Today in Supreme Court History: August 4, 1961

The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

8/4/1961: President Barack Obama's birthday. He would appoint two Justices to the Supreme Court: Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

President Obama's appointees to the Supreme Court

To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.

NEXT: Some Highlights From Justice Gorsuch's WSJ Interview

Hide Comments (82)

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.

captcrisis 3 days ago

Truong Dinh Hung v. United States, 439 U.S. 1326 (decided August 4, 1978): Brennan, reversing Circuit Court, allows bail pending appeal of espionage conviction (passing along government secrets, theft of government property, acting as unregistered foreign agent) (this was in connection with Carter’s negotiations with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on normalization of relations, return of prisoners, etc.); defendant, Vietnamese citizen, did not have permanent residence in U.S. and was in contact with Vietnamese ambassador in Paris, but Brennan notes “opportunity” to flee does not equal “inclination” to flee; defendant had resided here for 13 years, was close to his sister, a permanent resident who owned a house here, and “numerous affidavits” attested to his character and “reliability as a bail risk”. (Convictions were affirmed on direct appeal in 1981, and cert denied. Truong was paroled in 1986, married an American college professor, and moved to the Netherlands, working as an economist for the EU.)

Log in to Reply
1. The Margrave of Azilia 3 days ago
  
  I certainly won’t make any inappropriate jokes about his name, or about his country’s currency. That would be improper for a serious blog like this one.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. captcrisis 3 days ago
    
    Indubitably.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Mr. Bumble 3 days ago
      
      Are you channeling Jimmy Durante or Snagglepuss?
      
      Log in to Reply
  2. John F. Carr 3 days ago
    
    You reminded me of Molly Ringwald writing about how her 1980s movies with John Hughes wouldn’t fly today, and about watching and refusing to watch them with her children.
    
    https://www.newyorker.com/culture/personal-history/what-about-the-breakfast-club-molly-ringwald-metoo-john-hughes-pretty-in-pink
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. captcrisis 3 days ago
      
      What struck me from that article was this:
      
      “I was well into my thirties before I stopped considering verbally abusive men more interesting than the nice ones.”
      
      Why did young men act like that? Because it worked.
      
      Log in to Reply
    2. Dr. Ed 2 3 days ago
      
      “The successful teen comedies of the period, such as “Animal House” and “Porky’s,” were written by men for boys; the few women in them were either nymphomaniacs or battleaxes. (The stout female coach in “Porky’s” is named Balbricker.) “
      
      Porky’s WAS funny — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdT637qlnP0 and the other thing about the women from that era is that they are 20-30 lbs heavier than would be acceptable today.
      
      I was not impressed with Molly Ringwald at the time — nor now.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Dilan Esper 3 days ago
        
        You picked the right scene from Porky’s. That scene is hilarious and you can see the actors themselves were trying to deliver a credible scene and failing because it was so funny.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        TwelveInchPianist 2 days ago
        
        The linked clip is censored, which makes it less funny, but why edit out the word “penis”?
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Dr. Ed 2 2 days ago
        
        I’m not sure the word penis was said in the actual movie.
        This was the early ’80s, and reflecting the 1950s.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        TwelveInchPianist 2 days ago
        
        There’s at least two instances in the clip that were removed:
        
        “Hi, I’m Pauli, Pauli the penis”
        
        and
        
        “Can we please call it a tallywacker? Penis is so personal.’
        
        But I’m going strictly by memory, there could be others.
        
        Log in to Reply
      2. Noscitur a sociis 3 days ago
        
        I was not impressed with Molly Ringwald at the time — nor now.
        
        Hahaha! I hope she’s not too devastated by this news.
        
        Log in to Reply
      3. John F. Carr 2 days ago
        
        Porky’s never appealed to me. Animal House did. Porky’s did not. One change from then to now is with the internet offending a small group can lead to enough outrage to hurt producers’ feelings. Forty to fifty years ago if you offended feminists or whoever there were plenty of juvenile males to fill seats.
        
        Log in to Reply
    3. Dilan Esper 3 days ago
      
      One of my more dudebro positions is I think Ringwald is wrong. I was a big fan of those movies and while OBVIOUSLY some of the stuff didn’t age well (e.g., the racial jokes in Sixteen Candles), Ringwald has also forgotten what it was like to be a teenager, which is what those John Hughes movies were all about.
      
      I.e., yeah, Judd Nelson gets under the desk and assaults Ringwald’s panties. You want to know something? Crap like that happened in both the Junior HIgh School and High School I went to. And yeah, the guys who did it often were popular and could get away with stuff because of their status.
      
