Taking Great Cases: Lessons from the Rosenberg Case

The most watched case of the 1952 Supreme Court Term was not Brown v. Board of Education, but the case of convicted atomic spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Sentenced to death in April 1951 for passing atomic secrets to the Soviets, the Rosenbergs dominated the news and divided the country. Their case came at the height of Cold War America\u27s obsession with Communism. Senator Joe McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee were exposing alleged Communists in the federal government and Hollywood, and the U.S. military was fighting the Korean War to try to stop the spread of Communism abroad. The thought that domestic spies had helped the Soviets manufacture an atomic bomb tapped into people\u27s worst fears. More than 70 percent of Americans wanted the Rosenbergs to pay for their crimes with their lives,\u27 but a vocal minority had serious questions about their guilt or innocence, the fairness of their trial, and/or the harshness of their death sentences. The case was so controversial that outgoing President Harry Truman passed off the couple\u27s clemency petition to his successor, Dwight Eisenhower. The Rosenbergs\u27 executions sparked contentious rallies in major U.S. cities and violent protests abroad. Brown and Rosenberg demonstrate the Court\u27s different approaches toward taking great cases, of which Holmes declared, like hard cases, make bad law. The Brown Court is often criticized for having done too much; the Rosenberg Court is criticized for not having done enough

Rejecting the Legal Process Theory Joker: Bill Nelson\u27s Scholarship on Judge Edward Weinfeld and Justice Byron White

My contribution to this tribute places Bill Nelson’s scholarship about Judge Edward Weinfeld and Justice Byron White within several contexts. It is a personal history of Nelson the law student, law clerk, and young scholar; an intellectual history of legal theory since the 1960s; an examination of the influence of legal theory on Nelson’s scholarship based on his writings about Weinfeld and White; and an example of how legal historians contend with the subject of judicial reputation. Nelson was one of many former Warren Court and Burger Court clerks who joined the professoriate and rejected the legal process theory that they had learned as law students. Instead of process theory, Nelson and this upstart generation of scholars gravitated to one of five competing theories: (1) Rights protectors; (2) Post-realism; (3) Law and economics; (4) Originalism; and (5) Judicial restraint holdouts. Nelson’s scholarship about Weinfeld and White represents a case study about a scholar struggling to fit two judges whom he clerked for and greatly admired into one of these five schools of thought. Nelson tries hard to turn them into rights protectors, to draw similarities between their jurisprudence and Justice Brennan’s jurisprudence that Nelson so obviously admires. Nelson also reframes Weinfeld’s and White’s judicial restraint so that it looks nothing like the pretentious process theory that Nelson had rejected at N.Y.U. Law School and at Harvard

The Former Clerks Who Nearly Killed Judicial Restraint

This symposium piece explores the rise and fall of legal process theory as well as the scholarship of former Warren Court and early Burger Court clerks who nearly killed it. It also suggests that there could be a revival of a process-based judicial restraint based on a new generation of late Burger Court/early Rehnquist Court clerks-turned-academics who came of age during the mid-1980s. These law clerks rejected judicial supremacy and adopted popular constitutionalism and other democratic approaches to constitutional interpretation. Popular constitutionalism is inspired by the same faith in the democratic political process as the judicial restraint advocated by James Bradley Thayer, Felix Frankfurter, and Alexander Bickel

Rehnquist\u27s Missing Letter: A Former Law Clerk\u27s 1955 Thoughts on Justice Jackson and Brown

