politics and Marbury v. Madison.
tushnet at law.georgetown.edu
Thu Oct 20 13:40:46 PDT 2005
I guess it's now time for the shameless plug: Some of these issues are canvassed in Arguing Marbury v. Madison (M. Tushnet ed. 2005), in the transcript of what I think is an interesting oral argument of Marbury before four contemporary federal judges. (We decided not to call the book "Rearguing Marbury," on the ground that it had never been argued in the first place.)
----- Original Message -----
From: Sanford Levinson <SLevinson at law.utexas.edu>
Date: Thursday, October 20, 2005 3:06 pm
Subject: Re: politics and Marbury v. Madison.
> My decision rule is always to defer to Marty on statements of law,
> though I share the view that no judge would have been eager (or
> even willing) to grant the commission or to say that it didn't
> really matter whether he received that piece of paper. Indeed,
> why didn't Marshall say that, which would have allowed him to
> avoid the entire mandamus problem?
> - Sanford Levinson
> (Sent from a Blackberry)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 247 bytes
Desc: Card for Mark Tushnet <tushnet at law.georgetown.edu>
Url : http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20051020/ac747062/tushnet.vcf
More information about the Conlawprof