A Stealth O'Connor or Souter After All?

Samuel Bagenstos srbagenstos at wulaw.wustl.edu
Fri Aug 5 15:16:29 PDT 2005


I imagine that's how Justice Souter feels about Seminole Tribe -- though
I also imagine it's a pretty tempting thing for any dissenting justice
to feel.

====================================
Samuel R. Bagenstos
Professor of Law
Washington University School of Law
One Brookings Drive
St. Louis, MO  63130
314-935-9097
Personal Web Page: 
http://law.wustl.edu/Academics/Faculty/Bagenstos/index.html
Disability Law Blog:  http://disabilitylaw.blogspot.com/

>>> Steven Shiffrin <shs6 at cornell.edu> 8/5/2005 5:00:30 PM >>>
For what it is worth, my recollection is that Harlan distinguished 
Reynolds from his general practice of following precedent on the ground

that no one on the Court had answered his dissent.
Steve


Samuel Bagenstos wrote:

>Here's what Charles Fried said about Justice Harlan's practice in
this
>regard.  The quote is from footnote 84 of Charles's Supreme Court
>Comment on the voucher cases:
>
>Consider, for example, Justice Harlan's final two Terms on the Court.
>"As against his average of 62.6 dissenting votes per term between
1963
>and 1967, he cast only 24 such votes in the 1969 Term and 18 in that
for
>1970." Henry J. Friendly, Mr. Justice Harlan, As Seen by a Friend and
>Judge of an Inferior Court, 85 Harv. L. Rev. 382, 388 (1971)
(footnotes
>omitted). One of the cases in which Justice Harlan chose to abandon
>dissent was Orozco v. Texas, 394 U.S. 324, 327 (1969) (Harlan, J.,
>concurring) ("The passage of time has not made the Miranda case any
more
>palatable to me .... Yet, despite my strong inclination to join in
the
>dissent ...I can find no acceptable avenue of escape from Miranda
....
>Therefore and purely out of respect for stare decisis, I reluctantly
>feel compelled to acquiesce in today's decision ...."). But it seems
he
>could not bring himself to accept the reapportionment cases. See,
e.g.,
>Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526, 549-52 (1969) (Harlan, J.,
>dissenting); Allen v. State Bd. of Elections, 393 U.S. 544, 582-94
>(1969) (Harlan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). 
>
>====================================
>Samuel R. Bagenstos
>Professor of Law
>Washington University School of Law
>One Brookings Drive
>St. Louis, MO  63130
>314-935-9097
>Personal Web Page: 
>http://law.wustl.edu/Academics/Faculty/Bagenstos/index.html 
>Disability Law Blog:  http://disabilitylaw.blogspot.com/ 
>
>  
>
>>>>"Douglas Laycock" <DLaycock at law.utexas.edu> 8/5/2005 11:17:18 AM
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>My recollection is that he acquiesced on the day after the end of
each
>Term.  There is an opinion somewhere where he makes this explicit.
>Someone ought to be able to turn it up with a Westlaw search. 
>
>
>Douglas Laycock
>University of Texas Law School
>727 E. Dean Keeton St.
>Austin, TX  78705
>   512-232-1341 (phone)
>   512-471-6988 (fax)
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
>[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh,
Eugene
>Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 11:08 AM
>To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
>Subject: RE: A Stealth O'Connor or Souter After All?
>
>	Marty is right to point out that Justice Harlan on some
>occasions changed course because he thought *he* had been wrong.  But
>as
>I understand it, he generally had a policy of acquiescing in
*others'*
>decisions from which he had dissented, after the Term (or was it the
>next Term?) was done.  Am I mistaken on that?  In this respect, my
>sense
>is that Justice Souter is not following suit.
>
>	Eugene
>
>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
>>[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of 
>>marty.lederman at comcast.net 
>>Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 9:05 AM
>>To: Jonathan Adler
>>Cc: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
>>Subject: RE: A Stealth O'Connor or Souter After All?
