Category: Jurisprudence

Posner
0

On legal education & legal scholarship — More questions for Judge Posner

We should not allow complacency about the American university system to blind us to the weaknesses in legal education.

I am not starry-eyed about the new interdisciplinary legal scholarship. [Even so,] where is it written that all legal scholarship shall be in the service of the legal profession? 

The decline in doctrinal scholarship is relative, not absolute, and perhaps not even relative; all that may be occurring is a shift in the production of doctrinal scholarship toward scholars at law schools of the second and third tier.

Richard Posner (1995)

This is the fifth installment in the “Posner on Posner” series of posts on Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner. The first installment can be found here, the second here, the third here, and the fourth one here.  

Richard Posner’s scholarly career in law may have started in 1961-62 when he served on the Harvard Law Review, first as a staff member and then as the President. During that period he published on topics as diverse as a note on the application of international law to outer space (74 HLR 1154), a comment on federal review of state law rulings (74 HLR 1375), a comment patent and antitrust law (75 HLR 602), and a comment on the application of law to religiously owned property (75 HLR). After his clerkship with Justice William Brennan (1962-63 Term) and several jobs with the federal government, he began his professorial career at Stanford Law School in 1969 and thereafter ventured off to the University of Chicago Law School where he is currently a senior lecturer in law. Over the years he has taught antitrust, economic analysis of law, civil procedure, conflict of laws, law and science, evidence, and law and literature.

Screen Shot 2014-12-02 at 2.03.58 PMOne of his articles ranked 64th in the list of the most-cited law review articles of all time. In the field of antitrust law, one his articles (co-authored with William Landes) ranked second in the listings of the most-cited law review articles. (Posner had his own system of rankings.  See here) Even more impressive, as reported by Fred R. Shapiro and Michelle Pears, “[a]s of 2000, Judge Posner was the most often-cited legal scholar of all time with 7,981 citations, nearly 50 percent more than anyone else.”

In the last half-century or so, Posner has published a wide variety of scholarly works in the form of books (40-plus) and articles (300-plus) – perhaps more than any academic writing in the field of American law. In that array of legal literature he has written much on the topic of legal education and legal scholarship. See, for example, the following nine articles by him:

  1. The Present Situation in Legal Scholarship,” 90 Yale Law Journal 1113 (1981)
  2. The Decline of Law as an Autonomous Discipline,” 100 Harvard Law Review 761 (1987)
  3. The Deprofessionalization of Legal Teaching and Scholarship,” 91 Michigan Law Review 1921 (1993)
  4. The Future of the Student-Edited Law Review,” 47 Stanford Law Review 1131 (1994)
  5. William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, “Heavily Cited Articles in Law,” 71 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 825 (1996)
  6. Past-Dependency, Pragmatism, and Critique of History in Adjudication and Legal Scholarship,” 67 University of Chicago Law Review 573 (2000)
  7. Legal Scholarship Today,” 115 Harvard Law Review 1314 (2002)
  8. Against Law Reviews,” Legal Affairs, Nov-Dec. 2004
  9. The State of Legal Scholarship Today: A Comment on Schlag,” 97 Georgetown Law Journal 845 (2009)

Below are some questions on the topics of legal education and legal scholarship I posed to the Judge followed by his replies. (Note: Some links will open in Firefox or Chrome but not in Safari.)

 __________________________

Question: What do you think is the single greatest shortcoming of legal education in America today?

Posner: There are several shortcomings; I don’t know how to rank them.

  1. Legal education is too expensive, in part because law school faculties are too large.
  2. Not enough law professors, especially at the elite law schools, have substantial practical experience as lawyers, and
  3. Law school teaching focuses excessively on legal doctrine, to the exclusion of adequate attention to facts, business practices, science and technology, psychology, judicial mentality and behavior, legal practice, and application of legal principles.

Question: Insofar as the teaching of legal ethics is concerned, is teaching the rules of professional responsibility and the cases interpreting them enough in your opinion? Or should some significant attention be devoted to familiarizing law students with some of the great works of the Western Philosophical tradition? – say, to Plato’s Gorgias or Aristotle’s Rhetoric (see here at p. 1924)

Posner:  I don’t consider instruction in legal ethics an important part of legal education. Aristotle’s Rhetoric is pertinent to the rhetorical dimension of legal practice, rather than to legal ethics. Gorgias can be read as critical of lawyers’ tricks, though there were no lawyers as such in fourth century b.c. Athens.

Question:  It has been argued that legal education is akin to learning a form of science. In what ways, if any, does it make sense to speak of the study of law as the study of legal science?

Posner: Law has nothing to do with science. It involves making and applying rules of conduct; the rules are based on legislative and other political decisions, common sense, societal values, judges’ personal preferences, intuition, rhetoric—not logical or scientific rigor.

Question: All things considered, what do you think of calls for reducing law school education to two years?

Posner:  I think that would be fine. A third year might be offered, but as something to be taken after the two-year graduate has spent some time in practice and wants some specialized further training.

Question: In your opinion, how, if at all, has the role of the law school dean changed in the past half-century? And if it has changed, what do you make of it?

Posner: Much more emphasis on fund raising.

Question: In Tagatz v. Marquette University (1988) you noted that tenure “tends to take some of the edge off academic ambition.” What are your views on the current tenure system as it operates in law schools and how, if at all, might you change it?

Posner: Tenure is a form of nonmonetary compensation, hence attractive to universities. The downside is it undermines the work ethic. I don’t know whether the benefits exceed the costs.

Question: (1) What are your views concerning affirmative action and tenure standards when it comes to promoting racial minorities? And do democratic principles justify bending evaluative standards?

(2) Is the problem of race the problem of the evaluative standards that law schools employ? If so, what is the alternative?

Screen Shot 2014-12-07 at 11.45.07 PMPosner:  (1) The only racial minority in the United States that needs affirmative action is the African-American minority. I doubt, though, that African-Americans who have the competence to be considered as law professors need a boost.

(2) I think law schools should give more weight to practical experience in hiring law professors, but I don’t think this relates particularly to African-Americans.

Question: Many years ago you wrote: “not all blacks are culturally black.” Would you a say a bit more about what you meant by that and do you still hold to that view? In answering that question, do you think that one can ever fully escape the consequences of his or her color even if one is, as you put it, an “assimilated black”?

Posner: I’m sure that almost all African-Americans are conscious of and think occasionally about being black—that’s inevitable given history, and it’s the same reason that secular Jews, who may have zero interest in Judaism or Jewish culture, remain conscious of being Jewish. But successful upper-middle-class African-Americans are so much like their white counterparts as not to be preoccupied with the racial difference.

Question: Is Socratic “cold call” method dying in law schools? Or is it already largely dead? If so, is this a good thing? Your views? Read More

Posner
9

The Judge & Company – Questions for Judge Posner from Judges, Law Professors & a Journalist

That’s a sensitive question to put to a judge.

                      – Richard Posner (see below)

This is the fourth in the “Posner on Posner” series of posts on Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner. The first installment can be found here, the second one here, and the third one here.

Has any sitting appellate jurist ever entertained a wide swath of questions from a journalist, fellow judges, and law professors? The answer: Never, to the best of my knowledge. But if one had to pick such a jurist, Richard Posner would surely be (and is) that person. True to his realist image, he answered all of the questions posed to him and did so promptly and, for the most part, without reservation. 

