Today in Supreme Court History: November 13, 1856

11/13/1856: Justice Louis Brandeis's birthday.

Justice Louis Brandeis

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

United States v. Bormes, 568 U.S. 6 (decided November 13, 2021): dismissing lawyers’ class action alleging Fair Credit Reporting Act violation of privacy (federal filing fee receipts display last four digits and expiration date of lawyer’s credit card) because sovereign immunity not waived

Ayers v. Belmontes, 549 U.S. 7 (decided November 13, 2006): no error in judge not specifically instructing jury to consider future mitigating circumstances in sentencing (here, that defendant would lead a constructive life if incarcerated as opposed to executed), where evidence and argument was presented by defense counsel; death sentence reinstated (the defendant, who during a burglary unexpectedly encountered the 19-year-old victim and struck her head 15 to 20 times with a dumbbell, went up to the Court again on an ineffective assistance of counsel argument in 2009; eventually died on death row of natural causes in 2017) (so did those extra years end up being “constructive”?)

In re Amendments to Rules 1 and 10, 108 U.S. 1 (decided November 13, 1882): Waite amends Court rules as to costs for a copy of the record; he gifts us with a history of the clerk’s practices under the old rule (this boring disquisition suited Waite’s literary talents; as Frankfurter pointed out, “the stuff of the artist was not in him”)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“eventually died on death row of natural causes in 2017”

Everyone is under death sentence, so in one sense, the sentence was carried out.

Alternate comment: The death sentence wasn't carried out, but he was.

[Mr. Bumble]

"... that defendant would lead a constructive life if incarcerated as opposed to executed),"

He might have run for Congress or some other office with the support of Democrats to show how even a murderer could turn his life around.

[Dr. Ed 2]

James Michael Curley won one of his terms as Mayor of Boston while in prison...

[David Nieporent]

No, he didn't, but you do you.

[Purple Martin]

He died in prison, and is just as dead as if he'd been killed by the state. Works for me.

[CJColucci]

A lot of people would take this deal, which would leave open for a long time the opportunity to release someone who turns out to be actually innocent.

[Bob from Ohio]

"actually innocent"

"In 1979, he had been convicted of being an accessory in a voluntary manslaughter, and he attacked his pregnant girlfriend months before the murder."

[Purple Martin]

For 50 years I’ve opposed the death penalty in all circumstances, based on neither compassion nor a belief in the sanctity of human life. I don’t shed a tear for those executed with provably just cause, and I’m glad they’re dead.

My rationale is that capital punishment as applied in America isn’t about justice. It isn’t even about punishment. In America today, it is almost solely about revenge, with no true purpose beyond emotional satisfaction. It causes a continuing, corrosive, long-term damage to our society, to all of us as a whole. Simply, we can’t implement it in a just way, it has no societal benefit, and we don’t have to do it.

What most may agree on is it may always be necessary to ensure at times, that some people live out the rest of their lives—as long or short as that may be—segregated from society. Effectively, to make certain they die in prison. But, as a society, we don’t need to purposefully kill already incarcerated people to do that. And as long as we do, life is cheapened. And all of society is coarsened, worsened, with an impact reaching far beyond the legal system.

Civilization progresses over millennia with lots of starts and stops and considerable backsliding. The advancement of justice over revenge through ending societal capital punishment—even if only because we don’t have to do this—will be evidence of our society’s slow but continuing progress.

After America’s final government execution, we’ll be closer to the realization of “The arc of history is long, but it bends towards Justice.” And away from revenge.

[Dan Schiavetta]

This is close to my view. Thanks for your comment.

[Bob from Ohio]

He murdered the 19 year old girl in 1981.

So lived 36 years more, almost double her lifespan. She'd be enjoying he grandchildren now but that never happened.

So it doesn't work for me.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Linking this post to the border-control guy refusing to step down:

Brandeis was one of three dissenters in the Myers case, along with Holmes and strange-bedfellow McReynolds.

If those three had prevailed, Congress could have entrenched the Deep State by protecting executive officials (at least those appointed by the Senate) from unilateral removal by the President.

A result I would deplore, but the thing is, the dissenters' arguments (regrettably) actually seem persuasive.

A natural reading of Art. II is that Sec. 1 specifies who will hold the executive power, and Sec. 2 (and Sec 3, I suppose) lists what the executive power consists of. The power to fire executive-branch officials isn't listed in Secs. 2 or 3, so all the executive-power people have to go on is the reference to "The executive power" in Sec. 1. But if that were an independent grant of power that would crack open a can full of worms. And has.

Balance this against Congress' power to create executive-branch offices, which generally would be considered to include fixing the terms.