Advertisement
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: The Fight for Free Speech Ian Rosenberg, 2021-02-09 A user’s guide to understanding contemporary free speech issues in the United States Americans today are confronted by a barrage of questions relating to their free speech freedoms. What are libel laws, and do they need to be changed to stop the press from lying? Does Colin Kaepernick have the right to take a knee? Can Saturday Night Live be punished for parody? While citizens are grappling with these questions, they generally have nowhere to turn to learn about the extent of their First Amendment rights. The Fight for Free Speech answers this call with an accessible, engaging user’s guide to free speech. Media lawyer Ian Rosenberg distills the spectrum of free speech law down to ten critical issues. Each chapter in this book focuses on a contemporary free speech question—from student walkouts for gun safety to Samantha Bee’s expletives, from Nazis marching in Charlottesville to the muting of adult film star Stormy Daniels— and then identifies, unpacks, and explains the key Supreme Court case that provides the answers. Together these fascinating stories create a practical framework for understanding where our free speech protections originated and how they can develop in the future. As people on all sides of the political spectrum are demanding their right to speak and be heard, The Fight for Free Speech is a handbook for combating authoritarianism, protecting our democracy, and bringing an understanding of free speech law to all. |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: Collin V. Smith , 1978 |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: The Cost of Free Speech A. Levin, 2010-09-29 The distinctly contemporary proliferation of pornography and hate speech poses a challenge to liberalism's traditional ideal of a 'marketplace of ideas' facilitated by state neutrality about the content of speech. This new study argues that the liberal state ought to depart from neutrality to meet this challenge. |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: Transforming Free Speech Mark A. Graber, 2023-11-15 Contemporary civil libertarians claim that their works preserve a worthy American tradition of defending free-speech rights dating back to the framing of the First Amendment. Transforming Free Speech challenges the worthiness, and indeed the very existence of one uninterrupted libertarian tradition. Mark A. Graber asserts that in the past, broader political visions inspired libertarian interpretations of the First Amendment. In reexamining the philosophical and jurisprudential foundations of the defense of expression rights from the Civil War to the present, he exposes the monolithic free-speech tradition as a myth. Instead of one conception of the system of free expression, two emerge: the conservative libertarian tradition that dominated discourse from the Civil War until World War I, and the civil libertarian tradition that dominates later twentieth-century argument. The essence of the current perception of the American free-speech tradition derives from the writings of Zechariah Chafee, Jr. (1885-1957), the progressive jurist most responsible for the modern interpretation of the First Amendment. His interpretation, however, deliberately obscured earlier libertarian arguments linking liberty of speech with liberty of property. Moreover, Chafee stunted the development of a more radical interpretation of expression rights that would give citizens the resources and independence necessary for the effective exercise of free speech. Instead, Chafee maintained that the right to political and social commentary could be protected independent of material inequalities that might restrict access to the marketplace of ideas. His influence enfeebled expression rights in a world where their exercise depends increasingly on economic power. Untangling the libertarian legacy, Graber points out the disjunction in the libertarian tradition to show that free-speech rights, having once been transformed, can be transformed again. Well-conceived and original in perspective, Transforming Free Speech will interest political theorists, students of government, and anyone interested in the origins of the free-speech tradition in the United States. Contemporary civil libertarians claim that their works preserve a worthy American tradition of defending free-speech rights dating back to the framing of the First Amendment. Transforming Free Speech challenges the worthiness, and indeed the very e |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: Liars Cass R. Sunstein, 2021-02-04 A powerful analysis of why lies and falsehoods spread so rapidly now, and how we can reform our laws and policies regarding speech to alleviate the problem. Lying has been with us from time immemorial. Yet today is different-and in many respects worse. All over the world, people are circulating damaging lies, and these falsehoods are amplified as never before through powerful social media platforms that reach billions. Liars are saying that COVID-19 is a hoax. They are claiming that vaccines cause autism. They are lying about public officials and about people who aspire to high office. They are lying about their friends and neighbors. They