In order to get a range of views from different perspectives, I invited a number of noted legal figures to pose questions to Judge Richard Posner. Twenty-four responded; they are:

  • Thomas Ambro
  • William Baude
  • Ryan Calo
  • Erwin Chemerinsky
  • Lawrence Cunningham
  • Michael Dorf
  • Barry Friedman
  • David Hoffman
  • Yale Kamisar
  • Judith Kaye
  • Hans Linde
  • Adam Liptak
  • Andrea Mays
  • Linda Mullenix
  • Robert O’Neil
  • Frederick Schauer
  • David Skover
  • Daniel Solove
  • Geoffrey Stone
  • Kellye Testy
  • David Vladeck
  • Eugene Volokh
  • Kathryn Watts
  • Adam Winkler

Their questions, organized into 26 topics, are set out below followed by Judge Posner’s replies. Hyperlinks have been added where useful. Note: Some links will open in Firefox or Chrome but not in Safari. –RKLC

_____________________________

I.     Clerking for Justice Brennan

Professor Robert M. O’Neil: Perhaps your most remarkable contribution as a Supreme Court clerk for Justice William Brennan was the total change in the status of Gray v. Sanders (1963).  You initially drafted an opinion for the Justice that would have resulted in a decisive reversal of the Ninth Circuit ruling. But you quickly learned that the Court had preliminarily voted 7-2 to affirm. On the basis of your persuasive draft opinion, however, Justice Brennan promptly asked the Chief Justice to reassign the case. That soon resulted in a 7-2 reversal with only Justices Clark and Harlan dissenting.  Two intriguing questions arise:

  1. Given the oral argument and the statutory context, why were you so sanguine about the prospects for reversal?
  2. And how did you eventually persuade Justice Brennan and four of his colleagues to reach a wholly different result?

[RC: Professor O’Neil clerked with Justice Brennan when Posner did.]

Judge Posner:

  1. I wasn’t. I was under the mistaken impression that the Court had voted to reverse.
  2. I didn’t use any persuasion. When Justice Brennan read my opinion, he said it was persuasive and he’d tried to persuade the Court to change its vote from affirm to reverse. His persuasive efforts must have been effective, though I don’t recall his having said anything to me about them.

Professor Robert M. O’Neil:

  1. Among the Supreme Court opinions to which you made substantial and invaluable contributions, how would you appraise the Philadelphia National Bank (1963) case?
  2. To what extent did Justice Brennan or other members of the Court (or fellow clerks, or for that matter teachers like Harvard Professor Donald Turner) shape your views on those issues?

Judge Posner:

  1. Of the opinions I worked on, that was my favorite. I think it was influential on antitrust law and also convinced me to specialize in antitrust, which I did for the early part of my career, following the clerkship.
  2. The principal influence was Derek Bok, then a professor at Harvard Law School and later, of course, dean of the law school and later still president of Harvard University. He had written an important article on merger antitrust law, part of which I had cite-checked when I was on the Harvard Law Review. The article stuck in my mind and played a crucial role in my thinking about the Philadelphia Bank 
Justice William Brennan

Justice William Brennan

II.     Judging Justice Brennan

Professor Geoffrey Stone: You served as a law clerk to Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., a half-a-century ago. With the benefit of hindsight, how would you assess his contributions as a Justice?

Judge Posner: Obviously, he was very influential, in part because of his warm personality and willingness to compromise. I think Warren relied heavily on him. A number of the Warren Court’s most important decisions were his.

III.     Jurisprudence

Professor Frederick Schauer: When you were a law student, Lon Fuller was a major figure at the Harvard Law School, and only a few years earlier his published debate with H.L.A. Hart was a major event at the school and in legal scholarship generally.

Could you comment on your views about the contemporary state of Anglo-American jurisprudence, whether that state is different from what it was fifty years ago, and, if different, what might account for the change?

Judge Posner: I never met or had a class from Fuller, and never cottoned to his views, and I don’t remember whether I ever read that debate. I never took a course on jurisprudence and I don’t think I had any interest in it. As an academic I became interested in it and wrote about it.

I like your work in jurisprudence, and that of Neil Duxbury and a few others, but much of the jurisprudence literature I find rather sterile. I found Ronald Dworkin’s approach unconvincing; likewise with H.L.A. Hart’s. I love the legal realists, above all Holmes, but also John Dewey, Jeremy Bentham, of course, Hans Kelsen, and Richard Rorty (not an exhaustive list), though law was far from a major interest of Dewey and Rorty.

 IV.     Law in a Globalized World

Judge Judith Kaye (ret):

  1. What is the impact of our radically globalized world on the business of the U.S. courts? How is our jurisprudence, our decision-making process, in any way influenced by the cultural diversity of the international issues we increasingly face?
  2. In that connection, what is the impact of the increased use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in international matters, inevitably still requiring resort to our courts?

Judge Posner:

  1. We get more cases involving foreign and international law, but I think the influence of foreign legal practices on our jurisprudence and decision-making processes is slight. We continue to resist inroads into the adversary system. I think that resistance is a big mistake, but I also think it’s a mistake to look to foreign judicial decisions for guidance to how we should deal with issues such as capital punishment, abortion, and international human rights. I think one has to have a deep understanding of a foreign culture in order to be comfortable with borrowing a foreign country’s law.
  2. I don’t know; I haven’t studied the issue, and have only a few cases.

V.     Law & Economics

Professor Michael Dorf: I detect in your academic work (and to a lesser extent your work as a judge) a gradual drift from an economic analysis of law to pragmatism more broadly. Do you agree with that assessment, and if so, what do you think accounts for it?

[RC: Professor Dorf wrote the biographical entry on Judge Posner for the Yale Biographical Dictionary of American Law (2009).]

Judge Posner: You’re correct. It is partly a result of the inroads that psychology has made on economic analysis, partly a result of the economic profession’s failure to understand finance and monetary policy in the period leading up to the crash of 2008, and (relatedly) the revelations of unexpected extensive greed and corruption in American business, not limited to the financial industry.

Professor Ryan Calo: You are famously skeptical of the idea that the law should protect the efforts of market participants to conceal information about themselves. But the beauty of markets lies precisely in their ability to facilitate transactions between parties with wildly disparate backgrounds, tastes, and views — people who otherwise would avoid one another, but come together on the basis of a willingness to pay or receive a particular price.

How do you respond to the contention that a world without a meaningful degree of privacy in such situations would be a world full of balkanized, and hence deeply inefficient, markets?

Posner on Privacy

Judge Posner: I’m not opposed to legal protection of privacy. But I do regard privacy as a common means by which people present a misleading impression of themselves, often deceiving the people with whom they deal, either personally or in transacting. So I think we must be careful not to overprotect privacy.

Justice Hans A. Linde (ret.): You are widely known for linking law and economics and for advocating a pragmatic jurisprudence. These seem to pose two problems for a federal judge:

  1. Federal cases often arise from acts of Congress, not judge-made common law. What should a judge do when an enactment plainly places some people’s non-economic demands over the economic interests of the majority?
  2. Other disputes are between citizens of different states (or nations) that may have different legal answers to the disputed issue. How should a federal judge choose which state’s law applies to the case? That is, should a judge choose the laws of the state that is economically preferable, or is the choice prescribed by law?

MET-AJ-POSNER-0919Judge Posner:

  1. If a statute is clear, and constitutional, then I am bound. But the statutory provisions that get involved in appellate litigation very often are unclear, and then the judge has considerable freedom to select the interpretation that makes the most sense, though it won’t always be an economic sense.
  2. Conflict of law rules seem to me readily understandable in economic terms. If one thinks of the reasons for applying one state’s law rather than another’s, they generally have to do with which state has the greater interest in regulating the activity that gave rise to the suit. That’s the basis of lex loci delicti, which continues to be a sound doctrine that has largely survived modern loosey-goosey conflicts doctrine.

VI.     The Record of a Case

Professor Frederick Schauer: You tend to go beyond the record, the briefs, and oral argument more often than most appellate judges, and you have noted that you have been criticized for it. Could you explain your practice, explain the criticism, and explain why you think the criticism misses the mark?

Judge Posner: I find that the briefs and arguments, and lower-court opinions, very often do not answer the questions that I think are important to a sound understanding of the case. So, I look for the answers, often by an Internet search. I tell lawyers if you don’t like me doing that, do it yourselves. I do try to be sensitive to risk of error in judicial fact research. I understand the criticism, because the lawyers want to control the case. They invoke the glories of the adversary system. I think the adversary system is overrated. Not that I want to convert to the inquisitorial system that prevails in Europe (except the U.K.) and most of the rest of the world, but I want to see the adversary system taken down a peg. I am a big fan of Fed. R. Evid. §706, which allows a judge to appoint his own expert witness, as opposed to having to depend entirely on party experts.

