>>> Item number 679, dated 94/06/23 15:46:02 -- ALL
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 15:46:02 -0500 Reply-To: Legal History discussion list <H-LAW@UICVM.BITNET> Sender: Legal History discussion list <H-LAW@UICVM.BITNET> From: cfcrw@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu Subject: Justices' Second Thoughts
I am looking for information on retired justices recanting opinions they issued when on the Supreme Court (change of hearts while on the Court, i.e. Blackmun on capital punishment) don't count. I have Powell on capital punishment and homosexuality, Douglas on some aspects on KOREMATSU (his autobiography), and Homer Brown on some features of PLESSY (an article in the 1912 American Law review). Does anyone know of any other examples? In particular, has a retired justice ever recanted a vote to expand a constitutional right (you can guess where I am going with this one).
Thank you for any help you can give me.
Mark A. Graber
Department of Government
U. Maryland at College Park
301-405-4215
mgraber@bss2.umd.edu
>>> Item number 684, dated 94/06/24 11:17:34 -- ALL
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 1994 11:17:34 -0500 Reply-To: Legal History discussion list <H-LAW@UICVM.BITNET> Sender: Legal History discussion list <H-LAW@UICVM.BITNET> From: cfcrw@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu Subject: Justices' Second Thoughts
From: Sam Sarmad <sarmad@cyberspace.com>
> I am looking for information on retired justices recanting opinions > they issued when on the Supreme Court (change of hearts while on the > Court, i.e. Blackmun on capital punishment) don't count. I have > Powell on capital punishment and homosexuality, Douglas on some > aspects on KOREMATSU (his autobiography), and Homer Brown on some > features of PLESSY (an article in the 1912 American Law review). > Does anyone know of any other examples? In particular, has a > retired justice ever recanted a vote to expand a constitutional right > (you can guess where I am going with this one).
I can not help of hand but I have a question about where are going. "Second thoughts" is self explanatory. In your view, are they the result of any concious or unconcious factors while the justices were still in the court?
From: rbp@brown.edu (bob pasker)
funny you should mention powell. there was an editorial in today's ny times by john c. jeffries, jr. (uva law) on powell's change of heart over _McCleskey v. Kemp_. i believe it is an excerpt from jcj's very recent biography on powell.
>>> Item number 687, dated 94/06/25 10:13:36 -- ALL
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 1994 10:13:36 -0500 Reply-To: Legal History discussion list <H-LAW@UICVM.BITNET> Sender: Legal History discussion list <H-LAW@UICVM.BITNET> From: Chris Waldrep <cfcrw@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> Subject: Re: Justices' Second Thoughts
> From: Sam Sarmad <sarmad@cyberspace.com> > I am looking for information on retired justices recanting opinions > they issued when on the Supreme Court (change of hearts while on the > Court, i.e. Blackmun on capital punishment) don't count.
From: (Melvin Urofsky) murofsky@cabell.vcu.edu You might also want to look at Brandeis's second thoughts on the first speech cases in 1919, where he went along with Holmes's clear and present danger test. See the Brandeis-Frankfurter Conversations, 1985 SUPREME COURT REVIEW 299. >
>>> Item number 691, dated 94/06/27 16:19:57 -- ALL
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 16:19:57 -0500 Reply-To: Legal History discussion list <H-LAW@UICVM.BITNET> Sender: Legal History discussion list <H-LAW@UICVM.BITNET> From: cfcrw@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu Subject: Re: Justices' Second Thoughts
I am not sure whether this passes as second thoughts, or merely the whimsical nature of twentieth century imperialism. In 1936, the Privy Council overturned the Australian High Court on the interpretation of s 92 of the Australian constitution; this concerns free trade between the states, a subject which the Privy Council was entirely unqualified to decide on. Twenty years later Lord Wright confessed that if `we had really appreciated how difficult it was to amend your Constitution we would no doubt have looked a little harder at that case': James v Commonwealth.
>>> Item number 697, dated 94/07/03 09:53:49 -- ALL
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 1994 09:53:49 -0700 Reply-To: Legal History discussion list <H-LAW@UICVM.BITNET> Sender: Legal History discussion list <H-LAW@UICVM.BITNET> From: Elizabeth Brandt <ebrandt@raven.csrv.uidaho.edu> Subject: Re: Justices' Second Thoughts (fwd)
You may want to cjeck Powell, who seems to have recanted his very unfortunate conccurrence in Bowers v. Hardwick. Had he remained as he was originally, the case would have gone the other way, but Powell was "persuaded" into changing his mind. I believe this is discussed in Irons' The Courage of Their Convictions.