I'm a libertarian lawyer and college professor. I blog on religion, history, constitutional law, government policy, philosophy, sexuality, and the American Founding. Everything is fair game though. Over the years, I've been involved in numerous group blogs that come and go. This blog archives almost everything I write.
Email your questions or comments to rowjonathan@aol.com
Friday, August 06, 2010
Predicting Justice Kennedy:
I didn't have much to say on the newest Prop. 8 ruling, but what little I did say got linked by Andrew Sullivan, which I always appreciate.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/brown.html relates the compelling story of how Brown v. Education became a unanimous essentially because it had to be unanimous as well as some interesting "insider" type trading by Justice Frankfurter. Rockwell shows that rule of law doesn't always trump the kritarchy (rule by judge). And, gloria, he mentions King Alfred, "The Brown decision was the product of an ex parte dialogue between a sitting judge (Frankfurter) and a litigant (Elman), which transgressed the fundamental ethical norms for judges that have changed little since English King Alfred the Great's legal reforms after his triumph over the Danes in the year 878. The bedrock of the system of justice that we have inherited is the impartiality of judges. Judges are required to conduct themselves in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and the objectivity of the judiciary and must avoid even the appearance of impropriety. But in Brown, Frankfurter, in effect, received an ongoing brief from the government, to which neither Thurgood Marshall nor John Davis had a chance to reply." A very interesting read.
1 comment:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/brown.html relates the compelling story of how Brown v. Education became a unanimous essentially because it had to be unanimous as well as some interesting "insider" type trading by Justice Frankfurter. Rockwell shows that rule of law doesn't always trump the kritarchy (rule by judge). And, gloria, he mentions King Alfred, "The Brown decision was the product of an ex parte dialogue between a sitting judge (Frankfurter) and a litigant (Elman), which transgressed the fundamental ethical norms for judges that have changed little since English King Alfred the Great's legal reforms after his triumph over the Danes in the year 878. The bedrock of the system of justice that we have inherited is the impartiality of judges. Judges are required to conduct themselves in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and the objectivity of the judiciary and must avoid even the appearance of impropriety. But in Brown, Frankfurter, in effect, received an ongoing brief from the government, to which neither Thurgood Marshall nor John Davis had a chance to reply." A very interesting read.
Post a Comment