VII.     Experiential Knowledge Read More

Posner
0

The Man Behind the Robes — A Q&A with Richard Posner

I myself am a counterrevolutionary. I am not eager to be sent to the countryside to do farm work while wearing a dunce cap. (2009)

I’m much less reactionary than I used to be. (2014)   – Richard Posner

This is the third in a series of posts on Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner. The first installment can be found here, and the second one here. (My interest in Judge Posner goes back almost a quarter century. See Ronald Collins & David O’Brien, “Gauging Reputations, National Law Journal, pp. 13-14, April 1, 1991 (commenting on Posner’s Cardozo book).)  

The measure of a man is gauged in different ways. For some, it moves along a spectrum of social approval. For others, it is personal perfection. For a few, it is mastery — that ability to excel in one’s life calling. And then there are those who take public service seriously. For yet others, it is legacy – that long story after the life story. In that journey, whatever one’s direction and destination, a few are bold into the fray, others calculating into the conflict, and still others are quiet into the clash. How we measure them depends on where we stand, how we judge the end game, and just how impartial we are. Then again, how we judge someone may reveal more about us than the person being judged. Bear all that in mind as you read the words of the man — an atypical  man — who is the focus of this and the other interviews.  

Richard Posner

Allen Richard Posner (see below)

How, then, to measure Richard Posner? It is not an easy task; he is complex. Because of that it is easy to misjudge him. Up close, Posner is unusual. For one thing, his candor can be unnerving. Thus, his personality in one-on-one situations can be odd, unless one is attuned to him, which requires being on his psychological wavelength. For another thing, he is somewhat unconstrained by many social mores. He is, for better or worse, a take-me-as-I-am sort of individual. But give him distance from the province of personality (conventionally defined), and he works well in the world of rules and reasons. That is his domain. In that realm, he appreciates informed judgment and delights in being daring. True to his cerebral bent, he loves to be rational (tag it Aristotelian eros), even if it leaves him the odd man out. In that sense, there is something peculiarly fascinating about him – that rara avis who seizes our attention even when we tend to turn away.    

What follows are the first in a series of questions I posed to the Judge about his life and life views. (Note: Some links will open in Firefox or Chrome but not in Safari.)

 ____________________________

Question:    Were you born Richard Allen Posner, or was Allen your first name? [Hat tip to Professor Peter Irons.]

Posner:       That’s true [about being named Allen]. But my parents always called me ‘Dick.'” [RC: The Judge has his law clerks address him as his parents did.]

Question:   You were exceptionally revealing in the New Yorker profile that Larissa MacFarquhar did back in 2001 – the story in which, among other things, you described yourself as “an imperfectly house-broken pet.” You also compared yourself to your late Dinah, “playfulbut with a streak of cruelty.” (Dinah has since died.) Two questions:

  1. Why? What prompted such unconventional candor?
  2. Do you have any regrets?

Posner:

  1. Larissa was very skillful at extracting unguarded comments from me. She is an excellent reporter. [RC: In a 2003 interview with Howard Bashman, Judge Posner said: “MacFarquhar. . . exaggerated my role in the law and economics movement, but that’s fine!”]
  2. No.

Question:      In what respects are you most like and unlike your parents?

Posner:         I share my mother’s love of literature, and my parents’ lack of religiosity (I believe the word “God” was never mentioned in our home). My father [Max] was introverted, like me. I didn’t share my parents’ politics, which were extremely left-wing. It’s unrealistic to think me much like my parents, as they were born in 1900 and 1901 respectively, into central European families with no money who immigrated shortly afterward to the United States. There is no comparison to my situation at and after birth, by which time (1939) my parents were prosperous, educated, and completely assimilated Americans.

Cleanth Brooks

Cleanth Brooks

Question:    You were an English major at Yale College and did your senior thesis under Cleanth Brooks (the famed figure of literary criticism). Your thesis was on William Butler Yeats’s late poetry. Why English, why Yeats? And tell us a little bit more about you senior thesis – its title and scope.

Posner:   My mother [Blanche] was a high school English teacher and started me off on literature when I was an infant — she read Homer and Shakespeare to me from a very early age. I majored in English at Yale because I was already steeped in literature and Yale had the best English department in the country. I discovered Yeats’ poetry and loved it and still do. I don’t recall the title of my senior thesis. I do recall the principal theme, which was that his poetry was “reflexive,” in the sense that much of it, I thought, despite its ostensible subject matter, was about poetry itself, which after all he new best.

Question:   What was your draft status? How did you navigate the whole military service matter?

Posner:    Deferment was automatic in my day (before the Vietnam War heated up) while one was a student. My first job after graduating from law school was as a law clerk at the Supreme Court. Justice Brennan, my boss, wrote a letter to my draft board before I started the clerkship asking it to defer me for the clerkship, which it did (it didn’t have to). During my clerkship year my wife had our first baby, and at the time (1963) that was an automatic deferment. I never heard further from anyone about the draft.

Alex Bickel

Alex Bickel

Question:    When you were the president of the Harvard Law Review (vol. 75, 1961-62), several prominent persons (e.g., Alexander Bickel, Felix Frankfurter, and Henry Friendly) published on your watch. Do you have any memorable stories you might share with us?

Posner:      Bickel was not a Harvard Law School professor (Yale instead), and I broke with tradition in asking him to write the Foreword to the Supreme Court section in the first issue.

I also got into some trouble with the faculty over publishing a very critical review by Frederick Bernays Wiener of an excellent revision [of Wigmore’s evidence treatise] by John T. McNaughton, one of the law school’s professors (later a key aide to Robert McNamara in the Vietnam War).

Question:       Were there any professors you had at Harvard who stood out in your mind? If so, who were they and why do you remember them?

Posner:         There were a number of excellent professors: in no particular order they were Paul Bator, John Mansfield, Abraham Kaplan, Derek Bok, Donald Turner, Walter Bart Leach, and (probably the best) John Dawson. I may have forgotten some others who were good. Turner’s field was antitrust, and he had a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard. We were friendly. To some extent, he sparked my interest in economic analysis of law.

Question:       How did Paul Freund come to select you for a clerkship with Brennan?

Posner:        He was an informal adviser to the law review so I got to know him pretty well, though I never had him in class. I was the president of the law review and the highest-ranking student by grades, so I was a natural pick for a Supreme Court clerkship. I didn’t apply—he just picked me. I actually wasn’t particularly interested in clerking.

Question:       You worked with Thurgood Marshall while he was Solicitor General. What was your opinion of Mr. Marshall back then?

Posner on Thurgood Marshall

He was a good boss in the sense that he backed the staff, which of course was all I cared about, but had rather little interest in the job. It was just a stepping-stone job. He had been a great trial lawyer, and I don’t think appellate law interested him particularly. Before becoming SG he was on the Second Circuit briefly, and after he was S.G. he, of course, was on the Supreme Court. I don’t think any of those jobs drew on his strengths, which as I say was as a trial lawyer.

 Question:      While in the S.G.’s Office you argued nine cases before the Supreme Court. Do any of those case stand out in your mind? Are you especially proud of your performance in any of them?

Posner:          I remember the antitrust cases, like Von’s and Schwinn, but I don’t really remember my briefs or oral arguments in them.

Question:     You were general counsel on President Johnson’s Task Force on Communications Policy. How did that come about and what sort of things did you do in that capacity?

Posner:       I probably was asked by the staff director, Alan Novak, but I don’t actually remember. My title of “general counsel” had no meaning. The task force had a small staff. I learned a lot of economics from our economist staff member, Leland Johnson, a very smart economist from RAND. I did most of the writing for the report. The report was influential in the deregulation movement, and also led to my being asked to do a good deal of consulting in telecommunication policy during my time as an academic.

Question:     What is your sense of the 60s counter-culture? Read More

Posner
1

The Maverick – A Biographical Sketch of Judge Richard Posner: Part II, The Will to Greatness

This is the second installment of a biographical profile of Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner. The first installment can be found here. Beginning next week, a five-part Q & A series along with an interview with the author of a forthcoming Posner biography will be posted.

