Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist

Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist
Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Md Troopers Assoc #20 & Westminster Md Fire Dept Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist
Showing posts with label Judiciary Supreme Court qv Supreme Ct. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judiciary Supreme Court qv Supreme Ct. Show all posts

Monday, April 12, 2010

E-Brief from CNSNews: Sebelius Says President Obama Has Instructed All Cabinet-Level Departments to Promote Public Health

 Monday, April 12, 2010 - E-Brief from CNSNews: Sebelius Says President Obama Has Instructed All Cabinet-Level Departments to Promote Public Health


Sebelius Says President Obama Has Instructed All Cabinet-Level Departments to Promote Public Health
(CNSNews.com)
– Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says President Obama “expects” all cabinet departments to leverage their resources in support of public health, a move she suggested is unprecedented. Sebelius explained that the Department of Transportation can operate as a “health agency" by funding bike trails for communities, for example.

Health Law Bans New Doctor-Owned Hospitals, Blocks Expansion of Existing Ones
(CNSNews.com)
– The new health care overhaul law, which promised increased access and efficiency in health care, will prevent doctor-owned hospitals from adding more rooms and more beds. The new health care rules single out physician-owned hospitals, making new projects ineligible to receive payments for Medicare and Medicaid patients. More than 60 doctor-owned hospitals across the country that were in the development stage will be canceled, said Molly Sandvig, executive director of Physician Hospitals of America.

Justice Ginsburg’s Advice for Female Lawyers: Marry A Supportive Husband
(CNSNews.com)
– Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the best thing female lawyers can do to ensure they have successful careers is to marry a loving, supportive husband who will not be afraid to put his wife ahead of himself.

Justice Ginsburg: Supreme Court Picks Should Not Be Made Based on Religion
(CNSNews.com)
– Speaking at Georgetown University Law School on Thursday, Ginsburg – one of two Jewish justices on a court dominated by Catholic members – said no justice would want to be identified by his religion.

Activist Atheist Pair Want Pope Arrested
(CNSNews.com)
–Accusing the Pope covering up clerical sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens want lawyers to build a case for arresting the pope for “crimes against humanity” when he visits Britain later this year to beatify a 19th century British theologian.

Polish President Was a Reliable U.S. Ally, But Also a Candid Critic
(CNSNews.com)
– The death of Polish President Lech Kaczynski cut short the leadership of a conservative who did not shy away from controversy, whether it meant annoying the European Union over the death penalty or the Kremlin over his opposition to Russian maneuvering in the former Soviet sphere of influence. His death also deprives the West of an uncompromising ally, one who was strongly supportive of the military missions in Iraq and Afghanistan and willing to brave Russian anger by agreeing to host U.S. missile defense facilities as a shield against Iran.

Pre-Vote Stupak: ‘I’m Not Going to Run From the Issue’; Senate Bill Will ‘Go Down in Flames’
(CNSNews.com)
- In December, the day before the Senate passed its health-care bill, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich) told CNSNews.com that abortion language in Senate version of the bill was unacceptable, that the bill would “go down in flames” in the House, and that he and other pro-life Democrats were under extreme pressure from the Obama White House and House Democratic leaders to change their position on the issue.


OTHER CNSNEWS.COM HEADLINES

California Protesters Seek Social Security Benefits for Homosexuals

Vatican Makes Clear Bishops Must Report Sex Abuse
Mississippi Governor Says Confederacy Flap in Virginia Not Worth ‘Diddly’
Census Response Rates Lag As States Cut Funding on Outreach
Obama Hosts World Leaders at a Meeting to Stop the Nukes
Senator Wants Government to Bar Airlines From Charging Fee for Carry-On Bags
Concerns About Iran Dominate Holocaust Day in Israel
Thousands Rally for Immigration Reform Across U.S.
Federal Panel Not Ready to Say When Recession Ended
IRA Dissidents Bomb British Spy Headquarters in Northern Ireland

Donate Today!

Please help CNSNews.com keep bringing you 'The Right News - Right Now!'
Make a contribution to CNSNews.com today. It's fast, simple and secure.
Help CNSNews.com and Donate Today! 

NEWSPAPER ROUNDUP:
Federal official coming to S.C. Monday to discuss childhood obesity
Battle-weary House Dems eye short weeks, easy votes ahead of election
Senate Dems plan a busy schedule as SCOTUS debate looms
GAO: Postal Service business 'not viable'
Orszag: CBO lowballs savings from Obama's healthcare reform
Crime investigations sit idle as LAPD detectives hit overtime caps
Scranton region finds remedy for anticipated doctor shortfall
Klamath Falls may try 4-day school week to save money
Solar-panel plan draws heat in N.J.
Obama at new low in Gallup poll
Tina Fey launches Sarah Palin Network on 'SNL'
Romney wins Southern Republican Leadership Conference straw poll


COMMENTARY

Nukes
By Rich Galen
President Barack Obama is on an anti-nuclear binge. It is obviously a good thing to want to reduce nuclear weapons on the planet, and I hope he is successful. Forty heads of state being zipped around downtown Washington cannot be a good for work-a-day people like you and me, but it’s a small price to pay for getting the world to focus on the issue of nuclear terrorism.

