALFRED S. KoNEFKY** In the fall of 1980, at the annual meeting of the American So- ciety for Legal History, one of those periodic, obligatory academic * This article was originally delivered on May 4, 1981 as the 10th Annual Samuel J. Konefsky Lecture, Brooklyn College, City University of New York. I would like to acknowledge a number of people whose insights and criticisms helped shape the piece: James B. Atleson, Jerold S. Auerbach, Dianne Avery, Richard Ellis, Alan Freeman, Morton J. Horwitz, Jack Hyman, Al Katz, Elizabeth Mensch, Richard Parker and John Henry Schlegel, most of whom are members of the intellectual community of the Buffalo Law School, and whose demanding standards result, in a peculiar manner, in fashioning an intensely supportive environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Wise Legal Giant
    Touro Law Review Volume 37 Number 2 Article 5 2021 Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Wise Legal Giant Thomas A. Schweitzer Touro Law Center Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/lawreview Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Judges Commons, Law and Gender Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Schweitzer, Thomas A. (2021) "Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Wise Legal Giant," Touro Law Review: Vol. 37 : No. 2 , Article 5. Available at: https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/lawreview/vol37/iss2/5 This Symposium: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center. It has been accepted for inclusion in Touro Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Schweitzer: Wise Legal Giant RUTH BADER GINSBURG, WISE LEGAL GIANT Thomas A. Schweitzer* APPOINTMENT TO THE SUPREME COURT On July 20, 1993, Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee and its chairman, Senator Joseph R. Biden of Delaware, for hearings on her nomination by President William J. Clinton to the Supreme Court of the United States.1 This was the first Supreme Court nomination by a Democratic president since Lyndon Johnson appointed Thurgood Marshall in 1967. It was to replace retiring Justice Byron White, and Clinton told aides he wanted to hit a “home run.”2 Ginsburg’s nomination came at an awkward moment for President Clinton, who had made three unsuccessful nominations of women to Justice Department posts during his first year in office.3 * Professor Emeritus, Touro Law School, 1984-2020; A.B.
    [Show full text]
  • Be As.50Cia?!, Justice of the Supreme Hearings
    S. HRO. 103-482 NOMINATION OF RUIH BADER GINSBURG, TO BE AS.50CIA?!, JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATFS HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITEID STATES SENATE ONE Hmr.RED THIRD CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON THE NOMINATION OF RUTH BADER GINSBURG, TO BE ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JULY 20, 21, 22, AND 23, 1993 Serial No. J-103-21 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1994 For sale tylh e U.S. Government Pnnung Office Supenn1endent of Documents, Congressional Sales Offi ce, Wash1ng1on, DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-04411 4- 5 COMMI'ITEE ON THE JUDICIARY JOSEPH R. BIDE , Ja., Delaware, Chair7rstm EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massacbu&etta ORRlN G. HATCH, Utah HOWARD M. MET'LENBAUM, Ohio STROM THURMOND, South Carolina DENNIS DECONCINI, Arizooa ALAN K. SIMPSON, Wyoming PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa HOWELL HEFLIN, Alabama ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania PAUL SIMON, Illinois HANK BROWN, Colorado HERBERT KOHL. Wieco05in WILLIAN S. COHEN, Maine DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California LARRY PRE~LER, South Dakota CAROL MOSELEY-BRAUN, Illinoia CYNTHIA C. OGAN, Chief Coun.ael CA111ER1NE M. Russ1u., Staff Director SH.AROll PRosT; Mi,aority Clai,ef Cou,aael MARK R D1su:a, Minority Slaff Dirrcror (II) V T. unday, July 22, 1~ Nominee I Paae Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, circui court judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to be AS60Ciate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States: Testimony ............ .. ...... ...... .... .. ..... ..... ........... .................... .... .. ... ...... ...... ... ...... 260 Questioning by: Senator Kennedy ....... .............................................................................. 259 Senator Hatch ............
    [Show full text]
  • I Have Never Been Happier About Being Right on Some- Thing in My Life
    400 out that." I have never been happier about being right on some- thing in my life. [The prepared statement of Mr. Gunther follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF GERALD GUNTHER I am personally overjoyed and proud as well as professionally heartened that this committee is considering the confirmation of Ruth Bader Ginsburg for a seat on the Supreme Court. I speak as a teacher of constitutional law for more than thirty-five years, and as someone who has known Ruth Ginsburg well for almost as long a time. I am con- fident that she possesses all of the qualities you should cherish in a Justice. Ruth Ginsburg was my student at Columbia Law School. She was a brilliant stu- dent; she demonstrated extraordinary intellectual capacities, as she has in every- thing she has undertaken throughout her life. In the 1950's, I set up Columbia's program for placing graduates as judicial law clerks, and I assisted her selection by a fine federal trial judge. I have followed her work closely in the years since; I ad- mired her scholarly capacity as a faculty member at Rutgers and then at Columbia, and especially her work on behalf of women's rights, as a brief-writer and oral advo- cate before the Supreme Court. As a teacher of constitutional law and the author of a casebook in my field, I am very familiar with her central, indeed historic, role in shaping the modern law of gender discrimination. To this day, I—and, I suspect, most teachers in my field— speak admiringly of her singular contribution.
    [Show full text]
  • Earl Warren and Supreme Court History
    Tulsa Law Review Volume 32 Issue 4 Mineral Law Symposium Summer 1997 Capturing the Future: Earl Warren and Supreme Court History James A. Thomson Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation James A. Thomson, Capturing the Future: Earl Warren and Supreme Court History, 32 Tulsa L. J. 843 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol32/iss4/6 This Casenote/Comment is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Thomson: Capturing the Future: Earl Warren and Supreme Court History REVIEW ESSAY CAPTURING THE FUTURE: EARL WARREN AND SUPREME COURT HISTORY James A. Thomsont THE WARREN COURT: A RETROSPECrIVE. Edited by Bernard Schwartz.tt New York: Oxford University Press. 1996. Pp. i-x, 406. $45.00. I. INTRODUCTION Polarization-not repose-characterizes empirical1 and normative re- t LL.B. (Hons.) 1971, B.A. 1974, University of Western Australia; LL.M. 1975, SJ.D. 1981, Harvard University. tt Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Tulsa College of Law. Formerly, Edwin D. Webb Professor of Law, New York University. 1. Consider, for example, debates on the empirical significance of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (inadmissibility of confessional statements without prior warning to accused of their constitutional rights), Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (one vote, one value state legislatures' electoral reapportion- ment requirement), and Brown v.
    [Show full text]