>>
>>
>>Funny you should mention Justice Harlan and stare decisis, because I
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>was just re-reading his terrific concurrence in Welsh v. United 
>>States, which *begins* with this sentence:
>>"Candor requires me to say that I joined the Court's opinion in
>>    
>>
>United
>
>  
>
>>States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163  (1965), only with the gravest 
>>misgivings as to whether it was a legitimate exercise in statutory 
>>construction, and today's decision convinces me that in doing so I 
>>made a mistake which I should now acknowledge."  He then cites as 
>>authority on stare decisis his own decision in Moragne, and the 
>>Court's then-recent overruling of Sinclair Refining in Boys' Market.
>>
>>See also, of course, Harlan's remarkable about-face in Reid v.
Covert
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>("Since I am the only one among today's majority who joined in the 
>>Court's opinions of June 11, 1956, which sustained the court-martial
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>jurisdiction in these cases, 351 U.S. 470, 487 , I think it 
>>appropriate to state the reasons which led to my voting, first, to 
>>rehear these cases, 352 U.S. 901 , and, now, to strike down that 
>>jurisdiction. . . .
>>The petitions for rehearing which were filed last summer afforded an
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>opportunity for a greater degree of reflection upon the difficult 
>>issues involved in these cases than, at least for me, was possible
in
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>the short interval (almost six
>>weeks) between the argument and decision of the cases in the closing
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>days of last Term.  As a result I became satisfied that this 
>>court-martial jurisdiction could in any event not be sustained upon 
>>the reasoning of our prior opinion.").
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Can one say that Justice Souter emulates Justice Harlan's 
>>>      
>>>
>>approach to 
>>    
>>
>>>precedent?  My impression is that Justice Souter is fairly 
>>>      
>>>
>>willing to 
>>    
>>
>>>question recent precedents with which he disagrees (see, e.g., the
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>>various federalism cases), whereas Justice Harlan would eventually
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>>accept the validity of decisions from which he dissented.  Is this
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>>perception accurate?
>>>
>>>JHA
>>>
>>>------------------------------
>>>Jonathan H. Adler
>>>Associate Professor
>>>Case Western Reserve University School of Law
>>>11075 East Boulevard
>>>Cleveland, OH 44106
>>>ph) 216-368-2535
>>>fax) 216-368-2086
>>>cell) 202-255-3012
>>>jha5 at case.edu 
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
>>>[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of 
>>>marty.lederman at comcast.net 
>>>Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 11:40 AM
>>>To: Earl Maltz; Trevor Morrison
>>>Cc: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
>>>Subject: Re: A Stealth O'Connor or Souter After All?
>>>
>>>I don't know much about Warren Rudman's jurisprudence ;-) -- but I
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>>think Souter was very transparent at his confirmation hearings: He
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>>made no bones about his profound respect for, and his intent to 
>>>emulate, (the Second) Justice Harlan -- and I think that in most 
>>>respects, that's exactly what he's done (particularly w/r/t privacy
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>>and substantive due process (see esp. Glucksburg/Vacco)).  In 1969,
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>>Justice Souter would have been (as Justice Harlan was) on the right
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>>wing of the Court.
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Except on  the issue of federal power, has Souter really 
>>>>        
>>>>
>>moved?  My
>>    
>>
>>>>impression is that he was a Warren Rudman-type Republican 
>>>>        
>>>>
>>to start with.
>>    
>>
>>>>At 11:13 AM 8/5/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>I've heard before this notion that "Republican Justices 
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>who come to 
>>    
>>
>>>>>the
>>>>>bench from the provinces (NH, AZ, even CA) drift left 
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>because they are 
>>    
>>
>>>>>weak and crave acceptance by the liberal establishment of the 
>>>>>Beltway."  Without engaging the AZ (O'Connor) or CA 
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>(Kennedy) examples, 
>>    
>>
>>>>>the NH one (Souter) is truly preposterous.  We can all 
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>agree, I assume, 
>>    
>>
>>>>>that Justice Souter has moved somewhat towards the 
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>middle-left during his
>>    
>>
>>>>>time on the Court, especially if compared to the place on the 
>>>>>political
>>>>>spectrum that some in the first Bush administration may 
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>have assumed he 
>>    
>>
>>>>>was going to occupy.  But the idea that he has done this 
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>to ingratiate 
>>    
>>
>>>>>himself with the "liberal establishment of the Beltway" is 
>>>>>ridiculous.  Ask any Souter clerk (or anyone else who 
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>knows him, for that
>>    
>>
>>>>>matter), and the picture you get is of an intensely 
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>private man who
>>    
>>
>>>>>prefers the solitude of his books to the social circles 
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>of DC's supposed 
>>    
>>
>>>>>"liberal establishment."