*****

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

20071112 Poughkeepsie Journal: Panels explore presidents' relationship with Supreme Court By Michael Woyton


Poughkeepsie Journal: Panels explore presidents' relationship with Supreme Court By Michael Woyton

http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071112/NEWS01/711120329/1006/NEWS01

Former justice gives keynote speech at 2-day conference

Monday, November 12, 2007

By Michael Woyton Poughkeepsie Journal

Photo by Denise DeVore/For the Poughkeepsie Journal

Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor gave the keynote address during “The Presidency and the Supreme Court” conference on Sunday, at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum in Hyde Park.

Related: 20071111 The Presidency and the Supreme Court conference Agenda Or click on:

History American Presidents – and the Supreme Court Conference at FDR Presidential Library Nov. 11 and 12 2007

HYDE PARK - Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, speaking on "The Presidency and the Supreme Court," focused on four historic moments "in which the two large offices (the executive and the judiciary) have intersected, overlapped and even clashed," she said.

The first two involved Thomas Jefferson and the establishment of judicial review by the court and Abraham Lincoln's suspending habeas corpus, or the right to petition for relief from unlawful detention, during the Civil War.

The third centered on FDR and his desire to pack the court with his justice picks.

"He was more than a little annoyed that the justices were giving thumbs down to his legislation," O'Connor said.

The final example took place during the Korean War, when Harry Truman was prevented by the Supreme Court from taking over the steel mills to prevent a strike.

O'Connor was the keynote speaker at the conference organized by the presidential libraries and held at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum in Hyde Park.

Read the entire article here: Poughkeepsie Journal: Panels explore presidents' relationship with Supreme Court By Michael Woyton

Sunday, November 11, 2007

20071111 The Presidency and the Supreme Court conference Agenda


This weekend I am attending a conference on the Presidency and the Supreme Court – November 11th and 12th, 2007 at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum

The Presidency and the Supreme Court conference brings together a wide range of speakers, including scholars, policymakers, and journalists to deliberate on the complex relationship between the Court and the Presidency and the impact of that interaction on American society. Panels focus not only on the political process of Supreme Court nominations and confirmations, but examines the Court's influence on social issues, civil rights and governmental power in times of crisis. The conference also includes a keynote address by former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

This conference is sponsored by the nation's twelve Presidential Libraries, their foundations, the National Archives, the Foundation for the National Archives, and the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute with generous support from:

Thomson West, Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP, Frederick P. Furth, Wiley Rein LLP

The Presidency and the Supreme Court conference Agenda

AGENDA

Sunday, November 11, 2007

1:00 p.m.

Welcoming Remarks

Professor Allen Weinstein, Archivist of the United States;

Anna Eleanor Roosevelt, Co-Chair,

Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute;

Former President George H. W. Bush (via video).

1:15 - 3:00 p.m.

Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt and the 1930s Supreme Court

The consequential Supreme Court decisions, appointments, and presidential politics of the 1930s.

Chair: Alan Brinkley, Provost, Columbia University; Professors William E. Leuchtenburg and G. Edward White; Author and Newsweek Senior Editor Jonathan Alter.

3:00 - 4:45 p.m.

Shaping the Modern Court: Presidents Truman through Clinton

Insider accounts of Supreme Court appointments and how the appointment process has changed over the past sixty years.

Chair: Allen Weinstein; Ambassador C. Boyden Gray; Professors Douglas Brinkley and Laura Kalman.

5:00 p.m.

Keynote Address: The Honorable Sandra Day O'Connor

Monday, November 12, 2007

9:15 a.m.

Welcoming Remarks

Sharon Fawcett, Assistant Archivist for Presidential Libraries;

The Hon. Judith S. Kaye, Chief Judge of the State of New York.

Moderator for the day: National Public Radio Legal Affairs Correspondent Nina Totenberg.

9:30 - 11:30 a.m.

The Presidency, the Supreme Court and Civil Rights

The interactions of Presidents and the Supreme Court on topics relating to race, discrimination, equality and civil rights.

Civil rights leader and former Assistant Attorney General Roger Wilkins; Professor David A. Nichols; former Secretary of Education the Hon. Shirley Hufstedler; Professor and former President of the American Civil Liberties Union Norman Dorsen; National Public Radio Senior Correspondent Juan Williams.

Lunch Break

12:45 - 2:45 p.m.

The Presidency, the Supreme Court and the "Culture Wars"

Presidential and Supreme Court concerns and decisions relating to abortion, the death penalty, gay rights, religion and other topics of societal division.

The Hon. Michael W. McConnell; Professors Heather Gerken and Michael C. Dorf.

3:00 - 5:00 p.m.