Note: Some of the links used below will open only in Firefox or Chrome but not in Safari. // Revised: 11-26-14 (10:50 pm)

The Friendly Connection

“Friendly and Posner have been cited by name by the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. Districts Courts more often by far than any other circuit court judges.”  — William Domnarski (2011)

While much is known about Judge Posner’s high regard for Justice Holmes, much less attention has been devoted to his great respect for Judge Henry Friendly (1903-1983). For Posner, Friendly’s “photographic memory combined with his analytical power, energy, speed, and work ethic” produced “the most powerful legal reasoner in American legal history.” Or as Posner put it in a 1986 tribute: Judge Friendly’s “opinions have exhibited greater staying power than that of any of his contemporaries on the federal courts of appeal.” (99 Harv. L. Rev. 1724)

Between 1982 and 1986, the two jurists shared some 15,000 words in correspondence to one another (their letters have been preserved in the Harvard Law Library). Early on, in a May 12, 1982 letter to Posner, the 78-year-old Friendly praised the 43-year-old jurist: “I could not have dreamed of finding so perceptive a reader as you.” As Mr. Domnarski has aptly noted, “[s]oon Posner was comfortable enough to reveal some uncertainty in his work and ask for criticism that might help him. ‘On a more serious, even dismal, note,’ he writes, ‘I am enclosing a recent opinion I did on primary jurisdiction. I hope I got it right, but I felt a little unsure of the boundary between exhaustion and primary jurisdiction; and I would as always appreciate any comments, however critical, if you have time to read it. Pay no attention to it if I’m trespassing too much on your time.’”

A few years later, Judge Friendly was even more impressed with both the volume and quality of Posner’s judicial opinions.

Judge Friendly on Posner’s Judicial Opinions

“Every one is a masterpiece of analysis, scholarship, and style,” he declared in a September 19, 1984 letter. “About a year ago I said you were already the best judge in the country; having uttered that superlative, I am baffled on how to better it. If I could think of a way, I would use it.”

They wrote back and forth on topics ranging from railroad law to diversity jurisdiction and beyond. “Friendly and Posner were apparently so drawn to each other’s work,” says Domnarski, “that they wanted to see the other in action by having Posner come to Friendly’s Second Circuit and sit by designation. Posner had at first wanted Friendly to come to the Seventh Circuit to sit to take advantage of the rule allowing senior circuit judges such as Friendly to sit by designation in other circuits upon request and approval by the visited circuit’s chief judge.” Unfortunately, it never happened, though Posner did manage an occasional visit with Friendly whenever he came to New York and had the time.

Around Christmas of 1984, Judge Friendly inquired about Posner’s possible “elevation” to the Supreme Court. Even back then, Posner thought it doubtful. As he expressed it in a December 26, 1984 letter: “I have become an object of mysterious fascination to a segment of the press, which is doing a pretty good job of portraying me as a weirdo on the basis of some of my pre-judicial academic writing (misrepresented) and a handful of my opinions (misunderstood). Of course there is precious little I can do about any of this, but I am consoled by the thought that eventually the press will lose interest in me and move on to intrinsically livelier topics.”

Screen Shot 2014-11-21 at 9.33.44 AMAssuredly, Henry Friendly knew well what it meant to be a great judge but nonetheless passed up for a seat on the High Court. In a January 10, 1985 letter, he tried to console Posner: “These things are annoying but all this will pass. Unhappily this may not be without injury to your immediate prospects for elevation but I gather that you did not think these were very high in any event. You are wise to have acquired immunity for Supreme Court fever – a disease that has ruined many a judge.”

By 1986 it was over; Henry Friendly – old, depressed, and lonely – took his life. It was a great loss to the legal world. Worse still, his brand of judging was vanishing into the vapor of a past-tense world. Law, Posner wrote that same year, “is becoming increasingly politicized, bureaucratized, and specialized, and rising workloads are depriving more and more judges of time for reflection, discussion, and outside reading. These trends, which are unlikely to be reversed soon, bode ill for the continuation of our tradition of great judges. We may not see the likes of Henry Friendly again. The fullness of time may reveal that his passing marked the end of the classic period of American law.” (99 Harv. L. Rev. 1724,1725).

Friendly & Posner – their names sit well together. In some respects it is unsurprising that the two should have bonded as they did. They shared a common commitment to solving the riddles of the law in ways that lesser judges never do. Given their cerebral firepower and will to make the law more beholding to pragmatic reasoning, they stood almost alone in the camps of jurists.  Because of that, they also shared a common identity as the most highly regarded jurists of their time, though neither ever elevated to the Supreme Court.

As it turned out, Henry Friendly’s reputation struggled to survive the ravages of time (see, for example, Adrian Vermeule’s review of the David Dorsen’s biography of Friendly). Even so, traces of the Friendly legacy find new and invigorated meaning in the person and writings of Richard Posner, buttressed of course by the latter’s unique judicial temperament, stylistic writings skills, and economic modes of analysis.

Beyond their respective biographies (existing and forthcoming), someday someone will write a book of a collection of profiles of the great federal judges who influenced the law but never sat on the High Court (a book similar to G. Edward White’s The American Judicial Tradition). When that book is done, profiles of Henry Friendly and Richard Posner are certain to be included, if only because they helped to shape the law in ways that most Supreme Court Justices never have. And yet, when he was nominated, relatively little attention was paid to Richard Posner; it was as if all that he had already written were typed in invisible ink. He was just another nominee . . . or so it seemed to the Senate when it confirmed him.

Richard Posner’s Confirmation Hearing

Posner’s confirmation hearing took place on a Friday afternoon, in a joint session with four other nominees, and with only Chairman Strom Thurmond and the conservative Howell Heflin of Alabama in attendance. Posner’s part of the hearing took but a few minutes, and he was quickly confirmed without debate.  — Herman Schwartz, Packing the Courts (1988)

Judging Risks: Global Warming, Terrorism, & Abortion Protestors

UnknownHe crosses the street with Darwinian caution. While he may not be entirely risk averse, he is surely risk attentive . . . even though a side of him greatly admires Holmesian heroism of the kind the captain so valiantly displayed in the Civil War. In this general regard and others, one can turn to Posner’s book Catastrophe: Risk and Response (2004) to get an up close sense of his views on cost-benefit analysis.

Global Warming: Mindful of such matters, a decade ago Posner expressed serious concerns about global warming. In Catastrophe, he stressed that “a wait-and-see policy would be perilous.” Though he would surely shun an environmentalist name tag (too herd mentality like), the libertarian jurist cautioned: “Eventually, and perhaps sooner than later, the atmospheric concentrations may reach a level that triggers abrupt, catastrophic global warming – the kind that ended the Younger Dyras. No one knows what that trigger point is or when it will be reached (if ever), but it will be reached sooner if we do nothing, starting now, to reduce emissions.”

In reflecting on the respective environmental and economic factors, Posner was sensitive to the well-being of future generations:

Posner the “Environmentalist” 

Although there is a strong case for taking measures against global warming now rather than waiting decades to do so, the question remains what measures to take – how much cost to incur – and the answer depends in part on the weight to be given to the welfare of future generations, since it is most likely that the costs of global warming will be borne primarily by them.”

In that regard, he made a strong case for being “more future-regarding.” To put it another way, the law may belong to the living, but its impact will be on those yet to be born, to whom a duty is surely owed.

Terrorism: Lest Judge Posner be mistaken for a pie-in-the-sky liberal, his ideas on terrorism and civil liberties might readily prompt those of that ilk to pause before applauding him. Here again, his views on risk management are articulated in Catastrophe, and also in his Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency (2006).

Posner has little patience for civil libertarians who hold that courts should actively police the constitutional boundaries between national security and civil liberties. “The strategy of civil libertarians,” he wrote in Catastrophe, “is to oppose the slightest curtailment of civil liberties. Their strategy may serve their fund-raising and other organizational goals, but it is questionable from an overall social welfare standpoint.” (See “Geoffrey Stone Debates Judge Richard Posner on Civil Liberties,” ACSblog, October 3, 2005, and “Legality and National Security,” Judge Posner’s remarks to ABA Standing Committee, May 9, 2006)

In United States v. Daoud (2014), a case involving a convicted American terrorist who attempted a “violent jihad” by way of bombing a building, Posner put his academic views to legal use. In Daoud the court denied the defendant access to secret warrant applications that allowed FBI surveillance of him. “The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,” wrote Posner, “is an attempt to strike a balance between the interest in full openness of legal proceedings and the interest in national security, which requires a degree of secrecy concerning the government’s efforts to protect the nation.” And then with characteristic bluntness he added: “Terrorism is not a chimera.” (The court later elaborated on its reasoning in a heavily redacted classified opinion.)

