The Court

[andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Being a lawyer, I do enjoy this sort of thing. Your
facts are right. Black (especially) and Douglas were
important forerunners, but compatively isolated on
liberties questions. I don't think you dispute that.
ACtually it was sort of like Rehnquist's early days on
the Burger Courtr,w hich was pretty liberal, as we see
in retrospect. And I'm not saying that the Warren
Court changed everything from the start, indeed, and
more than the Rehnquist Court did.  It wasn't till 69
that the Warren Court got in line for Brandenberg.
There were bad anti-Communist decisions through the
early 60s. I actually think it was the 60s that
changed things. Actually, the time of Brandenberg,
Black had sort of swung to the right, comparatively.
jks
--- Kenneth Campbell <kkc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hey Justin ?
>
> I will take a re-peek at the Dennis case. But I
> believe Black (and
> Douglas) were strongly against it. I believe
> Rutledge and Murphy were
> replaced by conservative Democrats. And Frankfurter
> and Jackson were a
> kind of reverse of what Eisenhower felt about Warren
> and Brennan.
>
> I guess it?s really all moot, but if you also enjoy
> this kind of thing
> (as I do), what the hell...
>
> Myself, I?d be more inclined to say that Warren and
> Brennan signed onto
> the Black-Douglas train ? in particular, their
> efforts against ?loyalty?
> initiatives.
>
> Black-Douglas had long aimed to give First Amendment
> protection to even
> those ?unworthies.? The Court, as an entity,
> resisted their dynamic-duo
> efforts. In Yolanda Yate?s case, Black made his
> famous sarcastic shot
> against the prosecution?s ?evidence? ? ?proof here
> is sufficient if Marx
> and Lenin are on trial.?
>
> But they began to get their way (on this issue) with
> the disappearance
> of a Vinson, Jackson (Nuremberg prosecutor), Minton,
> and the advent, as
> you note, of Warren and Brennan.
>
> Douglas wrote about that sea change in his book
> Court Years: ?The Court
> began to swerve its course and act to protect the
> rights of the people
> by limiting the thrust of the anti-subversive
> program. The arrival of
> Earl Warren made part of the difference.?
>
> There were other cases before that, where the trend
> was being given
> inertia. Like Jones v. Opelika in 1943. Douglas,
> Black and Murphy joined
> with Stone, and when Rutledge replaced Byrnes, the
> mandatory flag
> saluting crap was overturned.
>
> That was a Jehovah?s Witness case, btw. The
> Jehovah?s unflagging
> obnoxiousness also helped clarify some fundamental
> issues in Canada with
> the case of Roncarelli v. Duplessis.
>
> In the 1940s, the JW?s were also irritating the
> Catholic majority of
> Quebec ? going to their door and politely telling
> them they were all
> going to hell. Maurice Duplessis was premier of
> Quebec ? and he ruled
> through a triad of reactionary Francophone
> nationalism, Church authority
> and big business alliances. Duplessis reacted to
> public and Church
> pressure to target the JW?s. Roncarelli was some
> Montreal restaurateur
> (if I recall) who had the money to keep bailing JW?s
> out when arrested.
> Duplessis finally ordered a public servant to
> withdraw Roncarelli?s
> liquor licence ?forever.? Justice Rand wrote the
> opinion, drawing on
> Marbury v. Madison and Edward Coke et al.
>
> Anyway...
>
> So, I won?t disagree with you if you want to put a
> historical marker at
> Warren. I would put it with Douglas and Black, but
> it doesn't really
> matter. It wasn?t a case of ?Heeeeeeeeeere?s Earl!?
> ? and poof it all
> changed. (I'm not saying you actually said that.)
>
> Ken.
>
> --
> We have no reliance
> On virgin or pigeon;
> Our method is science,
> Our aim is religion.
>           -- Aleister Crowley
>
>
>
> >Actually, no. Roosevelt tried to pack the court,
> and
> >failed. One of the former bad guy justices switched
> >his view and started supporting the New Deal. The
> >Roosevelt era court mainly supported expanded govt
> >power to regulate business, not primarily enhanced
> >free speech and civil rights. Its most notably free
> >speech decision was probably US v. Dennis (1948),
> >upholding the conviction of the CPUSA leaders for
> >conspiracy to advocate the overthrow of the govt.
> The
> >real civil libertarian court was the Warren Court,
> >whose key members were Warren and Brennan,
> appointed
> >by Eisenhower, and Goldberg, Fortas, and Marshall,
> >appointed by Kennedy and Johnson. The one right
> thing
> >you say here is that the Warren Court era is over.
> jks
> >
> >--- Kenneth Campbell <kkc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >JKS writes:>I'd be proud to defend the First
> >> >Amendment ina NAzi case too.<
> >> >
> >> >if the gov't cracks down on the Nazis, they
> crack
> >> down on
> >> >the Left, too, most often in a bigger way. A
> first
> >> >amendment defense of the Nazis is indirectly
> >> >defending the Left.
> >>
> >> Elementary, my dear Mr. Devine. :)
> >>
> >> You know, FDR packed the Supreme Court down there
> >> and that was a huge
> >> influence felt in the social fabric of US lives
> for
> >> decades... an
> >> influence which is now waning.
> >>
> >> But all that "free speech" stuff, and the finding
> of
> >> a right to privacy
> >> "in the penumbra" of other rights... leading to
> Roe
> >> v Wade... that came
> >> through those hired-guns from the FDR and
> >> Brandeis-Holmes era.
> >>
> >> You should definitely support your local loon
> Nazi's
> >> right to smoke
> >> tobacco.
> >>
> >> Ken.
> >>
> >> --
> >> The Olden Days, alas, are turned to clay.
> >>           -- Ishtar, at the Deluge
> >
> >
> >__________________________________
> >Do you Yahoo!?
> >Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
> >http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
> >


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/