>>>>>
>>>>>At 10:42 AM 8/5/2005, Rick Duncan wrote:
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>That was another part of Stone's incredible 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>arrogance--the reason 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>Kennedys of the world drift left is that left is the 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>true north of the 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>compass of truth, and when new Justices come to the 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>Court their moral 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>vision improves. Others think that Republican Justices 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>who come to the 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>bench from the provinces (NH, AZ, even CA) drift left 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>because they are 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>weak and crave acceptance by the liberal establishment 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>of the Beltway.
>>    
>>
>>>My
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>>friend and sometimes colleague David Wagner blogged 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>briefly about 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>this
>>>>>>over at Ninomania recently and concluded:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"His {Robert's] philosophical credentials my at first 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>glance seem 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>less
>>>>>>than Justice Kennedy's (Kennedy used to represent the
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>California
>  
>
>>>Catholic
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>>bishops on life issues back in Sacramento, didn't he?), 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>but otoh 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>Roberts
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>>has one thing that has been proved necessary for reliability on
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>
>  
>
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>Supreme Court: Washington experience. Not to put too 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>fine a point on it,
>>    
>>
>>>>>>if they were gonna get him, they'da got him."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Roberts may well have helped a colleague out of professional 
>>>>>>courtesy in
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Romer, but like Scalia he is a "fool for Christ" and is 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>married to 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>"fool for Christ." I think he will vote like Scalia, 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>but reason with
>>    
>>
>>>more
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>>light and less heat. In other words, he will be a 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>Scalia with one
>>    
>>
>>>>>>important difference-- he will influence weaker minds 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>(like Kennedy) 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>rather than frighten them to seek cover in the opposing 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>camp. A Scalia 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>with multiple votes, perhaps?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Rick Duncan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Lupu <iclupu at law.gwu.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>Marty omitted Geoff Stone's most intriguing prediction -- that
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>
>  
>
>>>>>>Roberts, like O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, and several 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>others, would 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>likely "drift left" over his time on the Supreme Court, 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>as he is 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>exposed to the variety of injustices that government 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>may inflict 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>on individuals (and, I might add, to the pull of 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>precedents that 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>he would have rejected as an original matter but now feels 
>>>>>>compelled to follow -- compare Scalia on 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>"incorporation" of Bill 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>of Rights provisions). An "ideologue" like Scalia or 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>Thomas may be 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>unmoved by experience, but Stone suggests that Roberts 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>will indeed 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>be affected by it. Isn't that a sensible basis to 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>prefer Roberts 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>over an "ideologue"? Or is it more likely that Roberts will 
>>>>>>develop in the way that Rehnquist did -- pragmatic and 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>flexible up 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>to a point, but with a hard and unyielding core of conservative
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>
>  
>
>>>>>>commitments? Chip Lupu P.S. I know that this sort of prediction
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>
>  
>
>>>>>>game is fun, but it's quite extraordinarily foolish, 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>isn't it? I 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>would venture that many of us writing these posts don't 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>know what 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>we ourselves would do if suddenly faced with the 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>responsibility of 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>deciding hard (and, at this moment, unforeseeeable) cases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On 5 Aug 2005 at 8:54, Marty Lederman wrote:
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Has anyone so much as suggested that Roberts would 
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>be anything 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>like Scalia? >From all the evidence I've seen, I'd say he is
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>
>  
>
>>>>>>>instead very much a modern-day version of Rehnquist (circa 
>>>>>>>1972), albeit without WHR's dubious background on racial 
>>>>>>>issues, and with even more acute smarts and more impressive
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>
>  
>
>>>>>>>writing skills. (Hard to imagine WHR writing Notes such as 
>>>>>>>those Roberts published in the HLR -- or briefs of 
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>the quality 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>of Roberts's.) And yes, I can imagine Rehnquist, while at 
>>>>>>>OLC,having assisted the! SG in preparation for a 
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>case in which 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>WHR did not agree with the Government's position -- 
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>or ofdoing 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>the same
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>in
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>>>a law firm, had that been the route he chose. As I suggest 
>>>>>>>below, the fact that Rehnquist and Roberts are very 
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>comfortable 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>playing within the establishment SCOTUS rules of 
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>engagement -- 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>rather than throwing brickbats from the outside -- is what 
>>>>>>>makes them much more effective thanScalia and Thomas.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If Roberts is much more akin to WHR than to Scalia 
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>or Thomas -- 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>and I think that he is -- what follows from that? 