The Supreme Court and Presidential Power

Supreme Court adjudication of the limits of executive power under the Constitution, especially in times of war and crisis.

Professor John Q. Barrett; former White House Counsel John W. Dean; Author and New York Times Columnist Anthony Lewis; former White House Counsel Beth Nolan.

5:00 p.m.

Concluding Remarks

Ambassador William J. vanden Heuvel, Founder and Chairman Emeritus, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute.

Friday, October 05, 2007

20071004 The upcoming Presidency and the Supreme Court conference info


The upcoming Presidency and the Supreme Court conference info

October 4, 2007

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/PSChome.html

AGENDA | FLYER

The Presidency and the Supreme Court conference brings together a wide range of speakers, including scholars, policymakers, and journalists to deliberate on the complex relationship between the Court and the Presidency and the impact of that interaction on American society. Panels focus not only on the political process of Supreme Court nominations and confirmations, but examines the Court's influence on social issues, civil rights and governmental power in times of crisis. The conference also includes a keynote address by former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

To register call (845) 486-1966.


This conference is sponsored by the nation's twelve Presidential Libraries, their foundations, the National Archives, the Foundation for the National Archives, and the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute with generous support from:

Thomson West

Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP

Frederick P. Furth

Wiley Rein LLP

CONFERENCE HOME | AGENDA | FLYER

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

20070730 Chief justice Roberts hospitalized after seizure

Chief justice hospitalized after seizure

Roberts, 52, reportedly suffers minor scrapes, to stay overnight in hospital

MSNBC: Updated: 11:14 p.m. ET July 30, 2007 (AP)

WASHINGTON - Chief Justice John Roberts suffered a seizure at his summer home in Maine on Monday, causing a fall that resulted in minor scrapes, Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said.

He will remain in a hospital in Maine overnight.

“It’s my understanding he’s fully recovered, said Christopher Burke, a spokesman for Penobscot Bay Medical Center, where Roberts was taken.

Roberts, 52, was taken by ambulance to the medical center, where he underwent a “thorough neurological evaluation, which revealed no cause for concern,” Arberg said in a statement.

Roberts had a similar episode in 1993, she said.

Doctors called Monday’s incident “a benign idiopathic seizure,” Arberg said. The White House described the January 1993 episode as an “isolated, idiosyncratic seizure.” Both descriptions indicate that doctors could not determine the seizure’s cause or link it to another medical condition. For example, doctors would have quickly ruled out simple explanations such as dehydration or low blood sugar.

Roberts, who was named to the court in 2005, has led the Supreme Court to a more conservative stance, along with Justice Samuel Alito, who won confirmation in early 2006. Conservative causes have won twice as often as they lost on the Roberts-led court. The 2006-07 term brought limits on abortion rights, restrictions on school integration programs and greater freedom for political advertising.

Medical opinions differed on just what Roberts’ seizures mean.

Someone who has had more than one seizure without any other cause is determined to have epilepsy, said Dr. Marc Schlosberg, a neurologist at Washington Hospital Center, who is not involved in the Roberts’ case.

More…

####

Related:

Roberts' rule: Conservative but incremental

Roberts, Alito help define new Supreme Court

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20039923/

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

20070625 Congressman Bartlett Applauds Today’s Supreme Court Opinion

Congressman Bartlett Applauds Today’s Supreme Court Opinion

Striking a blow for the 1st Amendment.

June 25, 2007

My Tentacle column this Wednesday will be on the “Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life” and “McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life” Supreme Court Decision:

Many are singing high praise of the U. S. Supreme Court decision handed down last Monday which took a bite out of the McCain Feingold campaign reforms.

The ruling has been applauded by the unusual alliance of powerful unions, big business, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The court decided in “Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life” and “McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life”; that restrictions on issue ads run by “special interests” in the waning days before an election are an unconstitutional infringement on free speech.

Initial analysis indicates that the decision will have an impact on the 2008 elections…

Meanwhile Congressman Bartlett says:

Congressman Roscoe Bartlett Applauds Today’s Supreme Court Opinion to Help Restore First Amendment Political Speech Rights

Washington, D.C. – The Supreme Court today substantially weakened the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act's restrictions on the type of advertisement non-profit grassroots organizations, corporations and special interest groups may run in the days before an election. Congressman Bartlett said, “It is a step in the right direction for First Amendment political speech rights. My bill, the First Amendment Restoration Act (H.R. 71), goes much further to restore Americans’ First Amendment rights by repealing the “electioneering communication” provision at issue in today’s Supreme Court opinion.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. wrote the 5-4 opinion for the court, stating that Wisconsin Right-to-Life should have been allowed to broadcast ads before the 2004 race for the United States Senate in that state. The portion of the law in question in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) states that labor unions and corporations (including non-profits) cannot use money from their general treasuries to broadcast ads that run 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election, are aimed at a relevant electorate and mention a federal candidate by name.