Posner Hypotheticals

Were it known that a terrorist was driving toward Chicago with a bomb, would you think it an improper restriction of civil liberties to stop and search all cars approaching Chicago, even though there would be no probable cause to suspect any given driver of carrying a bomb? Or suppose a kidnapper has buried his victim alive and refuses to tell the police where. A policeman punches him in the face to make him talk. Would you think the policeman had acted improperly?  (Source here.)

In a nutshell, Posner’s view is this: “Most judges know little about national security; the danger of catastrophic terrorism is real; and a constitutional decision forbidding a counterterrorist measure is almost impossible to change. It is better to leave these matters to be sorted out by the executive and legislative branches of government, where the relevant expertise resides.” Whether that is entirely so is, to be sure, open to debate as Jeffrey Rosen pointed out in his 2004 review of Catastrophe.

On a related front, there is also the question of the Wikileaks and Edward Snowden and their respective revelations of government excesses taken in the name of national security. Here again, Posner is not without an answer; he has his own take on whistleblowers and classified information. In November of 2011, while speaking at the Chicago Humanities Festival, Judge Posner told the audience: “I don’t think disclosure of classified information has ever been significantly harmful to American foreign policy and national security objectives. And indeed in many cases has helped them. On the other hand, I don’t think the efforts of the government to stifle revelation of classified material is consequential.”

Abortion Protestors: Harms, however, do not have to be catastrophic for Judge Posner to believe they may trump some claim of constitutional liberty. Take, for example, his criticism of the unanimous judgment in the recent Supreme Court buffer zone abortion clinic case. “Lecturing strangers on a sidewalk is not a means by which information and opinion are disseminated in our society,” he wrote in Slate. “Strangers don’t meet on the sidewalk to discuss ‘the issues of the day.’ (Has Chief Justice John Roberts, the author of the opinion, ever done such a thing?).”

Unwilling to leave it there, Posner cut to the realist quick: “The assertion that abortion protesters ‘wish to converse’ with women outside an abortion clinic is naive. They wish to prevent the women from entering the clinic, whether by showing them gruesome photos of aborted fetuses or calling down the wrath of God on them. This is harassment of people who are in a very uncomfortable position; the last thing a woman about to have an abortion needs is to be screamed at by the godly.”

Oh, how he abhors the sanctimonious! — be they conservative moralists or Ivy League ones.

Academic moralists pick from an à la carte menu the moral principles that coincide with the preferences of their social set. They have the intellectual agility to weave an inconsistent heap of policies into a superficially coherent unity and the psychological agility to honor their chosen principles only to the extent compatible with their personal happiness and professional advancement.Richard Posner, October 1997 (Harvard Law School).

The Art of Critical Thinking Read More

Posner
2

The Maverick – A Biographical Sketch of Judge Richard Posner: Part I

auth

Below is the first installment in a multi-part series of posts on Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner. The first two installments consist of an unconventional biographical profile of the Judge. These posts will be followed by a series of posts consisting of the Judge’s candid and often unexpected responses to numerous questions I posed to him along with those of 24 noted legal figures. In the process, Judge Posner bursts into the breach with frankness about his views on privacy, the exclusionary rule, NYT v. Sullivan, intellectual property rights, law and economics, constitutional interpretation, legal education and scholarship, and the politicization of the judiciary. With Posnerian resolve, he also speaks of his own life, his onetime thoughts on being a Supreme Court Justice, his cherished feline, and even his favorite rock stars. Given all that, we selected “Posner on Posner” as the title for this series.

Note: Some links will open only in Firefox or Chrome but not in Safari. 

______________________________________

A man[’s] . . . thinking should be

cosmopolitan and detached. He should

be able to criticize what he reveres and loves.

                                                – Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., February 4, 1901

He is like no other. Cool, calm, and calculating (in a methodical sense, that is). To watch him, one might think him shy, if only because of the way he averts his blue eyes when speaking. His complexion is fair (sun sensitive), which makes for a striking contrast to the dark suits he often dons. His appearance is ordinary, highlighted only by a blue Oxford linen shirt and wide-framed rectangular glasses. He speaks in a measured manner and while his voice can be monotonic, his oral style can fluctuate from serious to humorous. At times, his expression is flat, though once and a while a chuckle erupts, prompted by some folly he underscores or some hypocrisy he exposes while discussing this or that point or person. His public conversations with others can seem singular; they smack of a man thinking aloud.

Candor is his calling card, print is his preferred medium, and the moves of the mind are his raison d’être. One is reminded, in a fleeting philosophical sense, of Ludwig Wittgenstein. The “atypical . . . manner and character” of both men only adds to the resemblance. That said, there is one big difference: He is no parlor philosopher; he is a man who lives to transform ideas into action.

To some, he is an irritating gadfly. To others, he is a cold-blooded pragmatist. To many, he is an enemy of liberalism, while to many others he is a foe of conservatism. To more sensitive types, his economics-grounded “thinking is inevitably without compassion and often cruel.” To more cerebral types he is “our most prominent rationalist.” To those whose world is divided along uncompromising ideological lines, his views on the Second Amendment are horrendous and tyrannical, even if he is quite libertarian when it comes to legalizing marijuana, “cocaine, heroin, methamphetamime, LSD, and the rest of the illegal drugs.” To still others, he is a mental maverick gunning for any kind of specious arguments (especially self-righteous ones) that pass for gospel. And to yet others, he is the only one who dares to describe law as it is here on mortal earth rather than how it might be in some utopian salon. In that realist respect, there is even a Machiavellian streak in him.

He is, to be sure, an acquired taste. Even to those who know him, there is a distant quality about his personality. Perhaps because of that, those who know him appreciate his wit and playfulness all the more. Not one to hand out a diplomatic compliment, merit is the measure that rules his life.

Past as Prelude

Richard A. Posner, Harvard Law Review photo

Richard A. Posner, Harvard Law Review photo

He is Richard Posner. At 75, the New York City born jurist shows no signs of slowing down. If anything, his cerebral game is as good or better than it was in 1959 when he graduated summa cum laude from Yale College at age 20 (he was an English major with an avid interest in Yeats) or when he graduated first in his class from Harvard Law School in 1962 (he was President of the Harvard Law Review). 

His credentials as a young man all signaled future greatness – law clerk to Justice William J. Brennan (1962-63 Term), assistant to Commissioner Philip Elman of the Federal Trade Commission (1963-65), and assistant to Solicitor General Thurgood Marshall (1965-67). In that capacity and others, he wrote some 40 briefs and argued ten cases before the Supreme Court. The cases he argued were:

  1. Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission (1966) (audio here)
  2. Accardi v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co. (1966) (audio here)
  3. United States v. Von’s Grocery Co. (1966) (audio here)
  4. First National Bank v. Walker Bank (1966) (audio here)
  5. Illinois Central R. Co. v. Norfolk & W.R. Co. (1966) (audio here)
  6. Honda v. Clark (1967)(audio here)
  7. United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co. (1967)
  8. Will v. United States (1967)
  9. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n. (1968)
  10. National Broiler Marketing Association v. United States (1978) (Frank H. Easterbrook was on the brief for the government on the other side)

Posner also served as general counsel on President Johnson’s Task Force on Communications Policy (1967-68). Soon enough the legal academy beckoned him, first as an associate law professor at Stanford (1968-1969) and later as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School (1969-1981). It was during that time that at age 34 he published his momentous work, Economic Analysis of the Law (1973) (now in its 9th edition).

judge_posner

The virtual Posner

As if all of that were not enough, “Posner augmented his professional life . . . found[ing] Lexecon Inc., a [profitable] consulting firm that tried to put into practice [his law and economic] theories. A large portion of Lexecon’s early business, when he was still a partner, was advising companies as to whether their competitive practices would run afoul of antitrust laws.” In late October of 1981, after his time in the legal academy, Posner then pursued a judicial path as a Ronald Reagan appointee to the Seventh Circuit. In the process, he traded wealth for fame – not what one typically expects from a unapologetic cost-benefit capitalist.