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>Well, I think 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>Geoffrey Stone got it just about right in an Op-Ed last
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>week
>  
>
>(http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0507270014jul27,1,1899
>  
>
>>>>>>>219.story?coll=chi- news-hed), in which he predicted that 
>>>>>>>Roberts would likely vote to do most of the following: to 
>>>>>>>eviscerate Roe vs. Wade; reject the rights of 
>>>>>>>homosexuals;narrow the scope of
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>affirmative> action;expand the role of religion in public
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>life;
>  
>
>>>andendorse
>>>      
>>>
>>>>the
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>>>so-called "new federalism." "But if he does," Stone 
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>assures us, 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>"it will be in an open-minded, rigorous, 
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>intellectually honest 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>manner, rather than as an ideologue whose constitutional 
>>>>>>>principles derive more from fiction and faith than 
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>from legal 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>reason."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Stone writes this as if it were a good thing, a reason to 
>>>>>>>prefer Roberts to a Scalia/Thomas absolutist such as 
>>>>>>>(presumably) Luttig, Jones or Brown. Indeed, he concludes 
>>>>>>>thatif Roberts "is, in fact, the person I have 
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>described, . . . 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>he should be warmly embraced as the best the nation could 
>>>>>>>expect from this administration--a brilliant, decent 
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>individual 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>with superb legal skills and without a rigid ideological 
>>>>>>>agenda. Unless and until we learn otherwise,
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>organizations
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>>>like MoveOn.org and the Alliance for Justice should 
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>stay their 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>hand and accept the ! 'win' that is John Roberts."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I have great admiration for many of Roberts's skills and 
>>>>>>>personal attributes --it's hard to imagine a better Supreme
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>
>  
>
>>>>>>>Court briefwriter and advocate, and from what I've 
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>seen, Stone 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>is correct that Roberts is "a brilliant, decent 
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>individual with 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>superb legal skills and without a rigid ideological agenda."
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>
>  
>
>>>>>>>But "warm embrace" for his nomination? I'm not sure why I 
>>>>>>>should feel especially mollified by
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>the
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>>>fact that when Roberts rewrites the constitutional map as 
>>>>>>>thoroughly asStone predicts he may, he'll do so "in an 
>>>>>>>open-minded, rigorous, intellectually honest 
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>manner."Because he 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>is not a doctrinal absolutist, because he plays the game so
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>
>  
>
>>>>>>>well within the system, because he is so tactical 
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>and shrewd, 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>and "rigorous," because he's so personable and 
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>well-liked and 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>admired by his colleagues, andbecause he's not a 
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>flamethrower, 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>Rehnquist has been far mo! re effective atdestroying many 
>>>>>>>pillars of the Warren Court edifice than Scalia and Thomas 
>>>>>>>could ever be. (And it didn't start when he became Chief --
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>
>  
>
>>>>>>>recallthat he was quite effective very early in his 
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>career,not 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>merely in the famous "lone dissents" that paved the 
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>way for the 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>Federalism "revolution," etc., but in the way he quickly 
>>>>>>>transformed doctrines of, e.g., state action, 
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>justiciability, abstention, standing,
>>    
>>
>>>remedial
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>>>powers, implied causes of action, Executive power, statutory
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>
>  
>
>>>>>>>construction, habeas, etc.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>For these same reasons, from the standpoint of the Bush 
>>>>>>>Administration, Roberts is not only a perfect 
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>nominee, he's the 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>optimal Justice of the Supreme Court. For those of us with a
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>
>  
>
>>>>>>>very different constitutional vision . . . I'm not sure we 
>>>>>>>wouldn't be better off with "an ideologue whose 
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>constitutional 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>principles derive more from fiction and faith."(Fiv! e such
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>
>  
>
>>>>>>>Justices, on the otherhand, would be another matter 
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>entirely . 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>. . but we're not yet at that
