"Surprising casualness" (Raoul Berger of Harvard). "Dangerous nonsense" (Gerald Gunther of Stanford). "Disturbingly cavalier" (Paul J. Mishkin of Berkeley).
Such observations fairly spewed out when the editors of the UCLA Law Review asked nine constitutional experts to assess the Supreme Court's U.S. v. Nixon decision last summer in the case of the White House tapes. This week the Law Review will publish the responses as a legal symposium, and despite the popular admiration that greeted the court's ruling, the academics for the most part rated the opinion at barely a gentleman's C.
The...
To continue reading:
or
Log-In