are trying to sell products on the basis of untruths. Unfriendly governments, including Russia, are circulating lies in order to destabilize other nations, including the United Kingdom and the United States. In the face of those problems, the renowned legal scholar Cass Sunstein probes the fundamental question of how we can deter lies while also protecting freedom of speech. To be sure, we cannot eliminate lying, nor should we try to do so. Sunstein shows why free societies must generally allow falsehoods and lies, which cannot and should not be excised from democratic debate. A main reason is that we cannot trust governments to make unbiased judgments about what counts as fake news. However, governments should have the power to regulate specific kinds of falsehoods: those that genuinely endanger health, safety, and the capacity of the public to govern itself. Sunstein also suggests that private institutions, such as Facebook and Twitter, have a great deal of room to stop the spread of falsehoods, and they should be exercising their authority far more than they are now doing. As Sunstein contends, we are allowing far too many lies, including those that both threaten public health and undermine the foundations of democracy itself. |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: The Harm in Hate Speech Jeremy Waldron, 2014-10-06 Every liberal democracy has laws or codes against hate speech—except the United States. For constitutionalists, regulation of hate speech violates the First Amendment and damages a free society. Against this absolutist view, Jeremy Waldron argues powerfully that hate speech should be regulated as part of our commitment to human dignity and to inclusion and respect for members of vulnerable minorities. Causing offense—by depicting a religious leader as a terrorist in a newspaper cartoon, for example—is not the same as launching a libelous attack on a group’s dignity, according to Waldron, and it lies outside the reach of law. But defamation of a minority group, through hate speech, undermines a public good that can and should be protected: the basic assurance of inclusion in society for all members. A social environment polluted by anti-gay leaflets, Nazi banners, and burning crosses sends an implicit message to the targets of such hatred: your security is uncertain and you can expect to face humiliation and discrimination when you leave your home. Free-speech advocates boast of despising what racists say but defending to the death their right to say it. Waldron finds this emphasis on intellectual resilience misguided and points instead to the threat hate speech poses to the lives, dignity, and reputations of minority members. Finding support for his view among philosophers of the Enlightenment, Waldron asks us to move beyond knee-jerk American exceptionalism in our debates over the serious consequences of hateful speech. |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: Free Speech in the United States Zechariah Chafee (Jr.), 2001 A rewritten and expanded version of his seminal Freedom of Speech (1920) that established modern First Amendment theory, this work became a foremost text of U.S. libertarian thought. This leading treatise on civil liberties influenced the jurisprudence of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. and Louis Brandeis. |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: What Snowflakes Get Right Ulrich Baer, 2019 In What 'Snowflakes' Get Right About Free Speech, Ulrich Baer draws on jurisprudence, philosophical texts, and his long experience as a senior university administrator to show that debates surrounding free speech on university campuses are not about the feelings of offended students but about our democracy's commitment to equality and the university's critical role as an arbiter of truth in society. |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: Uncertain Justice Laurence Tribe, Joshua Matz, 2014-06-03 An assessment of how the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts is significantly influencing the nation's laws and reinterpreting the Constitution includes in-depth analysis of recent rulings and their implications. |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: The Fourth Estate and the Constitution Lucas A. Powe, 1992-10-02 In 1964 the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in New York Times v. Sullivan guaranteeing constitutional protection for caustic criticism of public officials, thus forging the modern law of freedom of the press. Since then, the Court has decided case after case affecting the rights and restrictions of the press, yet little has ben written about these developments as they pertain to the Fourth Estate. Lucas Powe's essential book now fills this gap. Lucas A. Powe, Jr., a legal scholar specializing in media and the law, goes back to the framing of the First Amendment and chronicles the two main traditions of interpreting freedom of the press to illuminate the issues that today ignite controversy: How can a balance be achieved among reputation, uninhibited discussion, and media power? Under what circumstance can the government seek to protect national security by enjoining the press rather than attempting the difficult task of convincing a jury that publication was