The difference between so-called "issue ads," which are allowed, and those that "express advocacy," which are banned, is often hard to define, Chief Justice Roberts stated. In today's decision, the Supreme Court created a constitutional safe harbor for genuine issue ads. It stated that, only if the ad “is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate” can the ad be prohibited during the blackout period. “Chief Justice Roberts’ reasoning is significant,” Congressman Bartlett said. Chief Justice Roberts reasoned, “In drawing that line, the First Amendment requires us to err on the side of protecting political speech rather than suppressing it.”

Congressman Bartlett said, “The reason that I introduced H.R. 71 (H.R. 689 in the 109th Congress, first introduced as H.R. 3801 in the 108th Congress) is because I am firmly committed to protecting our Constitution. As stated in the First Amendment to the Constitution, ‘Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.’ No constitutional right is absolute; however, it is clearly a violation of the First Amendment to restrict organized group communications and limit what people can say about a candidate and when they may choose to speak out.”

“I, along with many others including the President, believe that the Supreme Court made a mistake in the December 2003 decision upholding the constitutionality of the 30-60 day provision,” said Congressman Bartlett. “The 30-60 day BCRA provision eviscerates the central purpose of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech – the protection of political speech. My bill would simply repeal this provision. Today’s Supreme Court decision, however, does help to weaken the unconstitutional BCRA provision.”

###

For more information Contact: Lisa Wright or Monica DeLong at (202) 225-2721

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

20070618 Stacking the deck against Justice Thomas by Pillage Idiot

June 18, 2007

Attila at the Pillage Idiot has obviously spent considerable time and energy in penning an excellent review – of a review of "Supreme Discomfort, The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas" to Orlando Patterson.

Mr. Attila’s post is certainly well worth the time and I highly recommend it and want to thank Mr. Attila for taking the time to pull it all together so that others may benefit from his insights.

In a feeble attempt to add to Mr. Attila’s excellent commentary I call the readers attention that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas actually answered this book eloquently in a speech before the National Bar Association in Memphis, Tenn., on July 29th, 1998.

{A note to Mr. Crablaw, he mentions Marvin Gaye's album, What's Going On?}

See my article on “Soundtrack,” “20070423 What Going On?”

And see the end of this article…

Supreme Court Justice Thomas said a number of poignant things, including:

I'd like to thank the members of the Judicial Council of the National Bar Association who have been so courageous and forthright and kind to invite me to join you this afternoon. As has become the custom, a wearisome one I admit, this invitation has not been without controversy. Although this is unfortunate, this controversy has added little value in the calculus of my decision to be here.

[…]

Unlike the unfortunate practice or custom in Washington and in much of the country, the court is a model of civility. It's a wonderful place. Though there have been many contentious issues to come before the Court during these initials years of my tenure, I have yet to hear the first unkind words exchanged among my colleagues. And quite frankly, I think that such civility is the sine qua non of conducting the affairs of the Court and the business of the country.

[…]

With respect to my following, or, more accurately, being led by other members of the Court, that is silly, but expected since I couldn't possibly think for myself. And what else could possibly be the explanation when I fail to follow the jurisprudential, ideological, and intellectual, if not anti- intellectual, prescription assigned to blacks? Since thinking beyond this prescription is presumptively beyond my abilities, obviously someone must be putting these strange ideas into my mind and my opinions. Though being underestimated has its advantages, the stench of racial inferiority still confounds my olfactory nerves.

[…]

Of course there is much criticism of the Court by this group or that, depending on the Court's decisions in various highly publicized cases. Some of the criticism is profoundly uninformed and unhelpful. And all too often, uncivil second-guessing is not encumbered by the constraints of facts, logic, or reasoned analysis. On the other hand, the constructive and often scholarly criticism is almost always helpful in thinking about or rethinking decisions.

[…]

I have found during my almost 20 years in Washington that the tendency to personalize differences has grown to be an accepted way of doing business. One need not do the hard work of dissecting an argument. One need only attack and thus discredit the person making the argument. Though the matter being debated is not effectively resolved, the debate is reduced to unilateral pronouncements and glib but quotable clichés.

[…]

The summer of 1971 was perhaps one of the most difficult of my life. It was clear to me that the road to destruction was paved with anger, resentment, and rage. But where were we to go? I would often spend hours in our small efficiency apartment in New Haven pondering this question and listening to Marvin Gaye's then new album, What's Going On? To say the least, it was a depressing summer.

What were we to do? What's going on?

[…]

Read the entire speech here: 19980729 Clarence Thomas Answers His Critics by Clarence Thomas

Meanwhile, Mr. Attila begins his piece by noting:

A book-review editor can elicit a positive or negative review of a book (and the subject of the book) simply by choosing a reviewer with known views.

You know all you need to know about the New York Times's feelings toward Justice Clarence Thomas (as if you didn't know it already) when you see that the Times Book Review assigned the review of "Supreme Discomfort, The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas" to Orlando Patterson. Patterson, a respected black intellectual, is a sociologist, not a lawyer. If the Times had had any interest in examining Justice Thomas's legal views, it would not have offered the review to a non-lawyer.

