Search results

This essay addresses the question: what distinguished the popular Drew comedies (1915–1919)? First, in what essentially were situation comedies, Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Drew played a white middle-class couple who squabbled over issues or disagreements, usually minor but sometimes not, that were resolved through deft deceptions. Second, and most important, not only was Mrs. Drew (1890–1925) an accomplished comedienne, but she also scripted all of the films, directed or codirected nearly as many, and eventually became a producer. While on screen she may have played a seemingly conventional wife (but not always), behind the scenes she created stories that poked gentle fun at white middle-class domestic life and often challenged, however lightly transgressive, the prevailing patriarchy of the period.

The four of us came to Yale and the Law and Modernization Program by different routes. I'm going to describe my background because it explains how Dave and I complemented each other. Influenced by Russia's launch of Sputnik in fall of my senior year in high school and the fact that I was good at math and science, I majored in physics at Harvard. By the end of my second year, however, I realized I didn't want to be a scientist: I wasn't good enough, and it would be years before I could do original work. In spring 1960 I took David Riesman's SocSci 136 course: "American Character and Social Structure." It was transformative. The course addressed some of my most pressing personal concerns; for instance, we read Riesman's "The Lonely Crowd" and Paul Goodman's "Growing Up Absurd" (1960)— critiques of 1950s culture and pressures for conformity. Allowed to write on almost any topic for our term paper (the only requirement), I chose "Attitudes towards science and extra-scientific phenomena: an empirical study among Harvard students." (Looking back, I think I was seeking justifications for abandoning physics.) Riesman was a fellow of Quincy House, where I lived, and often had lunch with students, encouraging us to voice dissatisfactions with our Harvard education. My section man sent me a long, laudatory letter about the paper. (He was William Gamson, then writing about social movements in opposition to fluoridation, prefiguring today's anti-vaxers.) Even more important, Riesman wrote every student (perhaps a hundred of us) about our papers. His 3.5-page letter to me concluded: "One of the things which is most desirable about your paper is the topic itself, chosen and pursued with great originality." I was hooked.[1] I have always tried to emulate his eclectic, qualitative approach. (A lawyer with no formal training in sociology, he was Henry Ford II Professor of Social Sciences in the Social Relations Department.) The next year I took Paul Freund's undergraduate course on legal reasoning and felt immediately drawn to law's pilpul (despite having no background in Talmudic exegesis). I wrote a term paper for him on group libel—only to discover that Riesman had written a long article on the subject (1942)—which, Freund said disparagingly, was the last good thing he ever wrote. In my fourth year I took Talcott Parsons's first-year graduate course (presumptuously, since I had disdained undergraduate soc rel courses) and was not enamored his formalistic theorizing, which seemed devoid of content. At the same time, I was becoming politically engaged, inspired by the sit-ins and freedom rides (which began in 1960 and 1961, respectively). Although 1950s apathy still pervaded Harvard (the only "demonstration" was a May 1961 protest against changing diplomas from Latin to English), I became active in Tocsin, which opposed above-ground nuclear testing and advocated for nuclear disarmament (doing research and participating in demonstrations in Boston and Washington). What may have clinched my choice of law over sociology graduate school, however, was Columbia's offer of a full-tuition scholarship (although it was little more than a thousand dollars at the time) and my failure to get a Woodrow Wilson Fellowship. Riesman had urged me to go to Yale Law School for its alleged social science orientation; but I chose Columbia to be close to my girlfriend. (Yes, reader, I married her[2]—and we're still happily together 58 years later.)

"Chronicling and analyzing resistance to the threat that autocracy poses to American liberal democracy, this book provides the definitive account of both Trump's efforts to erode democracy's essential elements and opposition to those efforts. This book is about the threat of autocracy, which antedated Donald Trump and will persist after he leaves the stage. Autocrats blur or breach the separation of powers, use executive orders to bypass the legislature, pack the courts, replace career prosecutors with political appointees, abuse the pardon power, and claim immunity from the law. They seek to hobble opposition from civil society by curtailing speech and assembly, tolerating and even encouraging vigilante violence, and attacking the media. As this book demonstrates, Trump followed the autocrat's playbook in many ways. He was a huckster of hate, aiming his vitriol at women and racial minorities, and making attacks on immigrants the focus of his 2016 campaign, as well as his first years in office. Nevertheless, his rhetoric and policies encountered widespread opposition - from religious leaders, business executives, lawyers and bar associations, and civil servants. His executive orders (on which he relied) were almost all struck down by courts: including the first two "Muslim bans," the detention of children and their separation from parents, the diversion of military funds to build the border wall, the insertion of a citizenship question in the Census, and limits on asylum. Just as Trump sought to weaponize the criminal justice system against his political opponents, so he manipulated it to defend his cronies, derailing some of their prosecutions. Trump also intervened in courts martial and criminal prosecutions of those convicted of war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, and those accused of desertion and terrorism. Again, however, there was resistance: as some career prosecutors withdrew from cases or resigned when subjected to political pressure and federal courts convicted all of Trump's allies- even though the president went on to use his unreviewable pardon power. This book, then, documents the abuses that are characteristic of autocracy, and assesses the various forms of resistance to them. This definitive account and analysis of Trumpism in action, as well as the resistance to it, will appeal to scholars, students and others with interests in politics, populism and the rule of law; and, more specifically, to those concerned with resisting the threat that autocracy poses to liberal democracy"--

