I wrote a book once about regulation. It found its way into the hands of a los angeles sometime reviewer. Dont ask me how. He decides to write a review. He says, well, he says in the alice in wonderland the mouse emerges from the pool of tears theyve heard this story before. And the door mouse begins to read from the history of england. Why your reading that said alice . And this is the driest thing i know. That was before breyer wrote this book. This is not about regulations, this is about the court, and its terribly important that you support actually these kinds of things because its important that people know something of the history of the court and so im very glad to be here and im glad to be talking about this and im glad youre here listening. Very nice of you. What is this book about . So, i say that it is its the analogy its a kind of a report, a sort of a report from the front. About what . Well, if youve ever read the Charter House of palm which is a very good novel it opens
I wrote a book once about regulation. It found its way into the hands of a los angeles sometime reviewer. Dont ask me how. He decides to write a review. He says, well, he says in the alice in wonderland the mouse emerges from the pool of tears theyve heard this story before. And the door mouse begins to read from the history of england. Why your reading that said alice . And this is the driest thing i know. That was before breyer wrote this book. This is not about regulations, this is about the court, and its terribly important that you support actually these kinds of things because its important that people know something of the history of the court and so im very glad to be here and im glad to be talking about this and im glad youre here listening. Very nice of you. What is this book about . So, i say that it is its the analogy its a kind of a report, a sort of a report from the front. About what . Well, if youve ever read the Charter House of palm which is a very good novel it opens
I wrote a book once about regulation. It found its way into the hands of a los angeles sometime reviewer. Dont ask me how. He decides to write a review. He says, well, he says in the alice in wonderland the mouse emerges from the pool of tears theyve heard this story before. And the door mouse begins to read from the history of england. Why your reading that said alice . And this is the driest thing i know. That was before breyer wrote this book. This is not about regulations, this is about the court, and its terribly important that you support actually these kinds of things because its important that people know something of the history of the court and so im very glad to be here and im glad to be talking about this and im glad youre here listening. Very nice of you. What is this book about . So, i say that it is its the analogy its a kind of a report, a sort of a report from the front. About what . Well, if youve ever read the Charter House of palm which is a very good novel it opens
Every weekend on American History tv on cspan3. Next on American History tv, Supreme Court Justice Stephen breyer. He talks about cases featured in his book the court and the world, american law and the new global realities, include iing cases involving Guantanamo Bay detainees. The Supreme Court Historical Society is the host of this event. Its about an hour. Honored today to have as our lecturer Justice Stephen breyer, whose talk will be about the court and the world, american law and the new global realities. Justice breyer is a long standing friend of the society. He has delivered lectures, as he will be today. He has hosted dinners, hes introduced speakers, and were very fortunate hes giving us this lecture. He truly is a man that needs no introduction and theres not an introduction i could do that would be complete in the time allotted, but let me touch on highlights, if i may. He graduated with highest honors from stanford. He then went as a marshal scholar to oxford where he re
He knew it at the time. So they wouldnt sign the brief. They said were not signing it, were not going to defend this. Then they a big fight between departments and who was brought in to mediate, herbert j. Wexler. He was running the war part of the Justice Department was a Master Genius and he wrote a footnote, disowning the army on this issue and he wrote it in words that no one could understand. So he convinced burly to sign the brief and the Justice Departments position, i dont know, you read it and see if you can figure out exactly what it was. In fact, who won the case . The government. 63. Famous case. And who is it who upheld . The government. Black, douglas, frankfurter, the liberals who had, in fact, would sign brown versus board. And they were all on the government side. It was the three dissenters were be roberts, murphy and jackson. And there was 63. I thought for a long time maybe they didnt understand there was so little evidence. Footnote, who reads footnotes. [ laughter