Law review article

Dedication: Lending Light to Countless Lamps: A Tribute to Judge Norma Levy Shapiro

Law review article / By

DEDICATION

LENDING LIGHT TO COUNTLESS LAMPS:

A TRIBUTE TO JUDGE NORMA LEW SHAPIRO

SANDRA DAY O’CONNORt

There is a sad but common misconception in our society that time and energy contributed to others is time and energy lost. Rare is the individual with the perspective to recognize that we may give without losing, and that it is often in giving that we gain.

Judge Norma Shapiro is such an individual. In a career that has spanned more than five remarkable decades, Judge Shapiro has dem onstrated a sincere selflessness that is immeasurable in its impact. She has said that one of her favorite quotations is from the ancient Roman official Gains, who poignantly noted that “[o]ne who helps the wan dering traveler does, as it were, light another’s lamp by their own, and it gives no less light because it helped another.”1 And indeed, as we pay tribute to her extraordinary professional and personal accom plishments, we cannot help but recognize the countless lamps to which she has lent her light.

When she began law school in 1948, Judge Shapiro was one of only eight women in her class at the University of Pennsylvania. As one whose timing and experience was parallel, I can say with some confidence that this path sometimes was not easy. Nonetheless,Judge Shapiro thrived. She served as an editor of the Law Reviewand gradu ated at the top of her class. And in the years that followed, women who walked the same path into that predominantly male world knew that they could count on her

Law review article, Speech

Copyright Law from an American Perspective

Law review article, Speech / By

HISTORY OF AMERICAN COPYRIGHT LAW

I want to speak today about the history of copyright law in the United States and how that history compares with that of copyright law in Ireland. The history of copyright law in my country is not so different from yours. For one thing, both of our laws have been written in English. Unfortunately, that hasn’t made either of our laws easy to read.2 More seriously, our two sets of laws share a common ancestor-the Statute of Anne, passed by parliament in 1710. Before the Statute of Anne, only the publisher of an author’s writings had the right to issue copies of those writings, and held those rights in perpetuity. The Statute of Anne granted initial property rights in literary works to authors, who could then sell those rights to publishers. The Statute also limited those property rights to a period of up to 28 years. Finally, the Statute of Anne only provided remedies against the literal copying of protected works.3

The Statute of Anne remained the law in the American colonies until the United States declared independence in 1776. Soon after, the United States adopted its current Constitution. That document established a national government with a limited set of powers. The powers of our national legislature, the Congress, are enumerated in Article I. Among the legislature’s powers is to “To promote the useful Arts…, by securing for limited Times to Authors… the exclusive Right to their Writings… ” 4 Under our system, our legislature-the

Interview

Conversation with students on the 4th Amendment

Interview / By

Unknown Speaker Good evening, Justice O’Connor. My name is Jordan speed and I’m from Wichita, Kansas. How does the Supreme Court decide when a search and seizure is unreasonable? And when it is reasonable? Sandra Day O’Connor Well, it’s a vague sort of a standard issue well know what’s reasonable depends very often on the circumstances in their particular case, the Supreme Court, in effect, has determined that if a search of a suspect is unreasonable under constitutional standards, then the evidence cannot be admitted against that person in any criminal proceeding against the person. Now, you know, many countries around the world don’t follow an exclusionary rule that’s called an exclusionary rule where you can exclude that evidence from any trial proceeding against the person that the state is trying to prosecute. And that’s rather a dramatic limitation on evidence that can be used by this state against someone. And many countries don’t do that. So great britain did, and the United States system map and I guess, Australia to a degree and other common law countries from the British system, but not everybody in the world. Thanks. That’s a good system. But we do and we have this exclusionary rule. So deciding whether a particular search or a seizure of some kind of evidence to use against someone in a criminal proceeding requires judges at the end of the day to make a determination whether that particular seizure or search was reasonable. Well, what’s reasonable? You have arguments

