Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Michigan Law Review

United States Supreme Court

1980

Legal History

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Law

Preserving The Progressive Spirit In A Conservative Time: The Joint Reform Efforts Of Justice Brandeis And Professor Frankfurter, 1916-1933, David W. Levy, Bruce Allen Murphy Aug 1980

Preserving The Progressive Spirit In A Conservative Time: The Joint Reform Efforts Of Justice Brandeis And Professor Frankfurter, 1916-1933, David W. Levy, Bruce Allen Murphy

Michigan Law Review

On January 28, 1916, President Wilson sent the name of Louis D. Brandeis to the Senate for confirmation as a Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Wilson's act surprised many Americans and sparked one of the bitterest confirmation struggles in the history of the Republic. The nomination and the confirmation that followed also created a painful and highly personal dilemma for the new Justice. This dilemma led Brandeis to a private arrangement that opened an unusual and revealing chapter in the story of the extra judicial activities of American justices. Even more important, the arrangement constitutes a noteworthy episode …


Incapacitating The Habitual Criminal: The English Experience, Sir Leon Radzinowicz, Roger Hood Aug 1980

Incapacitating The Habitual Criminal: The English Experience, Sir Leon Radzinowicz, Roger Hood

Michigan Law Review

In this Article, Sir Leon Radzinowicz and .Dr. Roger Hood trace 150 years of unsuccessful English efforts to identify, sentence, and reform habitual criminal offenders. The Supreme Court's recent decision in Rummel v. Estelle has publicized habitual offender statutes in the United States. But Rummel primarily addressed the constitutionality, rather than the desirability, of a state habitual offender statute. This Article examines the broader policy questions common to habitual offender programs in both the United Stales and Great Britain. It describes the tension between liberal tradition and the state's desire to incapacitate those who repeatedly threaten life or property.