One more thing: In 2006 the ever-colorful Judge stared as an avatar in Second Life, an online virtual community.

The Brennan Clerkship

I was a little disappointed in the Supreme Court. I had a

more elevated opinion of it as a law student than it merited.

                                                                            Richard Posner

To return to his clerkship with Justice Brennan: It came to him via Paul Freund (1908-1992), the famed Harvard professor of constitutional law. In those days it was customary for certain law professors to select law clerks for some of the Justices, this even without a prior clerkship. Young Posner (age 23) was one of Freund’s two picks.

Once he arrived in Washington, D.C., Posner went to work on a variety of jobs for Justice Brennan. It has been reported that during that time he “wrote up an opinion arguing the reverse of Brennan’s [initial sense of the] decision.” Things worked out, nonetheless, and the clerk’s opinion proved “so compelling that Brennan and the Court changed their minds and adopted it.” That unanimous opinion, replete with 83 footnotes, was Sanders v. United States (1963), a habeas corpus case.

Posner also had a hand in writing another habeas case, Fay v. Noia (1963). And then there was NAACP v. Button (1963), a First Amendment civil rights case he authored. For Harry Kalven (1914-1974), the renowned First Amendment scholar, the Button opinion was an important one. “The Court,” he wrote in The Negro and the First Amendment (1965), “offers a generous view of the range of First Amendment protection, a view which seems to me to be indisputably correct although the Court had never previously been given an appropriate occasion for announcing it.” Kalven found it “exciting” that the opinion appeared to break “new ground.”

In a 2013 interview Posner reminisced about his clerkship at the Court: “The most significant experience of my clerkship was happening to work on a case assigned to Justice Brennan, an antitrust case called United States v. Philadelphia National Bank (1963) [the vote was 5-1-2 with Justice White not participating and Justice Harlan dissenting]. And working on that greatly stimulated my interest in antitrust law, and my time in Washington after the clerkship – I was there for another five years – I was mostly concerned with antitrust issues. So that was, I’d say, the most significant experience I had at the Supreme Court.”

Four Brennan-Posner opinions – there is a certain irony here, namely, that these opinions were written by a law clerk who when he became a judge refused to permit his own law clerks to write his judicial opinions. Then again, as Judge Posner once quipped, “Life is full of surprises . . . .”

judgeposner_2010Mind Games — A Multidimensional Man

Richard Posner is a man of the mind. He welcomes the challenges of complexity; he takes pride in showing the hollowness of legal abstractions; and he loves to simplify the complex without leaving it senseless. Speaking in a soft but nonetheless deliberate tone, he delights in exposing babble masquerading as legal argument, and can be rather relentless when counsel persists in being evasive (see, e.g., here).

In a legal world divided, on the one hand, by jurists who demand the rigidities of rules in matters of interpretation, and jurists who, on the other hand, insist on the flexibility of standards, Posner readily sidesteps ideological boundaries. As he sees it, such disputes are better understood as psychological in character than logical in nature. He prefers a more pragmatic contextual approach. To draw upon his own words in MindGames Inc. v. Western Publishing Co. (2000): “some activities are better governed by rules, others by standards.” Thus, in MindGames the Court declined to be bound by a 1924 rule regarding new businesses and lost profits.

Another Posnerian trait: He is not oblivious to the obvious, even when others are. And he does not hesitate to speak sternly when the circumstances warrant it, as in a class actions case (Eubank v. Saltzman) involving a lawyer who took far too many liberties. There, Posner used the opportunity of the controversy to demonstrate the factual oddities and ethical problems with the case, this while offering several learned yet pragmatic observations about this body of the law and its efficient operation. He did much the same in another class action case (Redman v. Radio Shack Corporation) in which he was quite critical of a settlement that offered Radio Shack customers about $830,000 worth of coupons while offering the lawyers who negotiated it $1 million. He was equally outspoken in a recent copyright case (Klinger v. Conan Doyle Estate, Ltd.). And his edgy wit and probing reasoning were much apparent in a pair of recent same-sex marriage cases (Baskin v. Bogan and Wolf v. Walker) in which he was particularly hard on the counsel for the state during oral arguments in those cases.

Color him with many stripes. Posner relishes the study of economics; he savors the lure of literature; he delights in clearing the air polluted by scandalous politics; he enjoys applying his free-market thinking to explain the various economic crises of our time; he relishes the chance to confront head on those issues that bedevil cultural critics; and he loves his life in the law (be it jurisprudence, antitrust, intellectual property, regulatory law, patent law, labor law, criminal law, or constitutional law). In a world increasingly bereft of public intellectuals, he rises from the lifeless ashes like a modern-day Phoenix. True to that cerebral calling, Posner has personal opinions, often controversial, on everything from sexual behavior to judicial behavior and beyond to subjects as diverse as terrorism, global warming, aging, moral and literary theory, and even the risks of catastrophic harm due to an asteroid colliding with the earth.

Unconventional Appeal Read More

stairway-to-heaven-1319562-m-720x340
1

FAN 41 (First Amendment News) Three Harvard Law Review essays discuss Justice Breyer’s free speech jurisprudence

  • Judge Breyer has a unique zig-zag style. Ralph Nader (confirmation hearing statement, July 15, 1994)
  • I do not rest my conclusion upon a strict categorical analysis. – Justice Stephen Breyer (concurring in United States v. Alvarez, June 28, 2012)
  • The single most important area of Breyer’s work on the Court has been his opinions on the First Amendment, in which he has developed a unique and pathbreaking approach to issues of freedom of speech. — Paul Gewirtz (Yale Law Journal, 2006)
Justice Stephen Breyer

On the one hand . . . but then on the other

When it comes to free speech, he is darling of the Liberal Left . . . or some on the Left, or of some on the Left in the legal academy, or of those on the Left who abhor rulings such as Citizens United v. FEC (2010) and McCutcheon v. FEC (2014). To others, he is the Justice who got the First Amendment right (albeit in dissent) in cases such as Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010) and Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006). Many of those same defenders shy away from their praise when it comes to opinions such as the one Justice Breyer authored in Randall v. Sorrell (2006).

In his pragmatist approach, one will readily discern the vernacular of ad hoc balancing, of  “competing constitutional concerns” or “First Amendment interests . . . on both sides of the legal equation.” Mindful of such concerns, he asks: Are the “restrictions on speech disproportionate when measured against their speech-related benefits”? And why? What is the purpose of such balancing? He responds: to “facilitate a conversation among ordinary citizens that will encourage their informed participation.” To that end, government may limit speech in the supposed service of “preserving a democratic order” or for the purpose of promoting and protecting  “collective speech.” In this way an others, and dating back to his 1997 concurrence in Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC II, Stephen Breyer has set out to rewrite First Amendment jurisprudence.

In light of his two decades of service on the Supreme Court, I thought I would offer some background information on how the Justice has decided First Amendment free expression cases (29 are listed below), his thoughts on free speech generally, and how scholars and lawyers have viewed his jurisprudence in this area. A sketch of all of that is set out below by way of select references to various sources.

HLR Essays in Honor of Justice Breyer 

The November issue of the Harvard Law Review has a collection of essays in honor of Justice Stephen Breyer’s twenty years of service on  the United States Supreme Court. The following three essays concern the Justice’s free speech jurisprudence:

Let me pose a hypothetical

Let me pose a hypothetical: “Candidate Smith — we can only give him $2,600 — has a lot of supporters.”

Active Liberty: Justice Breyer on Free Speech

In his 2005 book, Active Liberty: Interpreting our Democratic Constitution, Justice Breyer devoted a chapter (pp. 39-55) to the question of free speech.

Roberts Court Era: Justice Breyer’s Majority or Plurality Opinions in Free Expression Cases

In what follows, S indicates that a majority of the Court sustained the First Amendment claimed whereas D means that it was denied.

Separate Opinions: Below is a list of separate opinions authored by Justice Breyer in free expression cases decided during the Roberts Court era:

a pensive moment

the pensive pragmatist

Justice Breyer’s Pre-Roberts Court Opinions: Selected Cases 

First Circuit Free Expression Opinions Read More

stairway-to-heaven-1319562-m-720x340
0

FAN 40 (First Amendment News) Steve Shiffrin & Bob Corn-Revere debate “What’s Wrong with the First Amendment?”