Why is that relevant? Justice Thomas has been a member of the Supreme Court for 15 years and, contrary to the ever-present sneers about his taking orders from Justice Scalia, he has developed a strong and individual jurisprudence over that time. You'd barely know this from reading Patterson's review.

Please read the rest of the article, “Stacking the deck against Justice Thomas” by the Pillage Idiot

_____

Marvin Gaye "What's Going On / What's Happening Brother"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y9KC7uhMY9s

####

Thursday, July 30, 1998

19980729 Clarence Thomas Answers His Critics by Clarence Thomas


Clarence Thomas Answers His Critics

by Clarence Thomas

Speech before the National Bar Association

Memphis, Tenn. | July 29, 1998

I'D LIKE TO THANK the members of the Judicial Council of the National Bar Association who have been so courageous and forthright and kind to invite me to join you this afternoon. As has become the custom, a wearisome one I admit, this invitation has not been without controversy. Although this is unfortunate, this controversy has added little value in the calculus of my decision to be here. Thirty years ago, we all focused intently on this city as the trauma of Dr. King's death first exploded then sank into our lives. For so many of us who were trying hard to do what we thought was required of us in the process of integrating this society, the rush of hopelessness and isolation was immediate and overwhelming. It seemed that the whole world had gone mad. I am certain that each of us has his or her memories of that terrible day in 1968.

For me it was the final straw in the struggle to retain my vocation to become a Catholic priest. Suddenly, this cataclysmic event ripped me from the moorings of my grandparents, my youth, and my faith and catapulted me headlong into the abyss that Richard Wright seemed to describe years earlier. It was this event that shattered my faith in my religion and my country. I had spent the mid-'60s as a successful student in a virtually white environment. I had learned Latin, physics, and chemistry. I had accepted the loneliness that came with being "the integrator," the first and the only. But this event, this trauma, I could not take, especially when one of my fellow seminarians, not knowing that I was standing behind him, declared that he hoped the SOB died. This was a man of God, mortally stricken by an assassin's bullet, and one preparing for the priesthood had wished evil upon him. The life I had dreamed of so often during those hot summers on the farm in Georgia or during what seemed like endless hours on the oil truck with my grandfather expired as Dr. King expired. As so many of you do, I still know exactly where I was when I heard the news. It was a low moment in our nation's history and a demarcation between hope and hopelessness for many of us.

But three decades have evaporated in our lives, too quickly and without sufficient residual evidence of their importance. But much has changed since then. The hope that there would be expeditious resolutions to our myriad problems has long since evaporated with those years. Many who debated and hoped then now do neither. There now seems to be a broad acceptance of the racial divide as a permanent state. While we once celebrated those things that we had in common with our fellow citizens who did not share our race, so many now are triumphal about our differences, finding little if anything in common. Indeed, some go so far as to all but define each of us by our race and establish the range of our thinking and our opinions, if not our deeds, by our color. I, for one, see this in much the same way I saw our denial of rights as nothing short of a denial of our humanity. Not one of us has the gospel. Nor are our opinions based upon some revealed precepts to be taken as faith. As thinking, rational individuals, not one of us can claim infallibility, even from the overwhelming advantage of hindsight and Monday-morning quarterbacking. This makes it all the more important that our fallible ideas be examined as all ideas are in the realm of reason, not as some doctrinal or racial heresy. None of us has been appointed by God or appointed God. And if any of us has, then my question is why hasn't he or she solved all these problems?

I make no apologies for this view now, nor do I intend to do so in the future.

I have now been on the Court for seven terms. For the most part, it has been much like other endeavors in life. It has its challenges and requires much of the individual to master the workings of the institution. We all know that. It is, I must say, quite different from what I might have anticipated if I had the opportunity to do so. Unlike the unfortunate practice or custom in Washington and in much of the country, the court is a model of civility. It's a wonderful place. Though there have been many contentious issues to come before the Court during these initials years of my tenure, I have yet to hear the first unkind words exchanged among my colleagues. And quite frankly, I think that such civility is the sine qua non of conducting the affairs of the Court and the business of the country.

As such, I think that it would be in derogation of our respective oaths and our institutional obligations to our country to engage in uncivil behavior. It would also be demeaning to any of us who engages in such conduct. Having worn the robe, we have a lifetime obligation to conduct ourselves as having deserved to wear the robe in the first instance. One of the interesting surprises is the virtual isolation, even within the Court. It is quite rare that the members of the Court see each other during those periods when we're not sitting or when we're not in conference. And the most regular contact beyond those two formal events are the lunches we have on conference and court days. Also, it is extraordinarily rare to have any discussions with the other members of the Court before voting on petitions for certiorari or on the merits of the cases. And there is rarely extended debate during our conferences. For the most part, any debate about the cases is done in writing. It has struck me as odd that some think that there are cliques and cabals at the Court. No such arrangements exist. Nor, contrary to suggestions otherwise, is there any intellectual or ideological pied piper on the Court.

