More on this book
Community
Kindle Notes & Highlights
The soon-to-be Chief responded: “I wouldn’t call it [that], but it’s not every day when you’re 61 years old and get a chance to have a new job.”
Cute
In accord with Santayana’s wisdom, he remembered the past and did not repeat it.
ultimately, they must depend upon the political branches to effectuate their judgments.
that our fundamental instrument of government is an evolving document, “an instrument ‘intended to endure for ages to come.’ ”
the equal dignity of individuals ideal is part of our constitutional legacy,
The founding fathers rebelled against the patriarchal power of kings and the idea that political authority may legitimately rest on birth status. Their culture held them back from fully perceiving or acting upon ideals of human equality and dignity.
As historian Richard Morris has written, a prime portion of the history of the U.S. Constitution is the story of the extension (through amendment, judicial interpretation, and practice) of constitutional rights and protections to once-excluded groups: to people who were once held in bondage, to men without property, to Native Americans, and to women.
legal judgments (including constitutional rulings) are not always clear and certain.
our system of justice is so secure, we can tolerate open displays of disagreement among judges about what the law is.
In writing for the court, one must be sensitive to the sensibilities and mind-sets of one’s colleagues, which may mean avoiding certain arguments and authorities, even certain words.
L]anguage impugning the motives of a colleague,” Senior Third Circuit Judge Collins J. Seitz recently commented, may give momentary satisfaction to the separate opinion writer, but “does nothing to further cordial relationships on the court.”
Criticisms with strong or emotional language do nothing to strengthen or elaborate a judge's opinion.. keep this in mind when giving your own opinions and stick to the facts
Judge Seitz counseled “waiting a day”—I would suggest even a week or two—“before deciding whether to send a biting response.”
adopted by the people “to promote the common good, with due observance of prudence, justice and charity so that the dignity and freedom of the individual might be assured.”
even in the most emotion-laden, politically sensitive case, effective opinion writing does not require a judge to upbraid colleagues for failing to see the light or to get it right.73
Specifically, the report calls on judges to avoid “disparaging personal remarks or criticisms, or sarcastic or demeaning comments about another judge,” and instead to “be courteous, respectful, and civil in opinions, ever mindful that a position articulated by another judge generally is the result of that judge’s earnest effort to interpret the law and the facts correctly.”75 To that good advice, one can say “amen.”
We can all use this advice in our own jobs too
Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped, experience teaches, may prove unstable.78
A less encompassing Roe, one that merely struck down the extreme Texas law and went no further on that day, I believe and will summarize why, might have served to reduce rather than to fuel controversy.
the Air Force regime differentiated invidiously by allowing males who became fathers, but not females who became mothers, to remain in service and by allowing women who had undergone abortions, but not women who delivered infants, to continue their military careers.
permitted her to continue her service as an Air Force officer.
PERIOD POOH
to hold that the sex-based classification she encountered was a “suspect” category for legislative or administrative action.
admission to a state nursing college to women only.
Truly sex based discrimination adversely affects both males and females
the Court helped to ensure that laws and regulations would “catch up with a changed world.”125
entirely to remove the ball from the legislators’ court.
the “separate but equal” doctrine.135
There are no laws in this country that enable or prohibit men to make decisions based on the opinions of their healthcare providers
total rejection of Jim Crow legislation. Significantly,
&& thank GOD FOR THIS
the Justices generally follow, they do not lead, changes taking place elsewhere in society.
That renewed force, one may hope, will—within a relatively short span—yield an enduring resolution of this vital matter in a way that affirms the dignity and equality of women.150
Hopeful
th[at] judge . . . recognizes that a felt need to act only interstitially does not mean relegation of judges to a trivial or mechanical role, but rather affords the most responsible room for creative, important judicial contributions.”
The “Decent Respect” quotation, you likely noticed, comes from our Declaration of Independence.
international law is part of our law; foreign law is not, but we can be informed by how jurists abroad have resolved problems resembling those we face.
Nominee Kagan responded with her typical good humor: “I’m in favor of good ideas,” she said, “wherever you can get them.”
SHE SAID PERIODDDD
“there is much to learn from . . . distinguished jurists [in other places] who have given thought to the same difficult issues that we face here.” Exactly right, I believe, and the very point Justice Kagan made when she appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
invoked the majestic Due Process Clause to uphold one individual’s right to hold another in bondage.
😒
To invoke alien law when it agrees with one’s own thinking, and ignore it otherwise, is not reasoned decisionmaking, but sophistry.”
idea of a universal natural law; or to suppose fantastically that the world’s judges constitute a single, elite community of wisdom and conscience.”
Why wouldnt they
Judges in the United States are, without doubt, free to consult all manner of commentary—restatements, treatises, what law professors or even law students write copiously in law reviews, and, in the Internet age, any number of legal blogs. If we can consult those sources, why not the analysis of a question similar to the one we confront contained, for example, in an opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the Supreme Court of Israel, the German Constitutional Court, or the European Court of Human Rights?
Ummm right?!?!
The Court noted that “within the world community, the imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by mentally retarded offenders is overwhelmingly disapproved.”
(Lawrence v. Texas was featured in the Court’s recent decision holding unconstitutional a key provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.)
Congress acted unconstitutionally when it eliminated federal court jurisdiction to hear petitions for habeas corpus filed by aliens detained at Guantanamo Bay.
“we must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad.”
an unchecked system of detention carries the potential to become a means for oppression and abuse.”
Yet what greater defeat could we suffer than to come to resemble the forces we oppose in their disrespect for human dignity?
“Other legal systems continue to innovate, to experiment, and to find . . . solutions to the new legal problems that arise each day, [solutions] from which we can learn and benefit.”
n]ever use violence.”
Sometimes, a democracy must fight with one hand tied behind its back. Nonetheless, it has the upper hand.
Yet our own troops, when we entered that war, were racially segregated.
Here no man prefers another because of his faith, or despises him because of his color. . . . Among these men there is no discrimination, no prejudice, no hatred. Theirs is the highest and purest democracy. . . .
While proclaiming themselves inexorably opposed to Hitler’s practices, many Americans were tolerating the segregation and humiliation of nonwhites within their own borders.
southern white supremacy was its greatest vulnerability, made all the more conspicuous by the postwar overthrow of colonial regimes throughout the world.”
The existence of discrimination against minority groups in the United States has an adverse effect upon our relations with other countries. Racial discrimination . . . raises doubts even among friendly nations as to the intensity of our devotion to the democratic faith.
