Revelations from the Blackmun Papers on the Development of Death Penalty Law

Justice Blackmun\u27s legacy is strongly linked to two issues - abortion and capital punishment. Blackmun\u27s opinions in these controversial areas account for much of the notion that his ideology changed while on the Court. Participants in this Symposium have reflected on these and other areas where Justice Blackmun left his mark on American law. Professor Deason explores the arbitrability cases and shows that the Court struggled - and Justices changed their minds - even in connection with relatively technical legal issues arising in non-controversial commercial contexts. One reason the Court struggles with some issues is that legal standards are (or become) inherently contradictory or confusing over time. As the law evolves, it moves in directions the Justices may not have anticipated and cannot continue to support. As a result, both the Court and individual Justices change direction. In the arbitrability cases, Justice Blackmun was one of several Justices whose approach changed as the law developed, largely through opinions authored by others. In the context of the politically-charged abortion cases, on the other hand, Justice Blackmun was the architect of the trimester framework and, later, the most vocal defender of the abortion right. Professor Kobylka notes that personal attachment to the issue, increasingly heated rhetorical style, and growing focus on egalitarianism were essential features in the development of Justice Blackmun\u27s abortion jurisprudence. Interestingly, the nature of the abortion right was not fully appreciated even by Blackmun at the time it was first articulated. Both its privacy dimension and its role in assuring equality for women were initially subordiante to the role of the physician-patient relationship on which Blackmun focused in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. My comments focus on the death penalty cases, responding to some of Professor Sisk\u27s conclusions about them. As I wil show, both Professor Deason\u27s and Professor Kobylka\u27s observations are applicable to the death penalty cases. The availability of the Blackmun Papers aids immeasurably in scholars\u27 attempts to understand how the law developed and what role particular Justices may have played in that development

Citation of Unpublished Opinions as Precedent

The federal courts of appeals have used unpublished opinions for thirty years as one method of coping with the crisis of volume. Recent developments demonstrate that interest in this controversial practice remains high. Panels of the Eighth Circuits and Ninth Circuits reached opposite conclusions regarding the propriety of the practice, and in so doing described the nature of the appellate process in remarkably different ways. Several circuits have recently amended their rules, liberalizing citation of unpublished opinions. The Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules has approved a proposed new rule permitting citation of unpublished opinions. Inasmuch as the rules regarding citation of unpublished opinions speak in terms of the precedential effect of such decisions, this Article examines the no-citation rules in light of the purpose and operation of the doctrine of precedent. Professor Dragich Pearson argues that limited publication and, especially, no-citation rules are fundamentally incompatible with a system based on the rule of precedent. The courts of appeals, in adopting limited publication and no-citation rules, have taken an incomplete view of the way precedent matters. Past decisions are precedents, whether or not published, because they are historical facts. The reach of a precedent is determined not by publication but by the breadth of the deciding court\u27s characterization of its holding. It is up to the subsequent court to determine the applicability of the precedent in a later case. The economy arguments typically advanced in support of the rules are weak and reflect a flawed understanding of precedent. Professor Dragich Pearson suggests that federal courts of appeals abandon the notion of unpublished decisions. Instead, the courts of appeals could use abbreviated opinions to process easy or redundant cases quickly and to limit the future effect of decisions in such cases. Citation of such opinions should be permitted for whatever they may be worth in the free market of precedents

Reflections on Judging: A Discussion following the Release of the Blackmun Papers

Justice Blackmun\u27s papers were opened to the public on March 4, 2004, the fifth anniversary of his death. Held in the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress, the collection includes over half a million items, many handwritten by Justice Blackmun. Anyone can read them. For legal scholars, this kind of research can only be described as exhilarating and many of the articles in this symposium draw on research from Justice Blackmun\u27s papers. For the public, the release comes at a time when the interest in judges is particularly acute

Rebuilding the Profession: Recommendations for Librarians Interested in Becoming Academic Law Library Directors

Based on papers presented at a 2005 workshop for individuals interested in becoming academic law library directors, this article begins by exploring the duties of academic director jobs—administrative skills and faculty responsibilities—before examining how to build credentials in preparation for such jobs. It concludes by focusing on the skills and knowledge needed to interview for director jobs