Taking Great Cases: Lessons from the Rosenberg Case

IF 2.4 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW Vanderbilt Law Review Pub Date : 2009-10-12 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.1487620
Brad Snyder
{"title":"Taking Great Cases: Lessons from the Rosenberg Case","authors":"Brad Snyder","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1487620","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The most watched case of the 1952 Supreme Court Term was not Brown v. Board of Education, but the case of convicted atomic spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Brown and Rosenberg demonstrate the Court's different approaches toward taking \"great cases.\" The Brown Court is often criticized for having done too much; the Rosenberg Court is criticized for not having done enough. Rosenberg divided the country and divided the Court, which repeatedly refused to take the case. Instead, Justice Douglas granted a last-minute stay of execution about whether they had been tried under the wrong federal statute. The Court quickly vacated the stay, and the Rosenbergs were executed the next day. Rosenberg was a Bush v. Gore moment that alienated people who held the Court in high institutional regard. Based on newly discovered documents and interviews with key participants, this Article explains why the Court refused to grant certiorari in the one of the most famous spy cases in American history. It reorients legal scholarship about the case away from Douglas's stay and toward contemporaneous allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and perjury. And it argues that just because some great cases might make bad law does not mean the Court should refuse to take them. It explains the taking great cases theory, applies it to Rosenberg and Bush v. Gore, and contends that, especially in cases about separation of powers and minority rights, the Court should err on the side of granting certiorari in cases of great public interest.","PeriodicalId":47503,"journal":{"name":"Vanderbilt Law Review","volume":"437 1","pages":"883"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2009-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vanderbilt Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1487620","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The most watched case of the 1952 Supreme Court Term was not Brown v. Board of Education, but the case of convicted atomic spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Brown and Rosenberg demonstrate the Court's different approaches toward taking "great cases." The Brown Court is often criticized for having done too much; the Rosenberg Court is criticized for not having done enough. Rosenberg divided the country and divided the Court, which repeatedly refused to take the case. Instead, Justice Douglas granted a last-minute stay of execution about whether they had been tried under the wrong federal statute. The Court quickly vacated the stay, and the Rosenbergs were executed the next day. Rosenberg was a Bush v. Gore moment that alienated people who held the Court in high institutional regard. Based on newly discovered documents and interviews with key participants, this Article explains why the Court refused to grant certiorari in the one of the most famous spy cases in American history. It reorients legal scholarship about the case away from Douglas's stay and toward contemporaneous allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and perjury. And it argues that just because some great cases might make bad law does not mean the Court should refuse to take them. It explains the taking great cases theory, applies it to Rosenberg and Bush v. Gore, and contends that, especially in cases about separation of powers and minority rights, the Court should err on the side of granting certiorari in cases of great public interest.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从罗森博格案中吸取教训
1952年最高法院最受关注的案件不是布朗诉教育委员会案,而是被定罪的原子间谍朱利叶斯和埃塞尔罗森伯格案。布朗和罗森博格展示了最高法院处理“重大案件”的不同方法。布朗法院经常被批评做得太多;罗森博格法庭被批评做得不够。罗森博格分裂了国家,分裂了最高法院,最高法院一再拒绝受理此案。相反,道格拉斯法官在最后一刻批准暂缓执行死刑,以确定他们是否在错误的联邦法规下受审。最高法院很快撤销了暂缓判决,罗森伯格夫妇于第二天被处决。罗森博格是布什诉戈尔的时刻,疏远了那些在制度上高度重视最高法院的人。根据新发现的文件和对主要参与者的采访,本文解释了为什么法院拒绝在美国历史上最著名的间谍案之一中批准调卷令。它将关于此案的法律研究从道格拉斯的停留转向了当时对检察官不当行为和伪证的指控。它认为,仅仅因为一些伟大的案件可能会制定出糟糕的法律,并不意味着最高法院应该拒绝受理这些案件。它解释了接受重大案件理论,并将其应用于罗森伯格和布什诉戈尔案,并辩称,特别是在涉及三权分立和少数人权利的案件中,法院应该在涉及重大公共利益的案件中错误地批准调卷令。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc is an online forum designed to advance scholarly discussion. En Banc offers professors, practitioners, students, and others an opportunity to respond to articles printed in the Vanderbilt Law Review. En Banc permits extended discussion of our articles in a way that maintains academic integrity and provides authors with a quicker approach to publication. When reexamining a case “en banc” an appellate court operates at its highest level, with all judges present and participating “on the bench.” We chose the name “En Banc” to capture this spirit of focused review and provide a forum for further dialogue where all can be present and participate.
期刊最新文献
Beyond Wickedness: Managing Complex Systems and Climate Change Formal Justice and Judicial Precedent Rights, Wrongs, and Recourse in the Law of Torts Discovery Cost Allocation, Due Process, and the Constitution's Role in Civil Litigation Judging Law in Election Cases
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1