pageok
pageok
pageok
Learned Hand:
Time Magazine's August 25, 1961, issue included this memorial to the great Judge Learned Hand, who had just recently died. If you're a fan of Judge Hand, as I am, it's an interesting read.
Martin Ammorgan (mail):
Great man, great judge.

OT-but this is absolutely fascinating. Apparently, Judge Walton in U.S. vs. Libby just accused Mssrs. Barnett et al. of submitting an amicus brief for an improper purpose, i.e. intimidating the judge.
6.14.2007 1:49pm
John (mail):
So you're a fan of U.S. v. Aluminum Co. of America? Yuck.

Judge Hand obviously enjoyed his reputation as a judicial curmudgeon, but I don't think his jurisprudence is a good model of judging.
6.14.2007 2:15pm
U.Va. 2L:
OT-but this is absolutely fascinating. Apparently, Judge Walton in U.S. vs. Libby just accused Mssrs. Barnett et al. of submitting an amicus brief for an improper purpose, i.e. intimidating the judge.

Got a link? Interesting...
6.14.2007 2:21pm
Mark Field (mail):
I've always admired Hand for his rulings in the WWI free speech cases and for his role in getting Holmes to switch from the author of Schenck to the dissent in Abrams.
6.14.2007 2:28pm
Gino:
Good grief. I never would have guessed that he wasn't long dead. It kind of puts time in some perspective.
6.14.2007 2:39pm
Gino:
Oh wait ...
6.14.2007 2:40pm
Martin Ammorgan (mail):
Source-check the AP story. The Judge also said it's not worthy of a 1L, but that's sort of a gratuitous slap to the far more serious charge that bad motive was behind its filing.

Is the Judge going to pursue this?
6.14.2007 3:06pm
Alligator Hop:
It's interesting the Time author called his decision to uphold the Smith trial convictions a defense of liberty since in many Smith act cases judges were obviously worried the act violated the First Amendment (unless you would agrue it was a defense of the government's freedom to prosecute and convict citizens for their political statements.)
6.14.2007 3:07pm
Josh E:

OT-but this is absolutely fascinating. Apparently, Judge Walton in U.S. vs. Libby just accused Mssrs. Barnett et al. of submitting an amicus brief for an improper purpose, i.e. intimidating the judge.

Got a link? Interesting...


Hate to wade into the OT stuff, but I was curious, so I dug around a bit, and found this at firedoglake:


Robbin: going back to appointments clause. Your honor has received an amicus brief.

Walton: With all due respect, these are intelligent people, but I would not accept this brief from a first year law student. I believe this was put out to put pressure on this court in the public sphere to rule as you wish. [Reggie pissed]

Robbins: These 12 schoars believe this is a close question.

Walton: If I had gotten something more of substance from them, maybe.
6.14.2007 3:10pm
Richard Ragsdale (mail):
Gerald Gunther's biography of Hand makes the larger point that Hand was totally focused on rendering intellectually honest decisions grounded on neutral principles of law. And he did his own work. When Gunther clerked for Hand he wrote no draft opinions but instead served as an in-chambers critic of Hand's draft opinions.
6.14.2007 3:56pm
dll111:
Hand is widely regarded as a liberal icon, but he struck down exactly 1 federal law as unconstitutional, which I find interesting. Gunther's biography is really great.
6.14.2007 5:31pm
Anderson (mail) (www):
Hand is widely regarded as a liberal icon

Really? I always thought he was rather conservative, just not paleolithically so.
6.14.2007 5:40pm
Mark Field (mail):

Really? I always thought he was rather conservative, just not paleolithically so.


I think time frame matters here -- a liberal in 1917 wouldn't necessarily be perceived as one in 1949.
6.14.2007 5:59pm