Panel discussion

Conversation with Justice Stephen Breyer

Panel discussion / By

NARRATOR: In the summer of 1787, delegates to the Constitutional Convention gathered in Philadelphia to create a document that would establish the government of the United States. On September 17th, that landmark document, our Constitution, was signed. In commemoration of that day, students from several Philadelphia high schools were recently invited to the Supreme Court Building in Washington, DC to meet with Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Stephen Breyer. The views of the students and the responses of the Justices provided a unique glimpse into the workings of America’s highest court and the document that shaped our history and guides our future. JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR: It’s nice to have you safely here and assembled. And are you all ready to start with some questions about our Constitution and our system? Who’s going to start off? STUDENT: How do you believe the Constitution should be taught in schools, especially with all the new resources that we have, and the fact that a lot of young people simply view the Constitution as something that was created 200-something years ago and is old and maybe out of date? JUSTICE O’CONNOR: I hope that the Constitution is something that every school in America will try to teach to young people. You don’t inherit it through the gene pool. Every generation has to learn about this, learn about the history. Why was it written, why do we have one? What does it provide? What are the benefits of having such a Constitution? Has it worked and

Panel discussion, TV appearance

Conversation with Justice David Souter at John F. Kennedy Presidential Library

Panel discussion, TV appearance / By

David McKean Of my colleagues and the director, tom putnam, I thank all of you for coming this evening. We count on your support and I encourage you to become a member of the library. Please visit our web site, jfklibrary. Org for more information. I would like to express particular thanks to the friends and institutions that make these forums possible. Bank of america, our lead sponsor of the kennedy library forum series, boston capital, the lowell institute and the boston foundation, along with our media sponsors, “the boston globe,” wbur. We are honored to have with us tonight retired supreme court justices Sandra Day O’Connor and david souter. They are here to discuss their shared passion, the importance of civic education. Justice david souter recalls that when he was a boy, he learned the lessons of democracy and the functions of the three branches of government at new england town meetings. He’s called those meetings the most radical exercise of american democracy that you can find. It didn’t matter if someone or rich or poor, young or old, sensible or foolish, these meetings were governed by fundamental fairness. Today, when 2/3 of americans can’t name the three branches of government, a rebirth of civic education is needed to assure, as justice souter has said, a nation of people who will stand up for individual rights against the popular will. Justice o’connor is even blunter. [laughter]. . Justice o’connor retired from the court in 2005 and has been known to refer

Interview

Conversation hosted by the Supreme Court Historical Society for the 30th anniversary of Justice O’Connor’s appointment to the Supreme Court

Interview / By

Greg Joseph: Good evening. Ladies and gentlemen, I’m Greg Joseph, President of the Supreme Court historical society, and I’m delighted to welcome you this evening to the society’s celebration. Of the 30th anniversary of the first term of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the US Supreme Court. We are deeply honored to have with us this evening Justice O’Connor, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Justice Elena Kagan. This is the first time the four of them have joined together for a public program, and we are extremely grateful that they’ve done so this evening to join in this celebration. We also want to thank Jim Duff, the CEO of the freedom forum and the freedom forum for making this magnificent space available to us at the Newseum this evening. Jim, long prior to his being CEO at Freedom Forum, has a history with the Supreme Court Historical Society, dating back to his time as Administrative Assistant to Chief Justice Rehnquist, and before that Chief Justice Burger. I also want to thank Society president Emeritus Frank Jones for his generous donation to help support the events this evening Frank was a distinguished president from 2002 to 2008 and only because of illness isn’t with us this evening. Our panel this evening consists of the four women who to date have served on the United States Supreme Court. Even to Summarize each of their careers with highlights would take far too long. So I’ll be very brief Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was nominated to the

Law review article

Commentary (Organization of Justice in the Twenty-First Century)

Law review article / By

COMMENTARY

SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR*

It is a real pleasure to be here with you and to see this remarkable gathering of representatives of the highest courts of so many countries in this hemisphere. It is a wonderful step that you are taking, and one that I am sure will be helpful to all the participating countries in the future.

Justice Calvete gave a very thoughtful and insightful paper. He is to be commended for his presentation and the thought that went into it. He pointed out for us some of the far-reaching implications of trends that appear certain to affect the administration of justice far into the next century, which is right around the comer. Courts everywhere, not just in this hemisphere, are seeing increased caseloads. They are seeing increased caseloads in large measure because they are seeing increased populations-more people to serve, more cases to decide.