a criminal offense? What rights can the press properly claim to protect confidential sources or to demand access to information otherwise barred to the public? And, as the media grow larger and larger, can the government attempt to limit their power by limiting their size? Writing for the concerned layperson and student of both journalism and jurisprudence, Powe synthesizes law, history, and theory to explain and justify full protection of the editorial choices of the press. The Fourth Estate and the Constitution not only captures the sweep of history of Supreme Court decisions on the press, but also provides a timely restatement of the traditional view of freedom of the press at a time when liberty is increasingly called into question. |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: Free Speech and Liberal Education Cato Institute, 2020-02-07 Free Speech and Liberal Education examines the empirical, philosophical, and remedial dimensions of the battle over free speech and academic freedom in American higher education today. |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: Unfree Speech Samantha Sellinger, 2009-02-09 At a time when campaign finance reform is widely viewed as synonymous with cleaning up Washington and promoting political equality, Bradley Smith, a nationally recognized expert on campaign finance reform, argues that all restriction on campaign giving should be eliminated. In Unfree Speech, he presents a bold, convincing argument for the repeal of laws that regulate political spending and contributions, contending that they violate the right to free speech and ultimately diminish citizens' power. Smith demonstrates that these laws, which often force ordinary people making modest contributions of cash or labor to register with the Federal Election Commission or various state agencies, fail to accomplish their stated objectives. In fact, they have worked to entrench incumbents in office, deaden campaign discourse, burden grassroots political activity with needless regulation, and distance Americans from an increasingly professional, detached political class. Rather than attempting to plug loopholes in campaign finance law or instituting taxpayer-financed campaigns, Smith proposes a return to core First Amendment values of free speech and an unfettered right to engage in political activity. Smith finds that campaign contributions have little corrupting effect on the legislature and shows that an unrestrained system of contributions and spending actually enhances equality. More money, not less, is needed in the political system, Smith concludes. Unfree Speech draws upon constitutional law and historical research to explain why campaign finance regulation is doomed and to illustrate the potentially drastic costs of efforts to make it succeed. Whatever one thinks about the impact of money on electoral politics, no one should take a final stand without reading Smith's controversial and important arguments. |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: The Oxford Handbook of Freedom of Speech Adrienne Stone, Frederick Schauer, 2021-01-26 Freedom of speech is central to the liberal democratic tradition. It touches on every aspect of our social and political system and receives explicit and implicit protection in every modern democratic constitution. It is frequently referred to in public discourse and has inspired a wealth of legal and philosophical literature. The liberty to speak freely is often questioned; what is the relationship between this freedom and other rights and values, how far does this freedom extend, and how is it applied to contemporary challenges? The Oxford Handbook on Freedom of Speech seeks to answer these and other pressing questions. It provides a critical analysis of the foundations, rationales, and ideas that underpin freedom of speech as a political idea, and as a principle of positive constitutional law. In doing so, it examines freedom of speech in a variety of national and supra-national settings from an international perspective. Compiled by a team of renowned experts in the field, this handbook features original essays by leading scholars and theorists exploring the history, legal framework and controversies surrounding this tennet of the democratic constitution. |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: The Revolution in Freedoms of Press and Speech Wendell Bird, Wendell R. Bird, 2020 This book discusses the revolutionary broadening of concepts of freedom of press and freedom of speech in Great Britain and in America in the late eighteenth century, in the period that produced state declarations of rights and then the First Amendment and Fox's Libel Act. The conventional view of the history of freedoms of press and speech is that the common law since antiquity defined those freedoms narrowly, and that Sir William Blackstone in 1769, and Lord Chief Justice Mansfield in 1770, faithfully summarized the common law in giving a very narrow definition of those freedoms as mere liberty from prior restraint and not liberty from punishment after something was printed or spoken. This book proposes, to the contrary, that Blackstone carefully selected the narrowest definition that had been suggested in popular essays in the prior seventy years, in order to