I find books that use one incident, including a legal case (there are multiple series covering many of them), to provide a center to discuss a range of issues and the history/aftermath respecting them a helpful approach. For instance, to take the recent anniversary, a book on Roe v. Wade will not merely provide a case study of the litigants and the history of the litigation, but a thumbnail sketch of history behind abortion law and so forth.
More of this thing, including for a few current cases of particular note to the public, would be helpful. The article can include pictures of the participants, a chart providing context of the history of the issues etc. The story might also be written after the fact, providing information on what happened since the opinion was handled down. For instance, multiple criminal cases decide federal constitutional law issues, but the ultimate effect for the litigants is unclear. State law might in fact result in ultimate victories, for example, even after a loss in federal court.
A somewhat related area of literature involves providing alternative perspectives on legal cases. This includes discussion of little known cases, perhaps ones that were decided by lower courts only that had intriguing possibilities. For instance, a retrospective on Griswold included an article on a forgotten companion case to an earlier ruling, a case that could have highlighted the importance of contraceptives to autonomy in marriage, particularly for women. I would have tweaked a comment in that article regarding there not being a health concern as compared to Poe v. Ullman where the wife had a medical condition that made pregnancy dangerous. All pregnancies in some fashion have health issues and beyond the obvious effects on the woman, it affects the couple as a whole.
There are also attempts to write alternative opinions, including collections covering Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Bd. The subject book, the introduction can be read online, is of this caliber. After two introductory chapters, the second particularly academic in character, there are twenty-five alternative opinions (mainly majority, but also concurrences and dissents). The link provides a full list, but after Bradwell (women's right to be a lawyer) and Muller (hours limit law upheld for women), they all involve modern day cases from Griswold on. Each are introduced by an often tedious discussion and then we get the feminist judgment, the "justice" for some reason given her (in nearly all cases) full name, when practice is to only include the last name ("Justice Ginsburg," not "Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg").
I was overall disappointed with the results though the actual opinions are a mixed bag. The alternative opinion of Rostker v. Goldberg (military draft) was one of the best while a few seemed a tad redundant (Planned Parenthood v. Casey amounted to an adoption of Justice Blackmun's opinion). One case involving sexual abuse of a student eloquently voiced her experience, including bluntly calling it "rape." Griswold was an unrealistic 21st Century sexual autonomy judgment when a more narrow ruling very well could have been feminist in character as well with an opening for more as events develop. See, e.g., the article cited. And, though appreciate Harris v. McRae* taking the establishment argument seriously, it too blithely rejected the free exercise one. Generally, perhaps for space reasons or a desire to promote ideal arguments as compared to more realistic time specific judgments [each opinion only used materials available at the time but this should also include realistic results], the opinions seemed a bit too conclusionary at times too.
One book -- couldn't get into it -- I recently read examined how scientists felt about religion and spirituality. The book was careful to allow such terms to have an open-ended character, people have different opinions about them, reflecting the reality of the situation. "Feminism" is somewhat of this character. At any rate, the idea behind the book is interesting and the result was of some value. One can imagine other perspectives that would provide interesting analysis regarding various cases, such as different religious or cultural viewpoints.
This book was at best a mixed bag but at least there was so much to pick from that there was a good chance of some interest.
---
* The opinion argues that there is no right to have your religious beliefs sponsored by the state. The introduction argued that this also would open up dangerous avenues as seen by current disputes where discrimination is allowed if motivated by religious belief.
But, there is also a right not to be deprived of general benefits selectively for specific religious beliefs. This to me is what happens when you only fund childbirth and not abortion (except in narrow cases) for what amounts to at least quasi-religious reasons. This has an express free exercise flavor in part because religious freedom of action doesn't just apply to conservatives.
This also reflects an at time "what about" character that popped up at times. What about Sherbert v. Verner (cited once in passing in another case via a string cite) in which denial of unemployment benefits was problematic when a person was unemployed "for cause" arising from religious belief? The individualized provision of benefits that does not directly harm third parties (a blanket benefit only for religious reasons rejected) to me logically applies in the health benefit context.
