The brethren
Cases and constitutional issues covered include abortion (Roe v. Wade); Vietnam War; Pentagon Papers; busing and school desegregation; executive privilege (Watergate Affair); death penalty; obscenity and pornography.
Stats for nerds
2recommend
4mentions
4people
2014–2022years
50% recommend50% neutral
Mentions per year
What Hacker News says
- Potter Stewart leaked large amounts of inside knowledge to Bob Woodward for the book 'The Brethren' (which is excellent BTW) though it didn't come out until his death. Abe Fortas eventually resigned under a cloud of partisanship and questionable financial decisions, but was not impeached. I'm sure there are others.
The honest truth is, though, that impeachment simply isn't going to happen. If a conservative leaked, essentially no Republican will vote to convict, and if a liberal essentially no Democrat. Impeachment is fundamentally a political process, the issue is partisan, and neither side has a sufficient supermajority. The facts are irrelevant, even if you think a leak is impeachable (which I don't, FWIW).
- An inside look into the operation of the Supreme Court is Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong's "The Brethren" [1], which covers the years 1969-1975.
There's a surprising amount of persuasion, negotiation, and coalition-building in order to find the votes to grant cert or hold a majority. It's interesting to see how the interpersonal dynamics among the Justices influence decisions.
An example of this is looking for unanimous decisions to send a strong message, whether it is for school desegregation:
> Since 1954, the Court had always been unanimous in school cases, its strong commands to desegregate joined by every member. For fifteen years, the Justices had agreed that it was essential to let the South know that not a single Justice believed in anything less than full desegregation.
or to reject Nixon's executive privilege claims in Watergate [2]:
> The Nixon challenge had to be met in the strongest way possible. An eight-signature opinion would do it [...] The country would benefit from such a show of strength now.
These decisions required significant reconciliation between the original ideas of the Justices. They don't operate in a vacuum of law study. The Muhammad Ali draft dodging case [3] also demonstrates this, where a 4-4 deadlock is turned into a unanimous 8-0 decision centered around a technical error which would not set precedent - the book describes Burger as considering that "it might be interpreted as a racist vote" if he dissented.
Like the link, I am also curious about why these delays have occurred, especially the most recent one. Wildly speculating, maybe the Court does not want to appear too politically activist in this moment; or maybe the members are trying to find consensus for their preferred outcome before granting cert at all. One other option, though I hope it's not this one:
> [Stevens] said, it was "pointless" to grant cert only to have the majority reaffirm its well-known view [regarding Liles v Oregon, an obscenity case].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brethren_(Woodward_and_Arm...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_v._United_States#Opinion_...
- Somewhat agreed - but I also think a lot of it was Nixon knew he was checkmated, and it was less propriety, and more just plain ol' shame and knowing he had no recourse. I imagine he was not alone in his deliberations, though, and that his advisers - particularly his legal advisers - agreed.
I recently read "The Brethren" by Bob Woodward and and Scott Armstrong (http://www.amazon.com/The-Brethren-Inside-Supreme-Court/dp/0...), about the Supreme Court from 1969 to 1975. Watergate is a major episode, and it shows that Nixon knew that if they lost their Supreme Court appeal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon), there was little recourse left.
- And, in general, the Justices don't even write the opinions. According to the book 'The Brethren' by Bob Woodward, the bulk of the text of opinions are often written by clerks and reviewed by their supervising Justice.
