Ronald Dworkin (1931–2013) was Professor of Philosophy and Frank Henry Sommer Professor of Law at NYU. His books include Is Democracy Possible Here?, Justice in Robes, Freedom’s Law, and Justice for Hedgehogs. He was the 2007 winner of the Ludvig Holberg International Memorial Prize for “his pioneering scholarly work” of “worldwide impact” and he was recently awarded the Balzan Prize for his “fundamental contributions to Jurisprudence.”
An Affair of State: The Investigation, Impeachment, and Trial of President Clinton by Richard A. Posner
The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory by Richard A. Posner
The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions by William G. Bowen, by Derek Bok
Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington, 79 F. 3d 790, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (1996)
Quill v. Vacco, 80 F. 3d 716, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (1996)
Romer v. Evans, 116 S. Ct. 1620, United States Supreme Court (1996)
Learned Hand: The Man and the Judge by Gerald Gunther
Health Security Act 103d Congress, 1st Session
Only Words by Catherine A. MacKinnon
Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment by Anthony Lewis
Order and Law: Arguing the Reagan RevolutionA Firsthand Account by Charles Fried
Mrs. Thatcher’s Revolution: The Ending of the Socialist Era by Peter Jenkins
Reckless Disregard: Westmoreland v. CBS et al.; Sharon v. Time by Renata Adler
Morality and Conflict by Stuart Hampshire
Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality by Michael Walzer
Social Justice in the Liberal State by Bruce A. Ackerman
Independent Journey: The Life of William O.Douglas by James F. Simon
The Court Years, 1939 to 1975: The Autobiography of William O. Douglas by William O. Douglas
The Pursuit of Happiness, and Other Sobering Thoughts by George F. Will
DeFunis versus Odegaard and the University of Washington: The University Admissions Case, The Record edited by Ann Fagan Ginger
On Liberty and Liberalism: The Case of John Stuart Mill by Gertrude Himmelfarb
Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law by H.L.A. Hart
The Lawyers by Martin Mayer
There is persuasive internal evidence in the various opinions the justices filed that he intended to vote with the other conservatives to strike the Act down and changed his mind only at the very last minute. Commentators on all sides have speculated furiously about why he did so.
The Supreme Court’s hearings in the health care case, Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida, over a nearly unprecedented three days of oral argument, generated all the attention, passion, theater, and constant media and editorial coverage of a national election or a Super Bowl. The legal issues, most analysts think, are not really controversial: the Constitution’s text, the Supreme Court’s own precedents, and basic constitutional principle seem obviously to require upholding the Affordable Health Care Act. But the questions of the ultra-conservative justices in the oral argument have now convinced most commentators that on the contrary, in spite of text, precedent, and principle, the Court will declare the Act unconstitutional in June, by a 5-4 vote.
As the debt ceiling fiasco continues unresolved and increasingly dangerous, with no agreement among the House, the Senate and the White House yet in sight, an obscure and forgotten constitutional clause has suddenly come under scrutiny. The Fourteenth Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, provides that “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law … shall not be questioned.” Does that clause mean that it is unconstitutional for Congress to refuse to raise the debt ceiling – the amount the nation is legally permitted to borrow – in our present circumstances, and that the President is therefore constitutionally permitted to borrow money on his own authority?
We now have a President we can admire and respect. But he seems unaware that his opponents are not patriots anxious to help govern through a decent consensus but fanatics who would destroy the country if that would lead to his defeat. We think he should understand that this is a time for confrontation not compromise. He should therefore remember the words of another president running for reelection in the middle of an even graver economic catastrophe, words that seem eerily relevant now.
The second of two posts examining the Supreme Court’s “step by step” overruling of longstanding precedents and constitutional tradition.
Five conservative justices now dominate our Supreme Court. They continue to revise our historical constitution and new cases show that the arguments they offer continue to be embarrassingly bad.
The results of Tuesday’s election are savagely depressing, wholly expected, yet deeply puzzling. Why do so many Americans insist on voting against their own best interests?
We know that the Supreme Court’s decision in the pending Hillary: The Movie case, argued in a special early hearing before the Supreme Court on September 9, will be bad for democracy. We don’t yet know how bad it will be.