Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Younger v. Harris

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Younger v. Harris
Argued April 1, 1969
Reargued April 29, 1970
Reargued November 16, 1970
Decided February 23, 1971
Full case nameEvelle J. Younger, District Attorney of Los Angeles County v. John Harris, Jr., Jim Dan, Diane Hirsch, and Farrel Broslawsky
Citations401 U.S. 37 (more)
91 S. Ct. 746; 27 L. Ed. 2d 669; 1971 U.S. LEXIS 136
Case history
PriorJudgment for plaintiffs, 281 F. Supp. 507 (C.D. Cal. 1968); probable jurisdiction noted, 393 U.S. 1013 (1969).
Holding
The possible unconstitutionality of a state statute is not grounds for a federal court to enjoin state court criminal proceedings brought pursuant to that statute. District Court for the Central District of California reversed and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · William O. Douglas
John M. Harlan II · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
Case opinions
MajorityBlack, joined by Burger, Harlan, Stewart, Blackmun
ConcurrenceStewart, joined by Harlan
ConcurrenceBrennan, joined by White, Marshall
DissentDouglas
Laws applied
28 U.S.C. § 2283

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that United States federal courts were required to abstain from hearing any civil rights tort claims brought by a person who is currently being prosecuted for a matter arising from that claim.[1]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/3
    Views:
    141 164
    210 666
    7 341
  • Holbein the Younger, the Ambassadors
  • On the Shortness of Life - Seneca
  • Paul Harris ‘Postcards From Beyond’ Interview by Iain McNay