How do we predict what is going to happen in the future? How do we know? And what should we do about it? It seems to me that each country is going to have to make some long-range plans to deal with the problem. It is one thing to recognize it, but we have to plan to deal with it. Justice Calvete pointed to population growth and that is certainly correct. Demographers have a pretty good track record in the United States of plotting prospective changes in population. It is pretty clear in our country that as we go into the next century weare going to have many more senior citizens. People are living longer in our

Speech

Commencement speech at Stanford University

Speech / By

President Hennessy, faculty, graduates and friends of Leland Stanford Jr. University: It is a great pleasure to be with you today at your commencement exercises. After all, it is a day of joy for everyone: You graduates have no more exams or classes to endure. And I might say, the faculty no longer has you to endure; you have fame and fortune ahead of you; your families and spouses and friends can look forward to seeing more of you; and your speaker is greatly honored by the privilege of being with you today as a speaker at your commencement.

I realize we have gathered here today to applaud those of you who will be receiving degrees. I suggest, however, that there are several heroes and heroines here today who should be recognized and with whom you graduates would like to share your glory. I refer, of course, to the parents, who have made two significant contributions to your presence today. First, they had the brains that you were lucky enough to inherit and, secondly, they probably provided at least some of the money you needed to sustain yourselves while you were here. I congratulate your parents, and I commend you graduates for your good judgment in selecting them.

A commencement speech is a particularly difficult assignment. The speaker is given no topic and is expected to be able to inspire all the graduates with a stirring speech about nothing at all. I suppose that’s why so many lawyers are asked to be commencement speakers; they’?re in the habit of talking extensively

Speech

Commencement address at Gettysburg College

Speech / By

It is a great pleasure to be with you today at Gettysburg College. After all, it is a day of joy for everyone: you graduates have no more university exams or class to endure. And I might say, the faculty no longer has you to endure; you have fame and fortune ahead of you; your families and spouses and friends can look forward to seeing more of you; and your speaker has a respite from her labors across the nation.

I realize we have gathered here today to applaud those of you who will be receiving degrees. I suggest, however, that there are several heroes and heroines here today who should be recognized and with whom you graduates would like to share your glory. I refer, of course, to the parents, who have made two significant contributions to your presence today. First, they had the brains, which you were lucky enough to inherit, and, secondly, they probably provided at least some of the money you needed to sustain yourselves while you were here. I congratulate your parents, and I commend you graduates for your good judgment in selecting them.

A commencement speech is a particularly difficult assignment. The speaker is given no topic and is expected to be able to inspire all the graduates with a stirring speech about nothing at al. I suppose that’s why so many lawyers are asked to be commencement speakers: they’re in the habit of talking extensively even when they have nothing to say.

In this case the College asked not only a lawyer but an elderly judge to be the commencement

Speech

Commencement address at George Mason University

Speech / By

Thank you, President Merton, the Honorable Ed mace, and my fellow honorary degree recipients.

Now first of all, we have find out what are these privileges a permanent they are to President Merton. I keep hearing that, and I haven’t quite figured that out. It is an enormous pleasure to be here today at George Mason University. After all, it’s a day of joy for everyone. You graduates have no more University exams or classes to endure. And I might say the faculty no longer has you to endure. You have you have fame and fortune ahead of you, your family, spouses and friends can look forward to seeing more of you. And your speaker has the rest. But from her labor’s up on Capitol Hill, so it’s quite a day. Now, I realize we’ve gathered here today to applaud those of you who are receiving degrees. But there are a few other people here today who should also be recognized and with whom you graduates probably would like to share your glory. I refer, of course to the parents, spouses or other family members who have made some significant contributions to your presence here today. First of all, your parents have the brains which you were lucky enough to inherit. And your family probably provided at least some of the money you needed to sustain yourself while you were here. So I congratulate your families and command you graduates for your good judgment in selecting them. Now, a commencement speech is a particularly difficult assignment. The speaker is given no topic and is expected to be