Bob Corn-Revere & Steve Shiffrin (with Joel Gora in background)

Bob Corn-Revere & Steve Shiffrin (with Joel Gora in background)

For those who savor good give-and-take talk about the First Amendment, last Wednesday evening was a memorable one as Professor Steven Shiffrin debated Robert Corn-Revere with Ashly Messenger moderating. The topic: “What’s Wrong with the First Amendment?” Why that title? Because that’s the working title of Professor Shiffrin’s next book.

The New York city event was the third in a series of First Amendment salons held at the offices of the law firm of Levine, Sullivan, Koch & Schulz. The program was introduced by Lee Levine, who announced that this was the first salon done in conjunction with the Floyd Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression at Yale Law School. The event was video cast live to the firm’s office in Washington, D.C. and to the Abrams Institute in New Haven.

Among others, those attending the event included: Floyd Abrams, Sandra Baron, John Berger, Joan Bertin, Vince Blasi, Kali Borkoski, Karen Gantz, Joel Gora, Laura Handman, David Horowitz, Maureen Johnston, Adam Liptak, Greg Lukianoff, Tony Mauro, Wes Macleaod-Ball, David Savage, David Schulz, Paul Smith, and James Swanson.

The exchange was robust as the Cornell professor took articulate and passionate exception to several of the Roberts Court’s First Amendment rulings, including United States v. Stevens, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, and United States v. Alvarez – all cases in which Corn-Revere had an amicus’ hand in defending the free speech claims. No potted plant, the First Amendment lawyer fired back with facts, figures, and history as the two men debated the pros and cons of balancing vs strict scrutiny approaches to free speech decision-making. The animated discussion was always friendly and at times even funny as the two traded witty retorts.

The dialogue was enriched as Vince Blasi, Katherine Bolger, Joan Bertin, Paul Smith, James Swanson, and Floyd Abrams, among others, weighed in. As the discussion developed one could almost see minds bouncing back-and-forth as Ms. Messenger pressed the two seasoned First Amendment experts. The evening ended on a high note as Shiffrin and Corn-Revere laughed and shook hands. (Re earlier salons, see here and here.)

Coming soon: book by Seana Shiffrin 

UnknownThe Shiffrin name has long been a familiar one in First Amendment circles — a name that has both invited and provoked thought. Now comes another Shiffrin, UCLA philosophy and law Professor Seana Shiffrin, who is a scholar in her own right — someone quite attune to jurisprudential nuance.

If the case of United States v. Alvarez (2012) — the Stolen Valor case — caught your attention, and if you were intrigued by Chief Judge Alex Kozinki’s separate opinion in the case when it was before the Ninth Circuit, then Speech Matters: On Lying, Morality, and the Law (Princeton University Press, Dec. 21, 2014) by Seana Shiffrin is a book for you. And it is more, philosophically much more.

Here is the publisher’s description of the forthcoming book: “To understand one another as individuals and to fulfill the moral duties that require such understanding, we must communicate with each other. We must also maintain protected channels that render reliable communication possible, a demand that, Seana Shiffrin argues, yields a prohibition against lying and requires protection for free speech. This book makes a distinctive philosophical argument for the wrong of the lie and provides an original account of its difference from the wrong of deception.”

“Drawing on legal as well as philosophical arguments, the book defends a series of notable claims — that you may not lie about everything to the “murderer at the door,” that you have reasons to keep promises offered under duress, that lies are not protected by free speech, that police subvert their mission when they lie to suspects, and that scholars undermine their goals when they lie to research subjects.”

“Many philosophers start to craft moral exceptions to demands for sincerity and fidelity when they confront wrongdoers, the pressures of non-ideal circumstances, or the achievement of morally substantial ends. But Shiffrin consistently resists this sort of exceptionalism, arguing that maintaining a strong basis for trust and reliable communication through practices of sincerity, fidelity, and respecting free speech is an essential aspect of ensuring the conditions for moral progress, including our rehabilitation of and moral reconciliation with wrongdoers.”

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Lies and the Murderer Next Door 5

Chapter 2: Duress and Moral Progress 47

Chapter 3: A Thinker-Based Approach to Freedom of Speech 79

Chapter 4: Lying and Freedom of Speech 116

Chapter 5: Accommodation, Equality, and the Liar 157

Chapter 6: Sincerity and Institutional Values 182

I plan to say more about this book in the coming year. Stay tuned.

UnknownNew book by Danish editor of newspaper that published cartoons of Mohammad

The author: Fleming Rose 

The book: The Tyranny of Silence (Cato Institute, Nov. 14, 2014)

Description: “When the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten (Viby, Denmark) published the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed nine years ago, Denmark found itself at the center of a global battle about the freedom of speech. The paper’s culture editor, Flemming Rose, defended the decision to print the 12 drawings, and he quickly came to play a central part in the debate about the limitations to freedom of speech in the 21st century. Since then, Rose has visited universities and think tanks and participated in conferences and debates around the globe in order to discuss tolerance and freedom. In The Tyranny of Silence, Flemming Rose writes about the people and experiences that have influenced the way he views the world and his understanding of the crisis, including meetings with dissidents from the former Soviet Union and ex-Muslims living in Europe. He provides a personal account of an event that has shaped the debate about what it means to be a citizen in a democracy and how to coexist in a world that is increasingly multicultural, multi-religious, and multi-ethnic.”

See Fleming Rose here re his recent appearance on The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell.  

1-A groups urge school district to select books “solely on sound educational grounds” Read More

0

CJ Katzmann weighs in with new book on statutory interpretation

cover-197x300While there seems to be no end to books, articles, essays, blog posts and symposia on constitutional interpretation, relatively little attention is paid to the all-too-important issue of statutory interpretation. Well, that is changing with the advent of a new book by the Chief Judge of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The work is aptly titled Judging Statutes (Oxford University Press) and its author is Robert Katzmann. It is already drawing impressive attention as evidenced by the following:

Among other scholarly venues, there have already been programs on the book at the following places:

Of course, Judge Katzmann does not, by any measure, occupy this field alone. His chief scholarly rivals are Justice Antonin Scalia and Mr.  Bryan A. Garner, who two years ago published the much-noticed Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. To be sure, the Chief Judge has a different interpretive take, though he approaches his subject with diplomacy, nuance, and a comprehensive knowledge of how the federal legislative process works. (Another leading book in this area is Legislation and Statutory Interpretation by William Eskridge, Philip Fricky and Elizabeth Garrett.)

Federal appeals judge Robert Katzmann’s new book [is attracting impressive attention]. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor were in the front row of the audience on Tuesday at a Georgetown University Law Center event marking the Sept. 11 publication of Katzmann’s book Judging Statutes. . .  . The Justices’ presence signaled that, as Georgetown Law dean William Treanor put it, Katzmann’s book is ‘already having incredible influence, even as it is just being published.'” -- Tony Mauro

 In case you missed it, check out my Q & A interview with Chief Judge Katzmann over at SCOTUSblog.

(Full disclosure: I have known Robert Katzmann for many years.)

→ Coming soon: POSNER ON POSNER (a five-part Q & A series prefaced by an unconventional two-part biographical essay). 

1

To Sarat or Not Sarat

As in Austin Sarat, Law and Humanities scholar at Amherst College.  As in one of the leading figures within the Association of Law Culture and Humanities, which has become one of my favorite destinations over the years for engaging discussion across the disciplines.  (FYI, today is the deadline to submit abstracts to the Law Culture and Humanities Conference being held at Georgetown this year).
Glancing across Sarat’s scholarship one might notice a fascination with documenting the morbidity of law.  Images of war, death, and imprisonment filter the landscape of writings; the images are used to magnify their contrast. They create discourses in binaries.  We understand legal violence distinctive from non-legal violence; death distinctive from non-death; and imprisonment distinctive from non-prisoned life.  Sarat sums this up in his Article Violence, Democracy, Responsibility, and the Problem of Punishment.