      Ringwald is reading stuff like that literally (“what were we thinking in showing a character sexually assault another character and playing it for laughs?”), but Hughes was depicting exactly how teenagers were, and are– often playing terrible acts for laughs and not understanding the significance of what they were doing.
      
      The movies were and are genius. If I had a teenage kid I would definitely show them to the teenager.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. John F. Carr 2 days ago
        
        Another mid-1980s movie that ought to violate modern sensibilities is the original Ghostbusters. It opens with a university researcher sexually harassing a female student.
        
        I have been watching the Looney Tunes Golden Collection recently. 24 disks of Warner Brothers animated shorts loved by generations, each disk an unskippable warning that the contents are socially dated and wrong. One of the disks has Whoopi Goldberg delivering that warning at length. It wouldn’t let me skip her. It would let me fast forward over her.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Mr. Bumble 2 days ago
        
        “Another mid-1980s movie that ought to violate modern sensibilities is the original Ghostbusters. It opens with a university researcher sexually harassing a female student.”
        
        Wasn’t/isn’t that SOP for male (and today female) college professors? See “Animal House”.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        The Margrave of Azilia 2 days ago
        
        Many movies violated the sensibilities of many people *at the time.* The movie people have historically been under periodic pressure to clean up their act. It’s hard to keep up with the changing narratives, but the story in certain circles used to be that the valiant entertainment industry was fighting the censors and prudes on behalf of art (or at least some semblance of art).
        
        Log in to Reply
2. Frank Drackman 3 days ago
  
  Sounds like a “Hung” Jury
  
  Log in to Reply
Drewski 3 days ago

Since Obama’s birthday is on the table, let’s all remember the time Blackman put his name on an amicus supporting petitioners who alleged that “President Obama uses a stolen Connecticut social security number, a forged short-form birth certificate, a forged long-form birth certificate, and a forged selective service certificate as proof that he is a natural born American citizen.” To be clear, Blackman did not make those allegations, but he supported their efforts professionally.

Log in to Reply
1. Mr. Bumble 3 days ago
  
  Way to start the ball rolling on a Sunday morning.
  
  Log in to Reply
2. bernard11 3 days ago
  
  Thanks for the reminder.
  
  Shameful but unsurprising.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. captcrisis 3 days ago
    
    There’s a good joke somewhere in there involving Blackman and Black Man. Can someone winnow it out?
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Frank Drackman 3 days ago
      
      Blackman can’t get a fair shake! Josh was born a poor Blackman. What are 4 things you can’t give Blackman?
      
      Log in to Reply
    2. JoeFromtheBronx 3 days ago
      
      Well, whatever the case, the whole thing is somewhat dark.
      
      Log in to Reply
3. Frank Drackman 3 days ago
  
  That’s what you Shysters do, I’ve treated murderers, thieves, rape-ists, and the worst of all, Catholic Priests (with the 50th anniversary of Milhouses resignation, who remembers Father Drinan?
  
  Log in to Reply
4. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland 3 days ago
  
  Josh Blackman’s birther history deserves to be remembered. Does anyone have a pointer toward that brief? (Was Brett Bellmore the client on whose behalf Blackman filed that brief?)
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Frank Drackman 3 days ago
    
    It was Hillary Rodman’s cam-pain that first raised the Ish-yew, releasing Photos of Barry in his “Native Kenyan Garb” Barry didn’t help matters when in a hard hitting Interview with George Snuffaluffagus, thanked McCain for not making an Ish-yew of “my Moose-lum faith” George quickly corrected him, saying he meant to say his “Christian faith” Now I know McCain was an Idiot(Heroes can be Idiots too) but why would he question Barry Husseins “Christian faith”
    
    Frank
    
    Log in to Reply
  2. JoeFromtheBronx 3 days ago
    
    I did not find the brief but the language is found in this opinion:
    
    https://casetext.com/case/grinols-v-electoral-coll-8
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. JoeFromtheBronx 3 days ago
      
      In 2015, he had a post entitled: “Did the 14th Amendment (1868) Nullify the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause (1789)?”
      
      https://joshblackman.com/blog/2015/03/24/did-the-14th-amendment-1868-nullify-the-natural-born-citizen-clause-1789/
      
      at first blush, he thought it did. He received pushback and maybe he had second thoughts later.
      
      This would be a few years after the Obama lawsuit. Also, this position doesn’t technically mean he couldn’t have joined the amicus though people have cited other problems.
      
