The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
NY Times Obituary Confuses Justice John Marshal Harlan I and II
Philip B. Heymann, who died this week, did not clerk for JMH I.
On Tuesday, the New York Times published an obituary for Philip B. Heymann, a longtime DOJ attorney. As originally published, the article stated:
After graduating from Harvard Law School in 1960, he clerked at the Supreme Court for Associate Justice John M. Harlan, who was noted chiefly for his many dissents in cases that restricted civil liberties.
Whoops. On Wednesday, the article was appended with a correction:
An earlier version of this obituary misidentified the associate justice of the Supreme Court for whom Mr. Heymann clerked as a young law school graduate, and it mischaracterized the justice's reputation on the bench. He clerked for John M. Harlan II, not Justice Harlan's grandfather, John M. Harlan. And it was the elder Justice Harlan, not the grandson, who was noted for his many dissents in cases that restricted civil liberties.
Now the article states:
After graduating from Harvard Law School in 1960, he clerked at the Supreme Court for Associate Justice John M. Harlan II, .
The punctuation error is in the original.
On that point, it's good to know the Solicitor General was unwilling to commit that Plessy should have been overruled in 1897. More on this issue later.
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
I realize that Prof. Blackman loves to point out meaningless errors from organizations or people with whom he has the proverbial axe to grind, but you know, in these times all of us would be better served if he would devote the very valuable space he has been given on this forum to the important topics of the day. Even though we often disagree with his positions and mostly lament his partisanship and frequently incorrect analysis, his opinons on the major topics do serve a purpose in elucidating a position, and we hope he will move away form the trivial to the critical.
"The 'we' is rather fine, Watson, is it not?" -- Sherlock Holmes, from The Cardboard Box.
Josh still does not correct the many errors in his “Today in Supreme Court History” posts despite being repeatedly reminded.