 

Moreover, by equating the conditions of legal legitimacy with that masking, much of that jurisprudence promotes righteous indifference and allows law’s violence to continue unabated. I am neither so idealistic nor so naive as to imagine that a change in legal theory would in itself end violence done, authorized or approved by legal institutions and officials. Still the energy in much of my work on punishment comes from a desire to interrogate legal theory in order to understand how law, surrounded by so much pain, is, nonetheless, able to maintain its calm, bureaucratic facade.

 

Drawing on themes that prompt considerations of justice and violence, it’s no wonder that Sarat and Robert Cover were walking the same halls in New Haven in the early 1980’s.  I don’t know if Sarat and Cover interacted much.  Really, does it matter?  Sarat himself was a well accomplished scholar in the humanities prior to enrolling at Yale (I mean how many of us as one L’s had their professor begin a civil procedure class by reading and discussing our own work?) .  Perhaps he and Cover never interacted.  I’d like to think they didn’t but that the recursiveness of space, time and ideas latched on to them independently as they traveled the halls.

Besides violence, Sarat’s scholarship prompts me to think about similar themes in my own work.   Loneliness has been a particular theme of mine.  Robert Penn Warren, Fydor Dostovsky, and Flannery O’Connor have been shaping devices of this theme.  They play themselves out in a chorus of questions about space, roles, isolation, and time.  When Warren writes about the South as a Lonely place, he prompts me to wonder whether and how time shapes people.  For those three, time is the violence of memory, sometimes maintained through static relationships of property, law, family, and culture.  Sarat likewise prompts us to consider how time shapes our understandings of justice and violence.  He writes in the same article prompted above:

For me, democracy requires a particular orientation toward time. Democratic temporality is the time of change, of reconsideration. It is open-ended and open to a sense of the endlessness of time. Acts of punishment, even if we had a way of calculating what people deserve, are always in some sense the servants, not the masters, of time. Numerous authors have highlighted the problem of time in asking whether the person being subject to punishment, 2, or 12, or 20 years after the crime is really the same person as the one who committed the crime that justified the punishment in the first place. When, many years ago, Justice Brennan described the death penalty as taking away the right to have rights, he might well have said that no punishment that seeks to be timeless, or stop the movement of time, can be reconciled with a democratic theory of punishment.

The conception of time as a marker of change is one, I think Robert Penn Warren would greatly admire.  On May 15, 1961, The New Republic published a review of Warren’s essay The Legacy of the Civil War.  In the review essay, writer Peter d’a Jones aligned Warrens views with Robert Patterson of the Citizens Counsel of Mississippi, a group formed following the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education.  The group, put simply, was designed to use legal (and non-legal) violence to stymie desegregation.
Following the review of Warren’s essay, Warren wrote a letter to the New Republic editor:

Dear Sir,

This letter is promoted by a review of my essay the Legacy of the Civil War, which appeared in your issue of May 15.  I could wish that Mr. Peter d’a Jones had thought better of my essay or at least of my intellectual integrity, but I am not now writing in defense of either.  What I want to do here is disabuse those readers who may feel, from Mr. Jones’ review that I have much sympathy with Mr. Robert Patterson of the Citizens’ Committee of Mississippi, whom he cites with, perhaps, some effect of guilt by association.  

The quickest thing for me to do is state three things — things which it is strange for any citizen to feel constrained to state.

1 It is morally right, as well as politically and economically necessary, that all the rights and privileges of American citizenship be guaranteed to all citizens.  
2 A man’s worth should be judged by the qualities of his manhood.
3 Any official of any state who does not honestly and vigorously endeavor to punish, with full rigor, any violence against or coercion of any individual or group has violated his public trust and should be impeached.  

I suppose that a reader can easily infer from these statements my attitude in specific instances, as I had assumed one might from other writings of mine, including the Legacy of the Civil War; but I shall add that I think Dr. Martin Luther King a great man, and that the sit ins conducted according to his principles are morally unassailable, and will win.  One reason they will win is that they offer, even to the man howling from the sidewalk, an exhibition of courage, dignity, and self control.  

                        Very Respectfully Yours,

                        Robert Penn Warren

P.S.  One more thing: since Mr. Jones takes the trouble to quote from me in 1929, I wish he had taken the trouble in his researches to glance at my explicit repudiation some time back, of what I said in 1929.  In 1929, in my youth, I was wrong — and even now, I do not feel myself entirely above error.  

Warren’s reflection of change over time merges with his views of social responsibility.   For what its worth, Warren was also wandering around New Haven in the early 1980’s.  How I would enjoy sitting at a table amongst Warren, Sarat and Cover as they talked about these things.  How the walls in New Haven must have been ablaze with ideas in the early 80’s.

(P.S. Robert Patterson was also former Captain of the Mississippi State football team — ergo my promised college football reference, in case anyone needed an irrational reason to hate the number one ranked team).

3

The Role Law and Literature Should Play in a Law School

Some may ask what role should liberal arts style courses play in law school where we are increasingly focused on bar exams and practice ready skills.   It may take me a while to unravel that answer with the gusto and the framing it deserves.  I think anyone that regularly teaches Law and Literature has been asked some variant of this question.  The course doesn’t have the safe luxury of “well its on the bar exam,” or even the more sardonic return of “well, but of course it underlies much of legal thought and practice.”  See, e.g., Law and Econ, Law and Social Theory, and Legal History.

Let me make a bold proclamation.  The law and literature course, perhaps more than any other, asks students to wrestle with their subjective views of the law.  It’s interesting, in a course that deals with Constitutional Law, for example, there is the finality of how the court approached the problem (whether we agree with the outcome or not).   In Law and Literature on the other hand, the course encompasses the views of the professor, the authors, and their fellow students as they encounter these views.  Sometimes worlds are created in which those concrete legal frameworks are disembodied (See, e.g., Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale).  Sometimes, the fictional worlds embrace the world as we know it, and offer stunning critique to its foundation (See, e.g., Harriet Beecher Stowe, Uncle Tom’s Cabin). That’s not to say that other courses, (take a UCC course), is not rife with highly charged emotional queries (notwithstanding my critique, my explanation for whether the disposition of collateral equates to proceeds is a highly charged event!).  It is saying that in a time where the ABA is prompting law schools to create standards that push the law school experience towards so-called objective standards of evaluation (see revision of section 302 in the ABA standards), the role of encountering, critiquing, explaining, and understanding different subjective understandings of the law is critical.   We should not be afraid to encounter nor express our subjective views in the context of critical dialogue.

My view is that Law and Literature is a course that offers students not only the opportunity to understand themselves better but to learn to dialogue about the subjective views of law.  A few years ago, Yale Law School offered a course titled “The Book of Job and Suffering.” Unfortunately, at many law schools such a class would never be taught for fear that the subject strayed too far from what law schools are suppose to do — at least not under that title.  However such a course is precisely the kind of law and literature course we should be teaching. Isolating the critical component that suffering may play in the narrative for law students, I imagine, was a powerful experience for those students and the professor.  Powerful because they all have suffered something, I’m sure, though undoubtedly it was uneven.  Students learn to dialogue about themselves and the text in a group where each other’s respective experiences help frame and isolate the way the text moved within the group.   At one and the same time, students in a law and literature class learn about themselves, as members of a group, a class and as an individual.   This is the idea of Law and Literature that James Boyd White framed so well — the engagement of the reader with the text forcing the reader to accept or not accept the writer’s framed world. [Perhaps Boyd’s best framing of this encounter is his book This Book of Starres: Learning to Read George Herbert, in which Boyd wrestles with the text as reader primarily].

This role of teaching students about themselves is critical if not necessary to shaping who they are as counselors and advocates for their clients.  Of course they are things we should care about as shaping lawyers. But should we have to isolate them into an ABA objective or standard.   In a way, it cheapens the process to do so.

I fear that courses like Law and Literature, in which students engage in thoughtful discourse, may find themselves replaced with others that fail to live up to the promise of helping students understand themselves in a legal environment and instead only focus on the particulars of interacting in the legal environment.   There is nothing wrong with a movement in legal education that attempts to focus institutional resources to critically examine whether the law school is best preparing students for the modern legal environment.  But, that doesn’t mean that our students [or our faculty] are better off without having the dialogues and communities that law and literature help promote and shape in the law school environment.