I think that Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed. That\u27s what Supreme Court law clerk William H. Rehnquist wrote privately in December 1952 to his boss, Justice Robert H. Jackson. When the memorandum was made public in 1971 and Rehnquist\u27s Supreme Court confirmation hung in the balance, he claimed that the memorandum reflected Jackson\u27s views, not Rehnquist\u27s. Rehnquist was confirmed, but his explanation triggered charges that he had lied and smeared the memory of one of the Court\u27s most revered justices. This Essay analyzes a newly discovered document—a letter Rehnquist wrote to Justice Felix Frankfurter in 1955, criticizing Jackson—that reveals what Rehnquist thought about Jackson shortly after Brown and the Justice\u27s death. The 1955 letter was not known during Rehnquist\u27s 1971 or 1986 confirmation hearings. It is also currently missing and may have been stolen from Frankfurter\u27s Papers at the Library of Congress. This Essay argues that Rehnquist\u27s 1955 letter represents his disappointment with Brown and the beginning of his outspoken criticism of the Warren Court. The letter, this Essay contends, says less about how Rehnquist felt about Jackson and more about Rehnquist\u27s disappointment over his Justice\u27s role in the most important Supreme Court decision of the twentieth century

Field evaluation of the efficacy and safety of a combination of spinosad and milbemycin oxime in the treatment and prevention of naturally acquired flea infestations and treatment of intestinal nematode infections in dogs in Europe

AbstractTwo separate randomised, blinded, multicentre field trials were conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a combination of spinosad and milbemycin oxime (MO) (Trifexis®, Elanco Animal Health) in the treatment and prevention of naturally acquired flea infestations and intestinal nematode infections in European dogs. Treatments using Trifexis® and each control veterinary product (CVP) were administered once on Day 0 in both field studies.In the flea field trial, 11 veterinary clinics in France participated in the study. On Day 0, whole body flea comb counts were conducted on all dogs being evaluated for enrolment. Dogs with ≥7 fleas on Day 0 were enrolled, treated once on Day 0 with spinosad/MO or the CVP (Stronghold®; selamectin) and then underwent post-treatment flea counts on Days 14 and 30. There were 150 spinosad/MO treated dogs and 71 CVP treated dogs included in the flea effectiveness population. Effectiveness against fleas (% reduction in geometric means; GM) was 98.97% and 97.37% for the spinosad/MO treated dogs, and 97.43% and 93.96% for the CVP dogs on Days 14 and 30, respectively, compared to the pre-treatment baseline flea counts. Of the spinosad/MO dogs, 89.3% and 80.0% had no live fleas on Days 14 and 30, compared to 77.5% and 70.4% of the CVP dogs, respectively.In the nematode field trial, data from 10 veterinary clinics in France and 19 in Ireland were pooled. Faecal samples from dogs at each clinic were analysed. A positive result at screening (parasite eggs from Toxocara canis, Toxascaris leonina, Trichuris vulpis or Ancylostoma caninum) allowed for enrolment. Dogs were randomised to spinosad/MO or the CVP (Milbemax®; MO/praziquantel). On Day 8, a post-treatment faecal sample was taken and analysed. Of 2333 dogs screened for nematode eggs, 238 dogs were positive with one or more of these nematodes, and 229 were enrolled in the study. Of the 229 dogs, 151 were treated with a single dose of spinosad/MO, and 77 were treated with a single dose of CVP. Post-treatment effectiveness against all nematodes (% reduction GM) was achieved with reductions of 98.57% and 97.57% for the spinosad/MO treated dogs and CVP dogs, respectively, as compared to the pre-treatment baseline faecal egg counts.Trifexis® was shown to be safe and effective against natural infestations of fleas as well as mixed and single intestinal nematode infections in client owned dogs in Europe when administered as a single oral administration at the recommended dose

Unlocking the Japan-ROK Relationship: the Key is National Identity

In 2015 the Japan-ROK relationship seems at near rock-bottom. This presents fundamental challenges to the US rebalance strategy and threatens to undermine the security and stability US allies rely on. This new COG paper by two of America's leading Asia scholars is drawn from their newly released book on the relationship. The authors offer policy insights and suggestions for how all regional partners of the ROK and Japan can help mend this vital relationship

Banner News

https://openspace.dmacc.edu/banner_news/1419/thumbnail.jp