      I am not going to assume the person is a “liar” since he can be mistaken. A link or reference would be helpful.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. David Nieporent 3 days ago
        
        Interesting find. Not disagreeing with you, but just to be clear: that blog post bears absolutely no resemblance to what Drewski was insinuating/describing. That post argues that the NBC requirement itself was — or at least may have been — repealed by the 14th amendment. To the extent that’s true, it would have been a pro-Obama position by Blackman.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        JoeFromtheBronx 3 days ago
        
        Yes, I thought it had a certain pro-Obama tenor so added
        
        “this position doesn’t technically mean he couldn’t have joined the amicus”
        
        IOW, I think a reader of the 2015 post would not think the person would help birthers but it’s technically possible.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        TwelveInchPianist 2 days ago
        
        “To the extent that’s true, it would have been a pro-Obama position by Blackman.”
        
        Er…
        
        Log in to Reply
  3. Noscitur a sociis 3 days ago
    
    I would also appreciate some additional information. I didn’t see anything on Westlaw, and Prof. Blackman’s rather… comprehensive CV suggests he didn’t really get going in the amicus game until 2015, which would (I would think) be long after any of these challenges would still be kicking around. (I checked the three briefs he lists in 2013 and 2014, and none of them appear to match the description.)
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. David Nieporent 3 days ago
      
      I find Drewski’s accusation implausible, for multiple reasons:
      
      1. I don’t remember ever hearing about anything like that by Blackman.
      2. In 2012, Blackman was a first year law professor; who’d be asking him to put his name on an amicus brief?
      3. That’s an Orly Taitz special, and Blackman has at least enough sense to keep his distance from her.
      4. It’s not on his c.v. This is Josh Blackman we’re talking about. If he so much as contested a speeding ticket in traffic court — even if he lost — he’d include the oral argument on his resume.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Mr. Bumble 3 days ago
        
        So Drewski is a liar promoting mis-information?
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Sarcastr0 3 days ago
        
        I have him blocked so he’s been shitty in the past somehow or other.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        David Nieporent 3 days ago
        
        You should try reading what I write; I did not say that. I said that I found his claim implausible, and gave some reasons why. If I knew he was a liar, I’d have said he was lying.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Mr. Bumble 3 days ago
        
        “To be clear, Blackman did not make those allegations, but he supported their efforts professionally.”
        Is that implausible or a lie?
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Noscitur a sociis 3 days ago
        
        It’s certainly implausible. It may or may not be a lie.
        
        For instance, perhaps Drewski was mistaken. Maybe they’re thining of someone other than Prof. Blackman who wrote a real brief. Or perhaps they remember something Prof. Blackman wrote about something else and misremember what it said. Or maybe there’s a real brief of Prof. Blackman’s that they’re misreading to meet the description. Or, of course, maybe Prof. Blackman really did write what Drewski said, implausible as it might seem.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Mr. Bumble 3 days ago
        
        Words; is there anything they can’t do.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland 3 days ago
        
        If you think it is implausible that Josh Blackman would submit an amicus brief supporting un-American, delusional, bigoted right-wing misfits, I have a bunch of Donald Trump bibles — signed by baby Jesus, Kid Rock, Hulk Hogan, Donald Trump, and the My Pillow guy — to sell to you at a great price.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        The Margrave of Azilia 2 days ago
        
        Well, you say he *could* have done it, but you don’t specifically say whether he *did* do it. If he did, shouldn’t someone be able to furnish a link?
5. F.D. Wolf 3 days ago
  
  For those of us who don’t remember the text of pleadings or signatories of amicus briefs from more than a decade ago, would you do us the favor of a link or at least a citation?
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. F.D. Wolf 3 days ago
    
    I think we can go ahead and call bullshit and say this amicus brief doesn’t exist.
    
    Log in to Reply
6. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf 3 days ago
  
  Do you similarly equate murder defendants’ lawyers as murderers?
  
  Don’t you lawyers like to brag that everyone deserves a lawyer, even the most despicable clients?
  
  Isn’t that why judges assign lawyers to indigent defendants?
  
  Innuendo, you’ve heard of that.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. SRG2 3 days ago
    
    There’s a difference between a lawyer representing someone, and a lawyer volunteering an amicus brief.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf 3 days ago
      
      Can’t tell that from the post. Maybe lawyers should learn to write what they mean. Oh wait, that wouldn’t involve working for hire on subjects or for clients you don’t like.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. SRG2 3 days ago
        
        You don’t need to tell it from the post. I made a general observation prompted by your comment, and you may then discuss whether it’s applicable given the information to hand. But the distinction remains.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf 3 days ago
        
        Yes, the distinction remains. It remains a distinction without a difference.
        
        Lawyers, in the context of the current system, are invaluable. I do not subscribe to Shakespeare’s famous quote; it would solve nothing as long as the system remained.
        
