◆ SpookStack

L cometh o "These Dav LP “Reginas Belmont Mohr tates hetnat ; Parsons < Tot ke Sa oe Say Rosen Extraneous Court References. 2 as Tons e ‘ rotter Le IN THE controvery that in Pule were “atherwine eéunval, te determine whother vial Nease “arising wt the@Supr would be rendereg helpless they cay ip based upon soun Tele. Room Cou ep. Wright Pate bDeeanune thelr arguments gcholarship or js propaganda Holloman —_._ er texas ae ralsed a ceeded -would become diluted heavily for. cause?. Representative Gand ‘nent question, : with extraneous miscellane- Fatman makes the point thet ancy “namely, that ‘pus matter designed to over. . important ecases,. the _ instead of bas- come fhe various thearles ad- Statioka one from the Har ing decisions eee dy the inhbylats , Pot (vara Law Review and the ath- \ WwW Lupon briefs # at legal authorities.” erfram the Vale Law Jour. submitted by However, whatever the Su- inal, bore no signatures, the litigants, the reme Court says ecomes Hauthors of the material being F'] court briefs it- “eae (authoritative. - Therefore nonymous, . |; self, using, at artiele published in a law re There ia gn iinnecesaa times, materi- view could -become the basis element of surprise which al not sub- for the law of the Jand once could cause am arriage of znitten ta it co, : Mia Supreme Court justice justice. alther | Sokelsky adopted it for a majority © Lawyers nding months p ut sele opinion, even though the a preparing briefs, at enormous y the cic hinmeott or by ticle in queation be writte en by expense to their clients, are Liaw clerk who may intro-. @ second-year law student guddenly faced an article e6 matter which, gceor ing whe hat not yet eut his eye- in a law Journal which nelther ‘ te Patman, oi eanreroenied f tee th. side may have read or noticed | a an ponauthoritative” == | - DO THE justices always r considered w while. In : ; ‘ act, f we know, tie ‘In the law reviews? - Are may himself have written the , Pa Pormesly we had evy those articles always signed? [anonymous article which fhe sions by cur Supreme Court }{Do. the justices study the nw cites as authoritative. Hit would be controlled by the }backgrounda of the men ‘!S 20t 4 safe practice. °. standards outlined by the who Wrote “those | articles _ Gonna radical Wee ie Constitution, the law, the | er Bode sy fe, facts of the case and by the - sound reasoning of the jus tices. In the past, even though we felt the court ‘had decided a case wrongly we nevertheless felt that we , sould understand that the court had a basis in the rec- 4 / / ord ef the bearing in the Wash. Post and ease for its decision..." °. = . ~~ The difficulty now arises ~ a Times Herald from the fact that textbooks, Wash. News iw reviews, propagan eo ae .« otar material Em aris of Out Ga 2 Ze 72 LF N.Y Herald groups sorts of out-; Ww" AT! Se .Y. aide factors enter into the NOT RECORDED Tribune maa says of thls that U the Ml OCT 7 1957 N.Y. Joumnal- pourt In preparing its decl- American dions sds material mr both _ N. Y. Mirror i counsel on = sides, neither side jas the ‘ y pally News : epportunity “to mee ar. . Y. limes ménts of these theorists, ; ; zee lobbylate.” = p's. ig Datly Worker aa aed The Worker ‘ . TO QUOTE Patman:)- Patt * .. The law review m . New Leader facies, treatises, and 50 forth, ‘prepared cand 7 he's no standing as Date ‘egal authorities, and the OCT Y 957 pyeepresiag f