oppose the growing claims for much broader protections of press and speech. Blackstone misdescribed his summary as an accepted common law definition, which in fact did not exist. A year later, Mansfield inserted a similar definition into the common law for the first time, also misdescribing it as a long-accepted definition, and soon misdescribed the unique rules for prosecuting sedition as having an equally ancient pedigree. Blackstone and Mansfield were not declaring the law as it had long been, but were leading a counter-revolution about the breadth of freedoms of press and speech, and cloaking it as a summary of a narrow common law doctrine that in fact was nonexistent. That conflict of revolutionary view and counter-revolutionary view continues today. For over a century, a neo-Blackstonian view has been dominant, or at least very influential, among historians. Contrary to those narrow claims, this book concludes that the broad understanding of freedoms of press and speech was the dominant context of the First Amendment and of Fox's Libel Act, and that it enjoyed greater historical support. |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: Freedom of Speech and Press Henry Cohen, 2010-02 This report provides an overview of the major exceptions to the First Amendment ¿ of the ways that the Supreme Court has interpreted the guarantee of freedom of speech and press to provide no protection or only limited protection for some types of speech. Contents: Intro.; Obscenity; Child Pornography; Content-Based Restrictions; Non-Content-Based Restrictions; Prior Restraint; Commercial Speech; Defamation; Speech Harmful to Children; Children¿s First Amend. Rights; Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions; Incidental Restrictions; Symbolic Speech; Compelled Speech; Radio and TV; Freedom of Speech and Gov¿t. Funding; Free Speech Rights of Gov¿t. Employees and Gov¿t. Contractors; and Public Forum Doctrine. |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con Andrew Sullivan, 2004-05-11 With same-sex marriage igniting a firestorm of controversy in the press and in the courts, in legislative chambers and in living rooms, Andrew Sullivan, a pioneering voice in the debate, has brought together two thousand years of argument in an anthology of historic inclusiveness and evenhandedness. Among the selections included here: - The 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling in support of same-sex marriage - Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion and Justice Scalia’s dissent in the 2003 landmark Supreme Court decision striking down anti-sodomy laws - President George W. Bush’s call for a Federal Marriage Amendment - John Kerry’s Senate speech urging defeat of the Defense of Marriage Act - Harvard historian Nancy F. Cott's testimony before the Vermont House Judiciary Committee - Reverend Peter J. Gomes on the distinction between civil and religious marriage - Stanley Kurtz on the politics of gay marriage - Evan Wolfson on the popularity of the right to marry among lesbians and gay men - New York Times op-ed columnist David Brooks’ conservative case for same-sex marriage - Excerpts from Genesis, Leviticus, and other essential biblical texts - Aristophanes’s classic theory of same-sex love, from Plato’s Symposium - Hannah Arendt on marriage as a fundamental right - Camille Paglia’s skepticism Representing the full range of perspectives and the most cogent and arresting arguments, Same-Sex Marriage is essential to a balanced understanding of the most pressing cultural question we face today. |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: So Much for Democracy United States Supreme Court, 2009-10 This is the complete printed text of the opinions in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court decision that President Obama specifically singled out for sharp criticism in the 2010 State of the Union address because of the wide latitude that it gives to corporations to flood political campaigns with money. There's no substitute for reading the full text of vital documents. This is the most readable format for doing so. |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: The Associated Press V. National Labor Relations Board , 1937 |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: SLAPPs George William Pring, Penelope Canan, 1996 In a democracy that for over 200 years has prided itself on public participation and citizen involvement in government, thousands have been and will be the targets of multi-million-dollar lawsuits. They will be sued for such all-American activities as circulating a petition, writing a letter to the editor, testifying at a public hearing, reporting violations of the law, filing an official complaint, lobbying for legislation, or otherwise communicating their views. Such cases, named Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, with their apropos acronym, SLAPPs, are a shocking abuse of one of our most basic political rights--the Right to Petition. So extensive and grievous is the phenomenon that Justice Nicholas Colabella remarked, Short of a gun to the head, a greater threat to First Amendment expression can scarcely be imagined. George W. Pring and Penelope Canan explore the full range of SLAPP stories in this first study of