With respect to my following, or, more accurately, being led by other members of the Court, that is silly, but expected since I couldn't possibly think for myself. And what else could possibly be the explanation when I fail to follow the jurisprudential, ideological, and intellectual, if not anti- intellectual, prescription assigned to blacks? Since thinking beyond this prescription is presumptively beyond my abilities, obviously someone must be putting these strange ideas into my mind and my opinions. Though being underestimated has its advantages, the stench of racial inferiority still confounds my olfactory nerves.

As Ralph Ellison wrote more than 35 years ago, "Why is it so often true that when critics confront the American as Negro, they suddenly drop their advance critical armament and revert with an air of confident superiority to quite primitive modes of analysis?" Those matters accomplished by whites are routinely subjected to sophisticated modes of analysis. But when the self-same matters are accomplished by blacks, the opaque racial prism of analysis precludes such sophistication and all is seen in black and white. And some who would not venture onto the more sophisticated analytical turf are quite content to play in the minor leagues of primitive harping. The more things change the more they remain the same.

Of course there is much criticism of the Court by this group or that, depending on the Court's decisions in various highly publicized cases. Some of the criticism is profoundly uninformed and unhelpful. And all too often, uncivil second-guessing is not encumbered by the constraints of facts, logic, or reasoned analysis. On the other hand, the constructive and often scholarly criticism is almost always helpful in thinking about or rethinking decisions. It is my view that constructive criticism goes with the turf, especially when the stakes are so high and the cases arouse passions and emotions and, in a free society, the precious freedom of speech and the strength of ideas. We at the Court could not possibly claim exemption from such criticism. Moreover, we are not infallible, just final.

As I have noted, I find a thoughtful, analytical criticism most helpful. I do not think any judge can address a vast array of cases and issues without testing and re-testing his or her reasoning and opinions in the crucible of debate. However, since we are quite limited in public debate about matters that may come before the Court, such debate must, for the most part, occur intramurally, thus placing a premium on outside scholarship.

Unfortunately, from time to time, the criticism of the Court goes beyond the bounds of civil debate and discourse. Today it seems quite acceptable to attack the Court and other institutions when one disagrees with an opinion or policy. I can still remember traveling along Highway 17 in south Georgia, the Coastal Highway, during the '50s and '60s and seeing the "Impeach Earl Warren" signs. Clearly, heated reactions to the Court or to its members are not unusual. Certainly, Justice Blackmun was attacked repeatedly because many disagreed, as I have, with the opinion he offered on behalf of the Court in Roe vs. Wade. Though I have joined opinions disagreeing with Justice Blackmun, I could not imagine ever being discourteous to him merely because we disagreed

I have found during my almost 20 years in Washington that the tendency to personalize differences has grown to be an accepted way of doing business. One need not do the hard work of dissecting an argument. One need only attack and thus discredit the person making the argument. Though the matter being debated is not effectively resolved, the debate is reduced to unilateral pronouncements and glib but quotable clichés. I, for one, have been singled out for particularly bilious and venomous assaults. These criticisms, as near as I can tell—and I admit that it is rare that I take notice of this calumny—have little to do with any particular opinion, though each opinion does provide one more occasion to criticize. Rather, the principal problem seems to be a deeper antecedent offense. I have no right to think the way I do because I'm black. Though the ideas and opinions themselves are not necessarily illegitimate if held by non-black individuals, they, and the person enunciating them, are illegitimate if that person happens to be black. Thus, there's a subset of criticism that must of necessity be reserved for me, even if every non-black member of the Court agrees with the idea or the opinion. You see, they are exempt from this kind of criticism, precisely because they are not black.

As noted earlier, they are more often than not subjected to the whites-only sophisticated analysis. I will not catalogue my opinions to which there have been objections since they are a matter of public record. But I must note in passing that I can't help but wonder if some of my critics can read. One opinion that is trotted out for the propaganda parade is my dissent in Hudson vs. McMillian.

The conclusion reached by the long arms of the critics is that I supported the beating of prisoners in that case. Well, one must either be illiterate or fraught with malice to reach that conclusion. Though one can disagree with my dissent, and certainly the majority of the Court disagreed, no honest reading can reach such a conclusion. Indeed, we took the case to decide the quite narrow issue whether a prisoner's rights were violated under the cruel-and-unusual-punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment as a result of a single incident of force by the prison guards which did not cause a significant injury. In the first section of my dissent, I stated the following. "In my view, a use of force that causes only insignificant harm to a prisoner may be immoral; it may be tortuous; it may be criminal, and it may even be remediable under other provisions of the federal Constitution. But it is not cruel and unusual punishment."