        But the US legal system is centered on ritual, not justice, and as far as I can tell, so is every other modern legal system. This amicus brief kerfuffle is just another symptom of that. Lawyer love to brag how they must serve all clients. Yet here comes something which offends a great many lawyers, so they sneer that authoring an amicus brief is not servicing a client, it is taking sides.
        
        It’s all nonsense. You can’t have it both ways. I have had clients and worked for companies whose products bored me to tears. But I still did the best I could. A lawyer who takes on an amicus brief and doesn’t do the best he can is a fraud and has cheated his client.
        
        Don’t pretend writing an amicus brief is not servicing a client. You are only showing your partisan disgust, no more professional than being disgusted with the lawyers who defended OJ.
        
        Log in to Reply
    2. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland 3 days ago
      
      Also, it would be interested to see what a lawyer who volunteered to help un-American, disaffected, delusional dumbasses submitted to the court.
      
      Log in to Reply
  2. captcrisis 3 days ago
    
    “Innuendo, you’ve heard of that.”
    
    Yes I have.
    
    “Love flies out the door when money comes innuendo.”
    
    Log in to Reply
7. Dr. Ed 2 3 days ago
  
  The Antichrist doesn’t have a birth certificate….
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. David Nieporent 3 days ago
    
    Why not? That seems like a terrible oversight by Satan.
    
    Log in to Reply
  2. Frank Drackman 3 days ago
    
    That 666 on his forehead is a giveaway
    
    Log in to Reply
Frank Drackman 3 days ago

Not bad for the son of a Kenyan Warrior!

Log in to Reply
1. Mr. Bumble 3 days ago
  
  Frank Marshall Davis was a Kenyan warrior?
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Frank Drackman 3 days ago
    
    Sure, if Josh Shapiro fought in the IDF why not?! He’s Biden’s Mini – me
    
    Log in to Reply
JoeFromtheBronx 3 days ago

$250K bail in 1978.

By one calculation, that’s $1,204,658.74 today.

A person recently was somewhat annoyed about the non-legal importance of some of these historical dates. I am not overly concerned though sometimes better choices can be made.

For instance, I noted yesterday that RBG was confirmed OTD. Searching, I see this rather notable tidbit:

The Supreme Court issued its first decision on August 3, 1791.

It was West v. Barnes & it was argued the day before.

Justice William Johnson aka “The First Dissenter” died OTD in 1834. As to President Obama, two things. First, isn’t the better word “nominate”? Second, of course, he nominated three people.

Only two actually got on.

Log in to Reply
1. Mr. Bumble 3 days ago
  
  “$250K bail in 1978.
  
  By one calculation, that’s $1,204,658.74 today.”
  
  Inflation; is there anything it can’t do?
  
  Log in to Reply
2. captcrisis 3 days ago
  
  West v. Barnes? How did I miss that?? Thanks.
  
  Log in to Reply
3. David Nieporent 3 days ago
  
  As to President Obama, two things. First, isn’t the better word “nominate”? Second, of course, he nominated three people.
  
  Only two actually got on.
  
  So then the better word obviously isn’t nominate, since it would make the original claim incorrect. He nominated three, and appointed two.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. JoeFromtheBronx 3 days ago
    
    My mind was on him skipping over the other nomination.
    
    But, yes, the constitutional text does say “appoint” regarding those that received Senate approval.
    
    Log in to Reply
Frank Drackman 3 days ago

Wow, sounds like the “Second Gentleman” wasn’t much of a “Gentleman” knocking up the Nanny, this sounds as fraudulent as that Richard Simmons Sexual her-ass-meant charge

Frank

Log in to Reply
1. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland 3 days ago
  
  Interesting point from a right-winger who supports an un-American asshole adjudged to have committed sexual assault (also an adulterer, a liar, a cheat, a fraudster, and a deadbeat).
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Frank Drackman 3 days ago
    
    Jerry, if you were POTUS, as long as you supported Israel, didn’t threaten to take my 74 guns, or raise my taxes more than the near confiscatory marginal rate I already pay, I’d ignore your Buggery his-straw
    Are we Square?
    Now I’m taking the Sierra!
    
    Frank
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland 3 days ago
      
      Will you bump up another criterion after Israel ceases to exist?
      
      Log in to Reply
Syd Henderson 3 days ago

Wikipedia on West v. Barnes: “The Court ultimately decided the case on procedural grounds, holding that a writ of error (an appeal) must be issued within ten days by the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States as required by federal statute, and not by a lower court located closer to the plaintiff in Rhode Island. As a result of this case, Congress ultimately changed this procedure with the ninth section of the Process and Compensation Act of 1792, allowing circuit courts to issue these writs, thereby assisting citizens living far away from the capital.[3]”

So basically the decision became void after a year, which was much more convenient for plaintiffs.

