Today in Supreme Court History: October 2, 1967

10/2/1967: Justice Thurgood Marshall takes the oath.

Justice Thurgood Marshall

Comments

[Frank Drackman]

Many Oaths were heard on that day.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Two early Justice Thurgood Marshall (John Marshall would have been a tad surprised at his namesake):

Powell v. Texas: A plurality opinion that upheld a conviction involving public drunkenness in the face of an Eighth Amendment claim. It limited the reach of Robinson v. California (drug addict). It compared "public" drunkenness to being drunk privately.

Texas thus has not sought to punish a mere status, as California did in Robinson; nor has it attempted to regulate appellant's behavior in the privacy of his own home. Rather, it has imposed upon appellant a criminal sanction for public behavior which may create substantial health and safety hazards both for appellant and for members of the general public, and which offends the moral and esthetic sensibilities of a large segment of the community. This seems a far cry from convicting one for being an addict, being a chronic alcoholic, being "mentally ill, or a leper.

Fortas wrote the dissent and was joined by Brennan. White concurred on narrower grounds.

Stanley v. Georgia protected the right to possess obscenity in the privacy of one's home. It limited Roth to specific concerns involving minors, unwilling viewers, and pandering.

[Pandering is a somewhat dubious interest as seen by its application in Ginzberg v. U.S.. It does overlap with the unwilling viewers concern. It was also a particular concern of Chief Justice Warren, who focused on the seller.*]

It was decided on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds, but it has more open-ended privacy implications. For instance, Justice Marshall later thought Bowers v. Hardwick (same sex intimacy in the home) was an easy case given Stanley.

Both cases suggest the right to privacy significantly involves the weighing of legitimate state interests. Consider Justice Brennan's dissent in Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton:

"Like the proscription of abortions, the effort to suppress obscenity is predicated on unprovable, although strongly held, assumptions about human behavior, morality, sex, and religion."

These "assumptions" under the privacy rubric are personal choices, not a matter of public concern, though they can be regulated in certain respects.

===

* Warren in Roth: "It is not the book that is on trial; it is a person. The conduct of the defendant is the central issue, not the obscenity of a book or picture."

[SMP0328]

From captcrisis.com

Matter of Disbarment of Maddox, 516 U.S. 802 (decided October 2, 1995): I’m an obscure, unsuccessful lawyer and former crisis center director who has never rubbed shoulders with anyone who touched the Court, with this one (literal) exception. In 1987 Alton Maddox was one of the trio of people (with fellow lawyer C. Vernon Mason, and Al Sharpton) who represented a black teenager named Tawana Brawley, who allegedly was gang raped by white police officers in a small town near my crisis center. The three kept bleating in the media about wanting justice but would not allow her to be interviewed by any prosecutor so that evidence could be gathered and charges brought. It was a fraud that caused lasting damage to race relations -- crying about injustice yet not allowing it to be righted, which unfortunately served the proto-”antiracism” crowd just fine. Eventually one could deduce that the three had realized that Tawana had fabricated her story and, having painted themselves into a corner, could not admit it. Instead they kept defaming the officers by name. Sharpton, now a commentator on MSNBC, has never owned up to it, which is why I still can’t watch him.

The fallout included Maddox getting disbarred, and I was in the New York Appellate Division on another case when his state disbarment proceeding was being argued. I did not know it was going to happen. Unusually, the seats began to fill (with black people). I was near the front, and Maddox came in and sat right next to me!! It was weird, just he and I in the middle of a bunch of empty seats. I looked back to the crowd and said to him, “They must think I support you.” He said, “Do you?” I thought for a second and said, “I wish you the best.” His case got heard, I forget the details, but my case was next. Everyone left as I got up to speak and I made a little joke to the judges about nobody wanting to hear me.

I often think what I could have done. He was probably in a hothouse atmosphere, surrounded by layers of yes-people, with no one around he could really open up to. My crisis center persona had reclaimed me. Maybe I could have said, “I think there’s a reason you sat next to me,” and given him my business card, and put my home phone number on it, and said, “You can call me any night. I won’t tell anyone. Your name is Sam.”

[not guilty]

In his role as field general of the fight to abolish racial segregation (before being appointed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals), Thurgood Marshall had probably a greater impact on United States history than any other public figure during peacetime.

[Frank Drackman]

They must not have told Ala-Bama(ht K Jackson)
My HS that was named after the Confederate President was roughly 50/50 Black/White in 1980.
Now it’s named after a Black Civil Rights “Icon” and a White Judge who opposed Segregation.
Ironically now it’s 95% Black and even more Ironically, the Sports teams went from winning State Titles to what’s that term,
“Sucking”
Frank