|
见1 Curtis, A Memoir of Bejamin Robbins Curtis 354-355 n. 1 (1879).
（译注：文章在此提到两种偏离原则的做法——柯迪斯法官本人在“蓄奴案”中的反对意见和他反对解放黑奴宣言的意见，以及班史作者在对待柯迪斯法官问题上的结果取向态度。译者认为，柯迪斯法官的逻辑或许并非完全不可辩护，因为他在“蓄奴案”中强调的是国会有权对奴隶问题制定立法，而他对黑奴宣言的反对可以被理解为总统无权在国会制定相关立法之前发表这类影响基本权利和义务的宣言。）
见Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 564-633 (1857).
见Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 318 (1957).
Holmes, Law and the Court, in Collected Legal Papers 291, 292 (1920).
例如见Wechsler, Comment on Snee, Leviathan at the Bar of Justice, in Government Under Law 134, 136-137 (Sutherland ed. 1956).
Hand, op. cit. supra note 3, at 65.
Id. at 42.
Jackson, The Supreme Court in the American System of Government 76 (1955).
Frankfurter, Chief Justices I have Known, in Of Law and Men 138 (Elman 3d. 1956).
Principality of Monaco v. Mississippi, 292 U.S. 313, 322 (1934).
Holmes, Holdsworth’s English Law, in Collected Papers 285, 290 (1920).
Passenger Cases, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 283, 470 (1849).
Hand, op. cit. supra note 3, at 30.
见Reid v. covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), 在重新听证后撤消351 U.S. 487 (1956).
见Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184 (1957).
“在整个18世纪，只是在叛国和轻罪中才允许律师辩护。”1 Stephen, A History of the Criminal Law of England 453 (1883)。并参见Association of the Bar of the City of New York & National Legal Aid & Defenders Ass’n, Equal Justice for the Accused 40-42 (1959).
|
