Warren Court

IMAGINE AMERICA in 1991 with the South still rigidly segregated and blacks playing no meaningful part in Southern political life. Imagine small numbers of rural voters controlling most of our state legislatures. Imagine America under a deadening repression of free speech and ideas.That is the country we might have had except for one thing: the service of Earl Warren as chief justice of the United States.Warren was born 100 years ago last month. The centennial has just been celebrated by his law school, Boalt Hall at the University of California at Berkeley, and by the University of California at San Diego.

The Senate is expected to confirm this week — possibly as early as today — Elena Kagan to be a Supreme Court justice. I hope that's wrong. I am opposed to her nomination because she graduated from an Ivy League law school. What's wrong with that, you ask? The answer: All nine members would be "Ivies" if she gets on the bench. A second wrong would be that now, all members of the court would have never been elected to a government position. Contrast those circumstances to facts about the Supreme Court's justices of the last half of the 1950s.

THE 1966 MIRANDA decision requiring police to inform suspects that they have a right to remain silent was the centerpiece of the Warren court's "revolution in American criminal procedure" and a prime target of those who believed the courts had gone "soft" on crime.But most legal scholars long ago concluded that the time to overrule Miranda had come and gone. Recently, they were stunned by the news that the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., had ruled, against the express wishes of the U.S. Department of Justice, that a provision in a 1968 federal statute, in effect, overruled Miranda, the famed "you have a right to remain silent" Warren court decision now so familiar to everyone.

For a decade, the soaring legal career of Alberto R. Gonzales has been entwined with the political rise of George W. Bush. But as Gonzales is discussed as a possible candidate for the Supreme Court, his lengthy resume and longtime ties to the president have emerged, unexpectedly, as a potential liability. One issue, pressed in recent days by some conservative activists, is whether a 1974 federal ethics law would force Gonzales to disqualify himself when issues he has worked on as part of the Bush administration - most prominently, the White House's aggressive response to the Sept.

Warren Burger, who died Sunday at 87, will probably be treated more respectfully in judicial history as the chief justice of the United States, his official title, than as "chief justice of the Supreme Court," as he was colloquially known. That is because the court under him during his 17-year tenure achieved only a few of the conservative victories expected of it; meanwhile, Mr. Burger was able to bring about a revolution in judicial management and professionalism, with new training and support institutions for judges and other personnel, that greatly benefited all courts.

The Senate is expected to confirm this week — possibly as early as today — Elena Kagan to be a Supreme Court justice. I hope that's wrong. I am opposed to her nomination because she graduated from an Ivy League law school. What's wrong with that, you ask? The answer: All nine members would be "Ivies" if she gets on the bench. A second wrong would be that now, all members of the court would have never been elected to a government position. Contrast those circumstances to facts about the Supreme Court's justices of the last half of the 1950s.

The Supreme Court that Clarence Thomas was expected to join yesterday is one conservatives have dreamed about for 23 years. Even without a ninth member (who is likely to be of the same philosophical leaning as Judge Thomas, if not Judge Thomas, himself), this is a court more conservative than any since the Nine Old Men of anti-New Deal notoriety broke up in the late 1930s.When a new conservative joins the court in the days or weeks ahead, it will be more reliably conservative than the Warren Court of the late 1950s and early 1960s was reliably liberal.

WASHINGTON - In the spring of 1992, Justice Harry A. Blackmun's struggle to preserve the right to abortion he had articulated for the Supreme Court two decades earlier was headed for bitter failure. Five justices had voted in a closed-door conference to uphold provisions in a restrictive Pennsylvania abortion law. Roe vs. Wade was in peril. Then, suddenly, everything changed. A letter from Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, whom Blackmun had long since written off as a potential ally, arrived at his chambers.

WASHINGTON -- For the first time in a half-century, the Supreme Court's marble facade is getting a scrubbing. But the court's new look as another term opens tomorrow is even more visible inside: For the first time in generations, there will be no liberal activist on the bench.It was not long after the Supreme Court moved into its brand new marble temple on Capitol Hill in October 1935 that President Franklin D. Roosevelt began naming the justices who in time would form the core of the activist and liberal "Earl Warren Court."

THE FOLLOWING is from a cassette tape found under the pantry steps behind the Supreme Court building. Eight distinctive male voices are heard and one female. Fortunately, none can be identified with certainty:Male Voice One: Did anybody get a pastrami on white with mayonnaise and lettuce? I ordered pastrami with mayo and -- would you look at this revolting sandwich, Chief? Corned beef on rye with mustard. They must think we're writing a Broadway musical here instead of interpreting a Constitution.

