Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
University News, Vol. 2, No. 2, February 1982
Page 7
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
University News, Vol. 2, No. 2, February 1982 - Page 7. February 1982. Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. January 26, 2020. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist/item/804/show/802.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

(February 1982). University News, Vol. 2, No. 2, February 1982 - Page 7. Houston and Texas Feminist and Lesbian Newsletters. Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist/item/804/show/802

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

University News, Vol. 2, No. 2, February 1982 - Page 7, February 1982, Houston and Texas Feminist and Lesbian Newsletters, Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries, accessed January 26, 2020, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist/item/804/show/802.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

URL
Embed Image
Compound Item Description
Title University News, Vol. 2, No. 2, February 1982
Publisher National Organization for Women, University of Houston Chapter.
Date February 1982
Subject.Topical (LCSH)
  • Women--Texas--Periodicals
  • Women--Texas--Houston--Periodicals
  • Feminism--United States--Periodicals
  • Newsletters
Subject.Name (LCNAF)
  • National Organization for Women
Genre (AAT)
  • periodicals
Language English
Type (DCMI)
  • Text
Original Item Location HQ1101 .N684
Original Item URL http://library.uh.edu/record=b1476015~S11
Digital Collection Houston and Texas Feminist and Lesbian Newsletters
Digital Collection URL http://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist
Repository Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries
Repository URL http://info.lib.uh.edu/about/campus-libraries-collections/special-collections
Use and Reproduction Educational use only, no other permissions given. Copyright to this resource is held by the content creator, author, artist or other entity, and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the copyright owner. For more information please see UH Digital Library Fair Use policy on the UH Digital Library About page.
File Name index.cpd
Item Description
Title Page 7
Format (IMT)
  • image/jpeg
File Name femin_201109_222g.jpg
Transcript What happened to cries for judicial restraint? by Anthony Lewis A FAVORITE CONSERVATIVE theme for years has been the danger of "activist judges," the need for "judicial restraint.'' Attorney General William French Smith charged recently that federal courts have increasingly intruded upon the policy-making functions of Congress, the president and the states. There has always been reason for skepticism about the purity of conservatives' devotion to the ideal of a passive judiciary. Was it really philosophy that moved them, or rather the results in particular cases? Well. now we know. When a judge breaks the usual bounds and reaches a decision pleasing to conservatives, they forget about restraint and cheer. The philosophical pretensions have been stripped away by the lawsuit over the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. A federal judge in Idaho. Marion Callister. decided that case against the supporters of the amendment. His decision was in several respects extraordinarily unrestrained, sidestepping doctrines that limit judicial power. But BRA opponents did not stop to worry about that. It's a great victory for constitutional integnty and fairness." Phyllis Sehlafly said. And when the Justice Department indicated that it appeal the decision, Mrs. Sehlafly and other leading figures of the right wrote President Reagan urging him to quash any such move. The ERA case illuminates the whole question of when judges should withhold their hand The public*»which likes nothing better than a great con- .stitutjonartest in the courts, has always found HL hard lo understand why judges sometimes refuse to decide those cases. "The most important thing we do is not doing,'' Justice Louis D. Brandeis, a liberal who was a stickler, for the rules, once said. He was expressing the conviction that courts should be careful in invoking their great power to bold government action unconstitutional. Callister held unconstitutional the 1978 act of Congress extending until June 30. 1982. the time for states to ratify the ERA. He held that the Idaho Legislature, which approved the amendment and then voted the other way. had effectively nullified its ratification. And then, reaching beyond the Idaho case that was before him. he said any other state rescinding its approval "may not be counted" for the ERA. Those substantive issues in the case are seen by some legal scholars as political questions — ones the courts do not decide, leaving them instead to the political process. Whether a state may rescind its ratification of an amendment, especially, seems to fall within the traditional definition of a political question. The only "injury" claimed by the Idaho legislators who brought the ERA suit is that Idaho's vote is entered wrongly on a list kept by officials in Washington — which may well not be enough for standing under the precedents. And there is another hurdle that has to be passed before a court considers either standing or substantive issues. A case must Be "ripe" for decision. This is one of the technical rules with it. As Brandeis said, courts will not "anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it" It is very hard to see how the ERA case was ripe for decision by Callister. Not one state has ratified the amendment since Congress extended the time. Unless three more do so by June 30, the amendment will die anyway — and ail the debated legal questions will be irrelevant. To decide the case in those circumstances looks like giving an advisory opinion, and federal judges are constitutionally forbidden. to do that. That is the issue — ripeness — that Justice Department lawyers are now particular!v studying. The department tradiUooauy, opposes premature constitutional decisions m the. courts. To oner that asks me Supreme Court to vacate Callister's decision. Of course, conservatives are not the only people who talk hypocritically' about judicial "activism" and "restraint." Liberals, too. tend to find > reasons for decisions they like. The; piety just happens to be especially thick on the conservative side these . days. * But intervention by judges does have more justification in some cir cumstances than others. Justice Lewis F. Powell said in 1974 that "the irre- placeable value" of our system of judicial review lies "In the protection it has afforded the constitutional rights and liberties of individual citi zens and minority groups against op- pressive or discriminatory govern- ment action not In "some amorphous general supervision of the operations of government.'' Lewis is a cokunaist for the New York Times and Pulitzer Prat winner for na- Uonai reporting. Reagan below Carter's record in hiring women WASHINGTON (AP) - President Reagan hasn't matched his predecessor's record of appointing women to key government and judicial posts during his first year in office, the National Women's Political Caucus asserted. Reagan put 30 women in top-level jobs, compared to 31 nominations by President Carter during 1977, an NWPC analysis showed Tuesday. But it was in judicial appointments where there was a significant difference between the two. Even though he appointed Sandra Day O'Connor to be the first woman on the Supreme Court, Reagan has an "abysmal" record on naming women to the judiciary, NWPC chairwoman Kathy Wilson said. Of 44 judicial appointments, only two were of women, she said. Ms. Wilson, a Republican, said Reagan has not only appointed fewer women, but also they have been named to lower-ranking jobs. Reagan has maintained that despite his opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment, he* supports women's rights and believes in women's competence. David R. Gergen. director of White House communications, said Reagan has appointed 140 women to full- time jobs, presidential boards and commissions. WASHINGTON (UPI) - What kind of big- spender could unload l.5 trillion? Rep. James Jones, DOlka., oflared a folksy explanation about a inan who couldn't do it Discussing Presfcfeot Reagan's spending blueprint for the Defense Department, which calls for 1.5 trillion in military expenditures over five years, Jones presented a parable of sorts. "If someone was going to spend a million dollars a day, hegmnmg on the day Christ was born 1,9(82 years ago, a million dollars a day through the Dark Ages, the Middle Ages, throuan the Age of Enlightenment, the industrial revolution and modern era — every day spending a million dollars — he would only spend half of what we're asking the Pentagon to spend over the next five years," Jones said. Jones was almost right The spree he described would, through today, have resulted in almost 1904 billion in expenditures - 60 percent of $1.5 trillion. Jones, chairman of the House Budget Committee, appeared on CBS* Face the Nation A trillkio is one thousand billions, or out million millions. It Is 1,000,000,000,000. FEMINISTS WOULD DO A MORE HUMANE JOB OF SPENDING MONEY1