The original Lynn Goldsmith photograph of Prince and Andy Warhol's portrait of the musician. As a result, one option might be to throw out the ruling and require the lower court to try again. “At nine of these 10 sittings there was at least one Jewish justice on the court - first Brandeis, then Benjamin Cardozo and Felix Frankfurter - and although the seating arrangement never called for him to sit beside a Jewish justice, at three of these sessions either Cardozo or Frankfurter stood directly behind him.But other justices seemed concerned that an appeals court had minimized, or even ruled out, any analysis of whether Warhol's work had a significantly different meaning or message from those of Goldsmith's photo.
In fact, Justice McReynolds “showed up for all 10 sittings during his tenure when the new group photograph was to be taken,” Mr. A review of his biography in 1965 in The Times Book Review repeated the error, giving it “a crucial nudge toward its current popularity,” Mr. In his letter, Justice McReynolds said nothing about Justice Brandeis.Ī Taft biographer, Alpheus T. The justices had sat for a portrait in 1923, and no new justice had been appointed since then. The misunderstanding arose from a 1924 letter from Justice McReynolds, who told Chief Justice William Howard Taft that “I absolutely refuse to go through the bore of picture taking until there is a change in the court” - meaning the arrival of a new justice. Justice McReynolds was indeed an anti-Semite and racist, but that particular story was false, as Mr. McReynolds, an anti-Semite and a racist, refused to sit next to Justice Louis D. “The court had to cancel its portrait that year,” I wrote in a 2010 column, “because Justice James C. It has long been said, including by me, that the court did not sit for a 1924 group photograph for an ugly reason.
0 kommentar(er)