WASHINGTON - In the spring of 1992, Justice Harry A. Blackmun's struggle to preserve the right to abortion he had articulated for the Supreme Court two decades earlier was headed for bitter failure. Five justices had voted in a closed-door conference to uphold provisions in a restrictive Pennsylvania abortion law. Roe vs. Wade was in peril. Then, suddenly, everything changed. A letter from Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, whom Blackmun had long since written off as a potential ally, arrived at his chambers.

I HAVE A confession to make: I've been Mirandized more times than I can remember. Well, sort of. I've never actually been arrested or hauled down to a police station. But like virtually everyone else in America, I've been treated to the Miranda warning countless times on television. Its words are burned into my brain as indelibly as the lyrics of "Hey, Jude" or "The Star-Spangled Banner."Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case, Dickerson vs. United States, that could result in the formal overruling of Miranda.

THE 1966 MIRANDA decision requiring police to inform suspects that they have a right to remain silent was the centerpiece of the Warren court's "revolution in American criminal procedure" and a prime target of those who believed the courts had gone "soft" on crime.But most legal scholars long ago concluded that the time to overrule Miranda had come and gone. Recently, they were stunned by the news that the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., had ruled, against the express wishes of the U.S. Department of Justice, that a provision in a 1968 federal statute, in effect, overruled Miranda, the famed "you have a right to remain silent" Warren court decision now so familiar to everyone.

Warren Burger, who died Sunday at 87, will probably be treated more respectfully in judicial history as the chief justice of the United States, his official title, than as "chief justice of the Supreme Court," as he was colloquially known. That is because the court under him during his 17-year tenure achieved only a few of the conservative victories expected of it; meanwhile, Mr. Burger was able to bring about a revolution in judicial management and professionalism, with new training and support institutions for judges and other personnel, that greatly benefited all courts.

No Free RideIt was interesting to read opposing letters by Greg Belcher and Benjamin Lipsitz in the May 15 edition concerning the Bollinger decision in a recent rape case. While both letters contain flaws in logic, there is more to disagree with Mr. Lipsitz.Mr. Lipsitz argues that disagreement with a court's decision by the public to the point of bringing or attempting to bring sanctions against a jurist should not be countenanced. Maybe so; maybe not. On the other hand, the Bill of Rights' guarantee of free speech and our historical right to seek redress weighs more heavily in support of the public outcry now being displayed.

THE FOLLOWING is from a cassette tape found under the pantry steps behind the Supreme Court building. Eight distinctive male voices are heard and one female. Fortunately, none can be identified with certainty:Male Voice One: Did anybody get a pastrami on white with mayonnaise and lettuce? I ordered pastrami with mayo and -- would you look at this revolting sandwich, Chief? Corned beef on rye with mustard. They must think we're writing a Broadway musical here instead of interpreting a Constitution.

For a decade, the soaring legal career of Alberto R. Gonzales has been entwined with the political rise of George W. Bush. But as Gonzales is discussed as a possible candidate for the Supreme Court, his lengthy resume and longtime ties to the president have emerged, unexpectedly, as a potential liability. One issue, pressed in recent days by some conservative activists, is whether a 1974 federal ethics law would force Gonzales to disqualify himself when issues he has worked on as part of the Bush administration - most prominently, the White House's aggressive response to the Sept.

I HAVE A confession to make: I've been Mirandized more times than I can remember. Well, sort of. I've never actually been arrested or hauled down to a police station. But like virtually everyone else in America, I've been treated to the Miranda warning countless times on television. Its words are burned into my brain as indelibly as the lyrics of "Hey, Jude" or "The Star-Spangled Banner."Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case, Dickerson vs. United States, that could result in the formal overruling of Miranda.

The Supreme Court that Clarence Thomas was expected to join yesterday is one conservatives have dreamed about for 23 years. Even without a ninth member (who is likely to be of the same philosophical leaning as Judge Thomas, if not Judge Thomas, himself), this is a court more conservative than any since the Nine Old Men of anti-New Deal notoriety broke up in the late 1930s.When a new conservative joins the court in the days or weeks ahead, it will be more reliably conservative than the Warren Court of the late 1950s and early 1960s was reliably liberal.

WASHINGTON -- For the first time in a half-century, the Supreme Court's marble facade is getting a scrubbing. But the court's new look as another term opens tomorrow is even more visible inside: For the first time in generations, there will be no liberal activist on the bench.It was not long after the Supreme Court moved into its brand new marble temple on Capitol Hill in October 1935 that President Franklin D. Roosevelt began naming the justices who in time would form the core of the activist and liberal "Earl Warren Court."