The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Today in Supreme Court History: June 13, 1977
6/13/1977: Justice Tom C. Clark dies.
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Started slow, but caught up. At first was just one of Truman’s mediocrities, but transcended.
Yeah, going more left is always “development”.
If you’re on board with Plessy v. Ferguson (“separate but equal”), Betts v. Brady (no right to counsel if you can’t afford one) and Weeks v. United States (evidence beaten out of you by state police can be used by federal prosecutors), then I understand why you think “going more left” is not “development”. I prefer the cases that overruled them, Brown v. Board of Education, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Mapp v. Ohio (where Clark wrote the majority opinion).
My scorn for Gideon is well established. Where is my taxpayer paid firearm?
The exclusionary rule is hokum as well, it rewards the criminal but punishes society by releasing the guilty to prey on innocents.
Brown was unanimous. Are you saying he wouldn’t have joined it in 1947 before he “transcended”?
Authoritarian, obsolete, bigoted, backwater conservatives are among my favorite culture war casualties.
Thank goodness the liberal-libertarian mainstream has won in America.
Brown almost was not unanimous because Jackson had a law clerk (named William Rehnquist) who was telling him to vote “no”. With one “no” vote, Clark may well have joined him to make two. At least the 1949 version of him would have.
Bob, as a point of curiosity, as you know the reason for the exclusionary rule is to deter the police from violating people’s constitutional rights. Is your opposition to the exclusionary rule that you think there are alternate ways to deter the police, or do you simply not care if the police violate people’s rights?