Log in to Reply
1. captcrisis 3 days ago
  
  John Jay, the first Chief Justice, quit because it was such an inconsequential, boring job. It was two years before anyone brought them a case. And the only important decision issued during his tenure (Chisholm v. Georgia) quickly got abrogated by the Eleventh Amendment.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Mr. Bumble 3 days ago
    
    So what explains the exponential growth of cases seeking to be heard by the SC (not actually heard, since that number seems to have decreased of late)?
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. David Nieporent 3 days ago
      
      Well, the population of the U.S. is a bit bigger now than it was in 1789.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Mr. Bumble 3 days ago
        
        Does that alone explain it?
        Maybe the increased number of things that have been criminalized plays a part?
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        captcrisis 3 days ago
        
        Mostly it’s because of the 14A which gave federal issue jurisdiction to a wide range of disputes.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        John F. Carr 2 days ago
        
        It may be that most of the petitions are based on 14th Amendment incorporation. Free lawyer, free filing, why not try? If so, the distribution of granted petitions is much different. About half of the merits cases in the last term involved application of federal statutes or had the federal government as a party.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Noscitur a sociis 3 days ago
        
        Since criminal cases are a pretty small percentage of the docket, and most of them involve things that were illegal in 1789, I’m skeptical.
        
        Log in to Reply
  2. JoeFromtheBronx 3 days ago
    
    West v. Barnes was of some importance regarding the strictness of procedure and the ability of Congress to fix problems.
    
    On substance, it was important at the time since it was a debt dispute from Rhode Island, involving paper money, a controversial issue at the time.
    
    Some legal historians including the collection Seriatim: The Supreme Court Before John Marshall have tried to show the Jay and Ellsworth Courts had some importance, including to provide precedents of future cases.
    
    Log in to Reply
Ilya Snowman 3 days ago

THE argument for abortion, rendered clear.

NOTE that I didn’t say a right to abortion, or a right to choose.

Log in to Reply
The Margrave of Azilia 3 days ago

Wrong – President Obama was created in a lab on Planet X. Then he was disassembled and the parts shipped to Earth, where he was reconstructed. The one problem was that the ego-suppressor was damaged during shipment and had to be discarded, and they made use of the other parts to build him.

Log in to Reply
1. Mr. Bumble 3 days ago
  
  For a more Earthbound explanation see:
  Rising Star
  The Making of Barack Obama
  
  By David Garrow
  
  https://www.harpercollins.com/products/rising-star-david-garrow?variant=32206550794274
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. The Margrave of Azilia 3 days ago
    
    I bet you believe the moon landing was real, too.
    
    (/sarc)
    
    Log in to Reply
Frank Drackman 3 days ago

I had high hopes for Barry Hussein when he entered the Oval Orifice, member of a small minority persecuted for Centuries, battling against the prejudice and humiliation of trying to use a simple can opener,
But he did nothing to help the condition of People of Southpawness (POS)
Nuth-ink!
I don’t even think he’s a real lefty, did you see the way he threw like a girl?

Frank

Log in to Reply
Mr. Bumble 3 days ago

4:30 EDT and nothing posted by Somin. Can we be so lucky?

Log in to Reply
Frank Drackman 2 days ago

Josh Shapiro initially excited he’s made the “Short List” unfortunately it’s Representative Mullah Ill-hand Omar’s “Fat-twat” List.

Frank

Log in to Reply

Please log in to post comments

The Volokh Conspiracy

Today in Supreme Court History: August 4, 1961

Latest

Brickbat: School Days

'Too Much Law' Gives Prosecutors Enormous Power To Ruin People's Lives

Tim Walz Was a COVID-19 Tyrant

The NIH Deleted Comments Criticizing Animal Testing. A Federal Court Says That Violates the First Amendment.

How Chávez's Socialist Revolution Created the Venezuelan Dictator Nicólas Maduro

Recommended

Login Form

The Volokh Conspiracy

Latest

Brickbat: School Days

'Too Much Law' Gives Prosecutors Enormous Power To Ruin People's Lives

Tim Walz Was a COVID-19 Tyrant

The NIH Deleted Comments Criticizing Animal Testing. A Federal Court Says That Violates the First Amendment.

How Chávez's Socialist Revolution Created the Venezuelan Dictator Nicólas Maduro

Recommended

Go ad-free with Reason Plus.