"Chronicling and analyzing resistance to the threat that autocracy poses to American liberal democracy, this book provides the definitive account of the rise of Trump's populist support in 2016, and his failed efforts to nullify the result of the 2020 election. This book is about the threat of autocracy, which antedated Donald Trump and will persist after he leaves the stage. Autocracy negates both liberalism - which includes the protection of fundamental rights, the rule of law, separation of powers, and respect for specialist expertise - and democracy - which requires that the state be responsible to an electorate composed of all eligible voters - by concentrating unconstrained power in a single individual. Anticipating defeat in the 2016 election, Trump attacked suggestions that he had sought, or even benefited from, Russian assistance despite the evidence; and he made repeated claims of election fraud. In 2020, fearful that his mishandling of the pandemic had alienated voters, he intensified the allegations of fraud, demanding recounts, pressuring state legislatures and state election officials, advancing bizarre conspiracy theories, and finally calling for a massive demonstration, urging protesters to march to the Capitol to pressure Congress, promising to accompany them. But, as this book documents, Trump's efforts to nullify the result of the 2020 election failed. As the courts rejected his numerous challenges, state election officials loyally performed their statutory duties, the Justice Department found no evidence of fraud, and politicians from all sides certified Biden's victory, this book traces the many, and varied, forms of the defense of liberal democracy located within both the state and civil society: including law (judges, government lawyers, and private practitioners), the media, NGOs, science (and other forms of expertise) and civil servants (in federal, state and local government). Evaluating their efficacy, the book maintains, is vital if - as history has repeatedly taught us - the price of liberal democracy, like that of liberty itself, is eternal vigilance. This definitive account and analysis of Trumpism and the resistance to it will appeal to scholars, students and others with interests in politics, populism and the rule of law; and, more specifically, to those concerned with resisting the threat that autocracy poses to liberal democracy"--

"Chronicling and analyzing resistance to the threat that autocracy poses to American liberal democracy, this book provides the definitive account of the rise of Trump's populist support in 2016, and his failed efforts to nullify the result of the 2020 election. This book is about the threat of autocracy, which antedated Donald Trump and will persist after he leaves the stage. Autocracy negates both liberalism - which includes the protection of fundamental rights, the rule of law, separation of powers, and respect for specialist expertise - and democracy - which requires that the state be responsible to an electorate composed of all eligible voters - by concentrating unconstrained power in a single individual. Anticipating defeat in the 2016 election, Trump attacked suggestions that he had sought, or even benefited from, Russian assistance despite the evidence; and he made repeated claims of election fraud. In 2020, fearful that his mishandling of the pandemic had alienated voters, he intensified the allegations of fraud, demanding recounts, pressuring state legislatures and state election officials, advancing bizarre conspiracy theories, and finally calling for a massive demonstration, urging protesters to march to the Capitol to pressure Congress, promising to accompany them. But, as this book documents, Trump's efforts to nullify the result of the 2020 election failed. As the courts rejected his numerous challenges, state election officials loyally performed their statutory duties, the Justice Department found no evidence of fraud, and politicians from all sides certified Biden's victory, this book traces the many, and varied, forms of the defense of liberal democracy located within both the state and civil society: including law (judges, government lawyers, and private practitioners), the media, NGOs, science (and other forms of expertise) and civil servants (in federal, state and local government). Evaluating their efficacy, the book maintains, is vital if - as history has repeatedly taught us - the price of liberal democracy, like that of liberty itself, is eternal vigilance. This definitive account and analysis of Trumpism and the resistance to it will appeal to scholars, students and others with interests in politics, populism and the rule of law; and, more specifically, to those concerned with resisting the threat that autocracy poses to liberal democracy"--

"The 'War on Terror', which the US launched after the 9/11 attacks, profoundly challenged the rule of law during the 16 years of the Bush and Obama administrations. In the companion volume, 'Law's Wars', I defined the rule of law, explained its importance, and charted its fate across five contested terrains : Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay, interrogation and torture, electronic surveillance, and battlefield law of war crimes. I focused on the roles of two state institutions (executive and legislature) and civil society (media, lawyers, and NGOs) in defending the rule of law. Because the judiciary claims to be independent and apolitical, it is seen as the ultimate bulwark of the rule of law. The present volume, therefore, deals exclusively with judicial proceedings. Chapter One draws on history, primarily US and especially in moments of crisis, to derive research questions about when and how courts successfully defend the rule of law. The book then discusses six legal processes : criminal prosecutions of accused terrorists; courts martial of military service members for law of war violations; military commissions for Guantánamo prisoners, especially the so-called High Value Detainees; habeas corpus petitions by Guantánamo detainees (and a few others); civil damage actions by (and compensation schemes for) victims of both the "War on Terror" and terrorism; and civil liberties violations and responses to Islamophobia. The concluding chapter compares the fate of the rule of law across these six domains, as well as with the contested terrains examined in 'Law's Wars'. Although the two volumes address some of the same issues, they contain almost no overlap and can be read separately"--

The US 'war on terror', which Bush declared and Obama continued, repeatedly violated fundamental rule of law values. Law's Wars: The Fate of the Rule of Law in the US 'War on Terror' is the first comprehensive account of efforts to resist and correct those violations. It focuses on responses to abuses in Abu Ghraib, efforts by Guantánamo Bay detainees to improve conditions of confinement in and win release, exposés of and efforts to end torture and electronic surveillance, and civilian casualties on the battlefield, including targeted killings. Abel deploys a law and society perspective to construct and analyze detailed narratives of the roles of victims, whistle-blowers, the media, NGOs, lawyers, doctors, politicians, military personnel, foreign governments and international organizations in defending the rule of law. Only by understanding past errors can we hope to prevent their repetition in what promises to be an endless 'war on terror'.