SLAPPs-- retaliatory lawsuits by real estate developers; teachers; police; politicians; opponents of civil rights; consumers' rights; women's rights; and many others. This comprehensive book examines what happens to the targets of SLAPPs and what is happening to public participation in American politics. Addressing the ultimate dilemma--what can be done to turn the tables and fight back--Pring and Canan offer concrete, well-supported, balanced solutions for preventing, managing, and curing SLAPPs at all levels of government. Author note: George W. Pring is Professor of Law at the University of Denver. Penelope Canan is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Denver. They are the co-directors of the Political Litigation Project at the University of Denver. |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: Virtually Normal Andrew Sullivan, 2011-05-04 An unprecedented work from the brilliant young editor of The New Republic--who is celebrated also as an incisive defender of the equality of homosexuals--Virtually Normal is an impassioned, reasoned, subtle, and uncompromising political and moral treatise that will set the terms of the homosexuality debate for the foreseeable future. |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: Criminal Dissent Wendell Bird, 2020-01-07 In the first complete account of prosecutions under the Alien and Sedition Acts, dozens of previously unknown cases come to light, revealing the lengths to which the John Adams administration went in order to criminalize dissent. The campaign to prosecute dissenting Americans under the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 ignited the first battle over the Bill of Rights. Fearing destructive criticism and “domestic treachery” by Republicans, the administration of John Adams led a determined effort to safeguard the young republic by suppressing the opposition. The acts gave the president unlimited discretion to deport noncitizens and made it a crime to criticize the president, Congress, or the federal government. In this definitive account, Wendell Bird goes back to the original federal court records and the papers of Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and finds that the administration’s zeal was far greater than historians have recognized. Indeed, there were twice as many prosecutions and planned deportations as previously believed. The government went after local politicians, raisers of liberty poles, and even tavern drunks but most often targeted Republican newspaper editors, including Benjamin Franklin’s grandson. Those found guilty were sent to prison or fined and sometimes forced to sell their property to survive. The Federalists’ support of laws to prosecute political opponents and opposition newspapers ultimately contributed to the collapse of the party and left a large stain on their record. The Alien and Sedition Acts launched a foundational debate on press freedom, freedom of speech, and the legitimacy of opposition politics. The result was widespread revulsion over the government’s attempt to deprive Americans of their hard-won liberties. Criminal Dissent is a potent reminder of just how fundamental those rights are to a stable democracy. |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: Hearings United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Appropriations, 1969 |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: Hearings, Reports and Prints of the Senate Committee on Appropriations United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Appropriations, 1968 |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: Independent Offices and Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1969 United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Appropriations, 1968 |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: The Pacific Reporter , 1910 |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: Democracy and Equality Geoffrey R. Stone, David A. Strauss, 2020 Brown v. Board of Education (1954) -- Mapp v. Ohio (1961) -- Engel v. Vitale (1962) -- Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) -- New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) -- Reynolds v. Sims (1964) -- Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) -- Miranda v. Arizona (1966) -- Loving v. Virginia (1967) -- Katz v. United States (1967) -- Shapiro v. Thompson (1968) -- Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists , 1993-11 The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is the premier public resource on scientific and technological developments that impact global security. Founded by Manhattan Project Scientists, the Bulletin's iconic Doomsday Clock stimulates solutions for a safer world. |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: Election Case Law 97 James A. Palmer, 1997 A summary of judicial precedent on election issues other than campaign financing--Cover. |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: Parliamentary Debates New South Wales. Parliament, 1908 |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: Controversial Issues in Presidential Selection Gary L. Rose, 1991-01-01 This book presents an examination of ten major and controversial issues directly affecting the American presidential selection process. These