Obviously, beating prisoners is bad. But we did not take the case to answer this larger moral question or a larger legal question of remedies under other statutes or provisions of the Constitution. How one can extrapolate these larger conclusions from the narrow question before the Court is beyond me, unless, of course, there's a special segregated mode of analysis. It should be obvious that the criticisms of this opinion serves not to present counter-arguments, but to discredit and attack me because I've deviated from the prescribed path. In his intriguing and thoughtful essay on my race problem and ours, Harvard law professor Randall Kennedy, a self- described social democrat, correctly observes that "If racial loyalty is deemed essentially and morally virtuous, then a black person's adoption of positions that are deemed racially disloyal will be seen by racial loyalists as a supremely threatening sin, one warranting the harsh punishments that have historically been visited upon alleged traitors." Perhaps this is the defensive solidarity to which Richard Wright refers. If so, it is a reaction I understand, but resolutely decline to follow.

In the final weeks of my seminary days, shortly after Dr. King's death, I found myself becoming consumed by feelings of animosity and anger. I was disenchanted with my church and my country. I was tired of being in the minority, and I was tired of turning the other cheek. I, along with many blacks, found ways to protest and try to change the treatment we received in this country. Perhaps my passion for Richard Wright novels was affecting me. Perhaps it was listening too intently to Nina Simone. Perhaps, like Bigger Thomas, I was being consumed the circumstances in which I found myself, circumstances that I saw as responding only to race.

My feelings were reaffirmed during the summer of 1968 as a result of the lingering stench of racism in Savannah and the assassination of Bobby Kennedy. No matter what the reasons were, I closed out the '60s as one angry young man waiting on the revolution that I was certain would soon come. I saw no way out. I, like many others, felt the deep chronic agony of anomie and alienation. All seemed to be defined by race. We became a reaction to the "man," his ominous reflection. The intensity of my feelings was reinforced by other events of the late '60s, the riots, the marches, the sense that something had to be done, done quickly to resolve the issue of race. In college there was an air of excitement, apprehension, and anger. We started the Black Students Union. We protested. We worked in the Free Breakfast Program. We would walk out of school in the winter of 1969 in protest.

But the questioning for me started in the spring of 1970 after an unauthorized demonstration in Cambridge, Massachusetts, to "free the political prisoners." Why was I doing this rather than using my intellect? Perhaps I was empowered by the anger and relieved that I could now strike back at the faceless oppressor. But why was I conceding my intellect and rather fighting much like a brute? This I could not answer, except to say that I was tired of being restrained. Somehow I knew that unless I contained the anger within me I would suffer the fates of Bigger Thomas and Damon Cross. It was intoxicating to act upon one's rage, to wear it on one's shoulder, to be defined by it. Yet, ultimately, it was destructive, and I knew it.

So in the spring of 1970 in a nihilistic fog, I prayed that I'd be relieved of the anger and the animosity that ate at my soul. I did not want to hate any more, and I had to stop before it totally consumed me. I had to make a fundamental choice. Do I believe in the principles of this country or not?

After such angst, I concluded that I did. But the battle between passion and reason would continue, although abated, still intense. Ironically, many of the people who are critics today were among those we called half-steppers who had been co-opted by "the man" because they were part of the system that oppressed us. When the revolution came, all of the so-called Negroes needed to be dealt with it.

It is interesting to remember that someone gave me a copy of Professor Thomas Sowell's book, Education, Myths, and Tragedies, in which he predicted much of what has happened to blacks and education. I threw it in the trash, unread, declaring that he was not a black man since no black could take the positions that he had taken, whatever they were, since I had only heard his views were not those of a black man. I was also upset to hear of a black conservative in Virginia named Jay Parker. How could a black man call himself a conservative? In a twist of fate, they both are dear friends today, and the youthful wrath I visited upon them is now being visited upon me, though without the youth. What goes around does indeed come around.

The summer of 1971 was perhaps one of the most difficult of my life. It was clear to me that the road to destruction was paved with anger, resentment, and rage. But where were we to go? I would often spend hours in our small efficiency apartment in New Haven pondering this question and listening to Marvin Gaye's then new album, What's Going On? To say the least, it was a depressing summer.

What were we to do? What's going on?

As I think back on those years, I find it interesting that many people seemed to have trouble with their identities as black men. Having had to accept my blackness in the caldron of ridicule from some of my black schoolmates under segregation, then immediately thereafter remain secure in that identity during my years at all-white seminary, I had few racial-identity problems. I knew who I was and needed no gimmicks to affirm my identity. Nor, might I add, do I need anyone telling me who I am today. This is especially true of the psycho-silliness about forgetting my roots or self-hatred. If anything, this shows that some people have too much time on their hands.