>>>>>>>point.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>----- Original Message ----- From:
>>>>>>>To: "ConLaw Prof"
>>>>>>>Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 7:47 AM
>>>>>>>Subject: A Stealth O'Connor or Souter After All?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The recent revelation that John Roberts served as 
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>
>>a pro bono 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>>oral- argument coach for Jean Dubofsky, the lead 
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>
>>attorney for 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>>the prevailing side in Romer v. Evans, should put James 
>>>>>>>>Dobson &
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>
>>>Friends
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>>>>in a panic. At minimum, this means that Roberts isn't a 
>>>>>>>>homophobe and has an open mind on gay rights issues. Can 
>>>>>>>>anyone imagine Antonin Scalia doing something 
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>
>>comparable? I 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>>surely can't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Dan Pinello
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>
>_______________________________________________
>  
>
>>>>>>>>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
>>>>>>>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get 
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>
>>password, see
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi- 
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Please note that messages sent to this large list 
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>
>>cannot be viewed
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>>as private. Anyone can
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>posted; people can
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly 
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>or wrongly)
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>forward the messages to others. >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ira C. ("Chip") Lupu
>>>>>>F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law
>>>>>>The George Washington University Law School
>>>>>>2000 H St., NW
>>>>>>Washington D.C 20052
>>>>>>(202) 994-7053
>>>>>>ICLUPU at main.nlc.gwu.edu 
>>>>>>ICLUPU at law.gwu.edu 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
>>>>>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>
>  
>
>>>>>>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof 
>>>>>>Please note that messages sent to this large list 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>cannot be viewed as 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>messages that are 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>members can (rightly 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Rick Duncan
>>>>>>Welpton Professor of Law
>>>>>>University of Nebraska College of Law
>>>>>>Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>either Galahad or 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>briefed, debriefed, or 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>numbered." --The Prisoner
>>>>>>
>>>>>>__________________________________________________
>>>>>>Do You Yahoo!?
>>>>>>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>>>>>>http://mail.yahoo.com 
>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
>>>>>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>
>  
>
>>>>>>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Please note that messages sent to this large list 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>cannot be viewed as 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>messages that are 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>members can (rightly 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
>>>>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>
>  
>
>>>>>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof 
>>>>>
>>>>>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot 
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>be viewed as 
>>    
>>
>>>>>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read 
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>messages that are 
>>    
>>
>>>>>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list 
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>members can (rightly
>>    
>>
>>>or 
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
>>>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>>>>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof 
>>>>
>>>>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot 
>>>>        
>>>>
>>be viewed as
>>    
>>
>>>private.  
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that 
>>>>        
>>>>
>>are posted; people
>>    
>>
>>>can 
>>>      
>>>
>>>>read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
>>>>        
>>>>
>>wrongly) forward
>>    
>>
>>>the 
>>>      
>>>
>>>>messages to others.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
>>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>>>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof 
>>>
>>>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be 
>>>      
>>>
>>viewed as
>>    
>>
>>>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read 
>>>      
>>>
>>messages that are
>>    
>>
>>>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members 
>>>      
>>>
>>can (rightly or
>>    
>>
>>>wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, 
>>see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof 
>>
>>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be 
>>viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read 
>>messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; 
>>and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
>>messages to others.
>>
>>    
>>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof 
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
>(rightly
>or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof 
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
(rightly
>or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof 
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>  
>




More information about the Conlawprof mailing list