issues are addressed in a point-counterpoint format to promote lively discussion and scholarly debate. The Introduction argues that the modern process of presidential selection has evolved to a point of crisis and that collapse appears imminent, while the Conclusion endorses a proposal that may serve as the first step toward improving the process. The entire process of presidential selection is included here: the nominating phase, the convention phase, and the general election phase. |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: 107-1 Hearing: Constitutional Issues Raised By Recent Campaign Finance Legislation Restricting Freedom Of Speech, Serial No. 20, June 12, 2001 , 2001 |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: William Lyon Mackenzie William Lesueur, McKillop, 1979-05-15 This edition marks the first appearance of this controversial biography in its original form, seventy years after its completion. |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: The Enigma of Felix Frankfurter H. N. Hirsch, 2014-07-06 A recognized, fascinating, and much-cited classic of judicial biography and Supreme Court insight is now available in a quality ebook edition—featuring active contents, linked notes, proper formatting, and a fully-linked Index. Felix Frankfurter was perhaps the most influential jurist of the 20th century—and one of the most complex men ever to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. Mysteries and apparent contradictions abound. A vibrant and charming friend to many, why are his diaries so full of vitriol against judicial colleagues, especially Douglas and Black? An active Zionist, why did he so zealously enjoy the company of Boston Brahmins, whose snobbery he detested? Most puzzling of all: why did someone known before his appointment to the Court as a civil libertarian—even a radical—become our most famous and persistent advocate for austere judicial restraint? In answering these and other questions, this pathbreaking biography of Frankfurter explores the personality of the man as a key to understanding the Justice. Harry Hirsch sees in Frankfurter's fascinating and complex persona a clue to the biggest mystery of all: the contrast between the brilliant and ambitious young immigrant rising by his intellect and charm to leadership in U.S. academic and political life; and the judge, equally brilliant, but increasingly isolated, embittered, and ineffective. Hirsch's well-written book ... dispels the contradictory image that has long mystified students of Felix Frankfurter. His portrait is unvarnished, yet scrupulously fair. Revealed is a consummate manipulator of public men and policy. No future biographer can safely ignore the brilliant biographical work. — Alpheus Thomas Mason, Princeton University Hirsch's carefully constructed and supported psychological analysis of Justice Frankfurter gives us an exciting look at the inner workings of the Supreme Court. — Martin Shapiro, University of California, Berkeley A new addition to the Legal History & Biography Series from Quid Pro Books. This is an authorized and unabridged digital republication of the acclaimed book first published by Basic Books. |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: Election Case Law , 1997 A summary of judicial precedent on election issues other than campaign financing--Cover. |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: The Free Flow of Information: Media law and freedom of expression in the United States Michael Edward Lenert, 2014-07-23 The primary objectives of this casebook are: (1) to outline the fundamental legal decisions that constitute the framework of media law, (2) to develop the skills to apply this framework to contemporary controversies in media law and ethics (3) to give you practical guidance how to stay out of legal trouble in your career in the media The casebook requires the close reading of original legal texts and decisions concerning defamation, privacy, intellectual property and other selected topics. |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: A Republic, If You Can Keep It Neil Gorsuch, 2019-09-10 NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER • Justice Neil Gorsuch reflects on his journey to the Supreme Court, the role of the judge under our Constitution, and the vital responsibility of each American to keep our republic strong. As Benjamin Franklin left the Constitutional Convention, he was reportedly asked what kind of government the founders would propose. He replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” In this book, Justice Neil Gorsuch shares personal reflections, speeches, and essays that focus on the remarkable gift the framers left us in the Constitution. Justice Gorsuch draws on his thirty-year career as a lawyer, teacher, judge, and justice to explore essential aspects our Constitution, its separation of powers, and the liberties it is designed to protect. He discusses the role of the judge in our constitutional order, and why he believes that originalism and textualism are the surest guides to interpreting our nation’s founding documents and protecting our freedoms. He explains, too, the importance of affordable access to the courts in realizing the promise of equal justice under law—while highlighting some