Finally, other than a passing citation in a footnote, Adkins v. Children's Hospital is ignored. This is a rare case that does have feminist language, even though denial of minimum wage benefits (to women alone) is not a result a lot support. But, one of the opinions here dissents from giving special rights to women regarding hours laws. So, why not at least reference [as a false start at least] an opinion [in 1923!] with language like this:
More of this thing, including for a few current cases of particular note to the public, would be helpful. The article can include pictures of the participants, a chart providing context of the history of the issues etc. The story might also be written after the fact, providing information on what happened since the opinion was handled down. For instance, multiple criminal cases decide federal constitutional law issues, but the ultimate effect for the litigants is unclear. State law might in fact result in ultimate victories, for example, even after a loss in federal court.
A somewhat related area of literature involves providing alternative perspectives on legal cases. This includes discussion of little known cases, perhaps ones that were decided by lower courts only that had intriguing possibilities. For instance, a retrospective on Griswold included an article on a forgotten companion case to an earlier ruling, a case that could have highlighted the importance of contraceptives to autonomy in marriage, particularly for women. I would have tweaked a comment in that article regarding there not being a health concern as compared to Poe v. Ullman where the wife had a medical condition that made pregnancy dangerous. All pregnancies in some fashion have health issues and beyond the obvious effects on the woman, it affects the couple as a whole.
There are also attempts to write alternative opinions, including collections covering Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Bd. The subject book, the introduction can be read online, is of this caliber. After two introductory chapters, the second particularly academic in character, there are twenty-five alternative opinions (mainly majority, but also concurrences and dissents). The link provides a full list, but after Bradwell (women's right to be a lawyer) and Muller (hours limit law upheld for women), they all involve modern day cases from Griswold on. Each are introduced by an often tedious discussion and then we get the feminist judgment, the "justice" for some reason given her (in nearly all cases) full name, when practice is to only include the last name ("Justice Ginsburg," not "Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg").
I was overall disappointed with the results though the actual opinions are a mixed bag. The alternative opinion of Rostker v. Goldberg (military draft) was one of the best while a few seemed a tad redundant (Planned Parenthood v. Casey amounted to an adoption of Justice Blackmun's opinion). One case involving sexual abuse of a student eloquently voiced her experience, including bluntly calling it "rape." Griswold was an unrealistic 21st Century sexual autonomy judgment when a more narrow ruling very well could have been feminist in character as well with an opening for more as events develop. See, e.g., the article cited. And, though appreciate Harris v. McRae* taking the establishment argument seriously, it too blithely rejected the free exercise one. Generally, perhaps for space reasons or a desire to promote ideal arguments as compared to more realistic time specific judgments [each opinion only used materials available at the time but this should also include realistic results], the opinions seemed a bit too conclusionary at times too.
One book -- couldn't get into it -- I recently read examined how scientists felt about religion and spirituality. The book was careful to allow such terms to have an open-ended character, people have different opinions about them, reflecting the reality of the situation. "Feminism" is somewhat of this character. At any rate, the idea behind the book is interesting and the result was of some value. One can imagine other perspectives that would provide interesting analysis regarding various cases, such as different religious or cultural viewpoints.
This book was at best a mixed bag but at least there was so much to pick from that there was a good chance of some interest.
---
* The opinion argues that there is no right to have your religious beliefs sponsored by the state. The introduction argued that this also would open up dangerous avenues as seen by current disputes where discrimination is allowed if motivated by religious belief.
But, there is also a right not to be deprived of general benefits selectively for specific religious beliefs. This to me is what happens when you only fund childbirth and not abortion (except in narrow cases) for what amounts to at least quasi-religious reasons. This has an express free exercise flavor in part because religious freedom of action doesn't just apply to conservatives.
This also reflects an at time "what about" character that popped up at times. What about Sherbert v. Verner (cited once in passing in another case via a string cite) in which denial of unemployment benefits was problematic when a person was unemployed "for cause" arising from religious belief? The individualized provision of benefits that does not directly harm third parties (a blanket benefit only for religious reasons rejected) to me logically applies in the health benefit context.
Finally, other than a passing citation in a footnote, Adkins v. Children's Hospital is ignored. This is a rare case that does have feminist language, even though denial of minimum wage benefits (to women alone) is not a result a lot support. But, one of the opinions here dissents from giving special rights to women regarding hours laws. So, why not at least reference [as a false start at least] an opinion [in 1923!] with language like this:
No distinction can be made between women who work for others and those who do not; nor is there ground for distinction between women and men, for, certainly, if women require a minimum wage to preserve their morals men require it to preserve their honesty.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!