There's a rush today to prescribe who is black, to prescribe what are our differences, or to ignore what our differences are. Of course, those of us who came from the rural South were different from the blacks who came from the large northern cities, such as Philadelphia and New York. We were all black. But that similarity did not mask the richness of our differences. Indeed, one of the advantages of growing up in a black neighborhood was that we were richly blessed with the ability to see the individuality of each black person with all its fullness and complexity. We saw those differences at school, at home, at church, and definitely at the barbershop on Saturday morning. Intraracially, we consistently recognized our differences. It is quite counter-factual to suggest that such differences have not existed throughout our history. Indeed, when I was on the other side of the ideological divide, arguing strenuously with my grandfather that the revolution was imminent and that we all had to stick together as black people, he was quick to remind me that he had lived much longer than I had and during far more difficult times, and that, in any case, it took all kinds to make a world.

I agree with Ralph Ellison when he asked, perhaps rhetorically, why is it that so many of those who would tell us the meaning of "Negro," of Negro life, never bothered to learn how varied it really is. That is particularly true of many whites who have elevated condescension to an art form by advancing a monolithic view of blacks in much the same way that the mythic, disgusting image of the lazy, dumb black was advanced by open, rather than disguised, bigots.

Today, of course, it is customary to collapse, if not overwrite, our individual characteristics into new but now acceptable stereotypes. It no longer matters whether one is from urban New York City or rural Georgia. It doesn't matter whether we came from a highly educated family or a barely literate one. It does not matter if you are a Roman Catholic or a Southern Baptist. All of these differences are canceled by race, and a revised set of acceptable stereotypes has been put in place. Long gone is the time when we opposed the notion that we all looked alike and talked alike. Somehow we have come to exalt the new black stereotype above all and to demand conformity to that norm.

It is this notion that our race defines us that Ralph Ellison so eloquently rebuts in his essay, "The World and the Jug." He sees the lives of black people as more than a burden, but also a discipline, just as any human life which has endured so long is a discipline, teaching its own insights into the human condition, its own strategies of survival. There's a fullness and even a richness here. And here, despite the realities of politics, perhaps, but nevertheless here and real because it is human life.

Despite some of the nonsense that has been said about me by those who should know better— and so much nonsense, or some of which subtracts from the sum total of human knowledge—despite this all, I am a man, a black man, an American. And my history is not unlike that of many blacks from the deep South. And in many ways it is not that much different from that of many other Americans. It goes without saying that I understand the comforts and security of racial solidarity, defensive or otherwise. Only those who have not been set upon by hatred and repelled by rejection fail to understand its attraction. As I have suggested, I have been there. The inverse relationship between the bold promises and the effectiveness of the proposed solutions, the frustrations with the so-called system, the subtle and not-so-subtle bigotry and animus towards members of my race made radicals and nationalists of many of us. Yes, I understand the reasons why this is attractive. But it is precisely this in its historic form, not its present-day diluted form, that I have rejected. My question was whether as an individual I truly believed that I was the equal of individuals who were white. This I had answered with a resounding "yes" in 1964 during my sophomore year in the seminary. And that answer continues to be yes. Accordingly, my words and my deeds are consistent with this answer.

Any effort, policy, or program that has as a prerequisite the acceptance of the notion that blacks are inferior is a non-starter with me. I do not believe that kneeling is a position of strength. Nor do I believe that begging is an effective tactic. I am confident that the individual approach, not the group approach, is the better, more acceptable, more supportable, and less dangerous one. This approach is also consistent with the underlying principles of this country and the guarantees of freedom through government by consent. I, like Frederick Douglass, believe that whites and blacks can live together and be blended into a common nationality. Do I believe that my views or opinions are perfect or infallible? No, I do not.

But in admitting that I have no claim to perfection or infallibility, I am also asserting that competing or differing views similarly have no such claim. And they should not be accorded a status of infallibility or any status that suggests otherwise. With differing, but equally fallible views, I think it is best that they be aired and sorted out in an environment of civility, consistent with the institutions in which we are involved. In this case, the judicial system.

It pains me deeply—more deeply than any of you can imagine—to be perceived by so many members of my race as doing them harm. All the sacrifice, all the long hours of preparation were to help, not to hurt. But what hurts more, much more is the amount of time and attention spent on manufactured controversies and media sideshows when so many problems cry out for constructive attention.

I have come here today not in anger or to anger, though my mere presence has been sufficient, obviously, to answer some. Nor have I come to defend my views, but rather to assert my right to think for myself, to refuse to have my ideas assigned to me as though I was an intellectual slave because I'm black. I come to state that I'm a man, free to think for myself and do as I please. I've come to assert that I am a judge and I will not be consigned the unquestioned opinions of others. But even more than that, I have come to say that isn't it time to move on. Isn't it time to realize that being angry with me solves no problems? Isn't it time to acknowledge that the problem of race has defied simple solutions and that not one of us, not a single one of us can lay claim to the solution? Isn't it time that we respect ourselves and each other as we have demanded respect from others? Isn't it time to ignore those whose sole occupation is sowing seeds of discord and animus? That is self-hatred. Isn't it time to continue diligently to search for lasting solutions? I believe that the time has come today. God bless each of you, and may God keep you.

E N D