of the challenges we face on this front today. Along the way, Justice Gorsuch reveals some of the events that have shaped his life and outlook, from his upbringing in Colorado to his Supreme Court confirmation process. And he emphasizes the pivotal roles of civic education, civil discourse, and mutual respect in maintaining a healthy republic. A Republic, If You Can Keep It offers compelling insights into Justice Gorsuch’s faith in America and its founding documents, his thoughts on our Constitution’s design and the judge’s place within it, and his beliefs about the responsibility each of us shares to sustain our distinctive republic of, by, and for “We the People.” |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: Confirmation Hearing on Federal Appointments United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary, 2003 |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: Lives of the Law Tom Bingham, 2011-09-01 Tom Bingham (1933-2010) was the 'greatest judge of our time' (The Guardian), a towering figure in modern British public life who championed the rule of law and human rights inside and outside the courtroom. Lives of the Law collects Bingham's most important later writings, in which he brings his distinctive, engaging style to tell the story of the diverse lives of the law: its life in government, in business, and in human wrongdoing. Following on from The Business of Judging (2000), the papers collected here tackle some of the major debates in British public life over the last decade, from reforming the constitution to the growth of human rights law. They offer Bingham's distinctive insight on issues such as the role of the judiciary in a democracy, the implementation of the Human Rights Act, and the development of the rule of law, in the UK and internationally. Written in the accessible style that made The Rule of Law (2010) a popular success, the book will be essential reading for all those working in law, and an engaging inroad to understanding modern constitutional and legal debates for the general reader. |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders United States. National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, 1968 Referred to as the Kerner Commission Report. |
| sullivans opponent in a landmark free speech case: Inside Political Campaigns Karen S. Johnson-Cartee, Gary A. Copeland, 1997-04-22 As Dan Nimmo notes in his introduction, Inside Political Campaigns endeavors to trace the sources of professional campaign wizardry by encapsulating the theories and concepts that practitioners and scholars alike claim to guide and rationalize consultants' magical weaving of strategies, tactics, and techniques into a 'winning tapestry of political communication.' This study presents the theoretical areas political communication consultants draw upon in making strategic and tactical decisions in political campaigns. And it provides an understanding of what motivates political consultants to choose a particular campaign strategy by explaining how various strategies work with the voting public. While the book is research-driven, its academic findings are tempered and expanded by the authors' personal political consulting experiences. The text will be of interest to scholars, students, and practitioners alike in political communication, advertising, public opinion, political science, political rhetoric, and campaigns and elections. |
Home Decor | Sullivans Wholesale
Creating products to build a home is what Sullivans is about. Fill your store with style. Fill it with quality. Fill it with décor that makes your customers happy to be home.
Home Decor, Artificial Botanicals, and more | Sullivans Wholesale
Sullivans Wholesale offers timeless designs into on-trend home decor for every style, season, and occasion. From artificial plants and flowers, candles, vases, home décor, to …
Wholesale Pinecone Ornament, Ornaments Blue-Green Glass | Sull…
Exclusive: Yes Dimensions: 3.5"L x3.5"W x5.25" Weight: 2.00oz Color: Blue Green Material: Glass Set Size: 3 Prop 65: Yes …
Rep Locator - Home Décor & Gift Sales Reps | Sullivans Wholesale
Carol Homkes. District of Columbia, Indiana (Southern), Kentucky, Virginia (Northern) P: 859-327-4360 E: cjhomkes@gmail.com Millers and Company | Scott Miller. Indiana …
Wholesale Pumpkin Garland, Fall Orange Garlands | Sullivans
Sullivans SHIMMER GOLD PUMPKIN GARLAND. Not a Retailer?
Home Decor | Sullivans Wholesale
Creating products to build a home is what Sullivans is about. Fill your store with style. Fill it with quality. Fill it with décor that makes your customers …
Home Decor, Artificial Botanicals, and more | Sulliva…
Sullivans Wholesale offers timeless designs into on-trend home decor for every style, season, and occasion. From artificial plants and flowers, candles, …
Wholesale Pinecone Ornament, Ornaments Blue-Green Glass …
Exclusive: Yes Dimensions: 3.5"L x3.5"W x5.25" Weight: 2.00oz Color: Blue Green Material: Glass Set Size: 3 Prop 65: …
Rep Locator - Home Décor & Gift Sales Reps | Sullivans Wh…
Carol Homkes. District of Columbia, Indiana (Southern), Kentucky, Virginia (Northern) P: 859-327-4360 E: cjhomkes@gmail.com Millers and …
Wholesale Pumpkin Garland, Fall Orange Garlands | Sulliva…
Sullivans SHIMMER GOLD PUMPKIN GARLAND. Not a Retailer?