Transcription

DR. STEVEN ZUCKER: This is a painting that's actually about the things we can't see. DR. BETH HARRIS: We're looking at Holbein's "The Ambassadors" from 1533 here in the National Gallery in London. On the left, Jean de Dinteville, he was an ambassador from France living in England. And on the right, Georges de Selve, his friend, a bishop, and also an ambassador. DR. STEVEN ZUCKER: Both of these men are in England. And Holbein, who was a Swiss painter, had moved to England because he could get work here. And in fact, within a short time after making this painting, he would actually become the painter to the King of England, Henry VIII. DR. BETH HARRIS: King Henry VIII is about to break away from the pope in Rome, from the Catholic Church. And we know that the French ambassador was in England to keep an eye on Henry VIII during this tumultuous period. DR. STEVEN ZUCKER: And we see, within the painting, references to the turmoil that is taking place in England. But it's all within an even greater context. DR. BETH HARRIS: So let's start with the two men. We see Jean de Dinteville on the left. And he's the one who commissioned this painting. And he's the one whose house the painting hung in. And he's obviously represented as an enormously wealthy and successful man, with his fur-lined cloak and velvet and satin clothing. And-- DR. STEVEN ZUCKER: He holds a dagger. DR. BETH HARRIS:--He holds a dagger, on which is inscribed his age, which was 29. So he is a very young man. And Holbein really described his clothing with a sense of clarity and detail that we expect of that northern tradition that Holbein comes from. And then on the right, Georges de Selve is dressed more modestly in a fur cloak. DR. STEVEN ZUCKER:And he's got his elbow on a book. And it really is an interesting kind of contrast. We have that dagger on the one side and the book on the other. References which are actually quite traditional to the active versus the contemplative life. DR. BETH HARRIS: And Georges de Selves, the book that he's got his elbow on has inscribed on it his age, which is 25. Of course, we're meant to look at both of them. But even more than that, perhaps we are meant to look at what's in the middle of the painting, which is all these objects on these two levels of shelves. DR. STEVEN ZUCKER: Holbein is just brilliant in his ability to render textures and the material reality of those objects. And of course, they also mean something. DR. BETH HARRIS: On the top shelf we have objects that are related to the heavens. To the study of astronomy, and to the measuring of time. And on the lower shelf, things that are more earthly. We have a terrestrial globe and a lute, and a book about arithmetic. And a book of hymns. DR. STEVEN ZUCKER: The painting is functioning basically as a grid. On the left, you have the active life. On the right, you have the contemplative life. At the top, you've got the celestial sphere. At the bottom, the terrestrial sphere. Look at the beautifully foreshortened lute on the bottom shelf. Lutes were traditionally objects that were rendered in order to learn perspective. And here, there is just this masterful representation of the way in which that lute is much shorter than it should be, because we're seeing it on end. But if you look very closely, and it's possible because of Holbein's high pitched clarity, you can see that one of the strings is actually snapped. It's broken. DR. BETH HARRIS:Art historians understand this as referring to the discord in Europe at this time. The discord in the church. DR. STEVEN ZUCKER:That can also be seen in the hymn book, which is just below that. It's open, and it's so precisely painted that it can actually be read. It's a translation of a hymn by Martin Luther-- of course, the head of the Protestant Reformation. So all of this luxury, we haven't even mentioned, for instance, the Oriental carpet. All of these objects, all the extraordinary fashion that they wear. All of this stands on a mosaic floor with this beautifully detailed tiling. And it's seen in perfect linear perspective. And this is a reference to an actual floor at Westminster Abbey. And what's important to know, is that that floor, in that church, is actually a kind of diagram, and it's meant to represent the macrocosm, that is, the cosmic order. DR. BETH HARRIS: If we look at the very large form that occupies the foreground-- DR. STEVEN ZUCKER: You know, I had a student once that when she looked at this said, it looked like a piece of driftwood that had somehow been placed down oddly in the foreground. DR. BETH HARRIS: It does. But when you go to the right corner of the painting, and kind of crouch down a bit-- DR. STEVEN ZUCKER: Or look at it in a mirror at an angle. DR. BETH HARRIS:--What we're really looking at is an anamorphic image. A kind of image that's been artificially stretched in perspective. DR. STEVEN ZUCKER: And it's a skull, a human skull. DR. BETH HARRIS: It's something that you can't see when you can see the other things in the painting. But it's something you can see when you don't see the other things in the painting. DR. STEVEN ZUCKER:So you have a choice. You can either stand in such a way as to see the skull, but then everything else is distorted. Or vice versa. Front and center in this painting, really, in a sense, the star of the painting, is this skull, which is a traditional symbol of death. DR. BETH HARRIS: A memento mori. DR. STEVEN ZUCKER: That's right. A reminder of death. And that's a very common element that we see in paintings. But here, we have a painting that seemed for a moment to be celebrating these earthly achievements. And now seems to be under cutting it. DR. BETH HARRIS:Exactly. DR. STEVEN ZUCKER: And then, if you look even more carefully. In the extreme upper left corner of the painting, peeking out from behind the curtain, you can just make out a little sculpture of a crucifixion. DR. BETH HARRIS: But then you have this question that goes back to Holbein. And that is about representation. So you have the lute that you referred to that's perfectly foreshortened. Or that floor that's a perfect perspectival allusion also. So this ability to render reality so perfectly. And then you have Holbein choosing to represent the skull in an unnaturalistic way. So choosing to represent the earthly things in a realistic way, but choosing to represent that which is supernatural, or that which is transcendent, in a way that is not according to that perfect illusionism. DR. STEVEN ZUCKER: And I think Holbein really wants us to see that contrast. Look at the relationship between the lute and the skull. The skull is distorted so extremely that it really is hard to read. But when you think about stretching something, you generally think about stretching it horizontally, or perhaps vertically. But to do so diagonally is very particular. The lute is resting on that shelf. And I had mentioned before, that it was heavily foreshortened. It really is foreshortened at an angle that is very close to the angle of the distortion of the skull. But remember, foreshortening is another kind of distortion. And so in a sense, they are both distortions. But one is a distortion that creates a reality of our world as we see. But it's a reminder that perhaps what we see is not really truth. DR. BETH HARRIS: That's right. It's not all there is. DR. STEVEN ZUCKER: So hold on, because this painting was all about what these men had achieved in life. DR. BETH HARRIS: And what human beings had achieved historically, as far as investigation of the world. And so the two elements that are half hidden in this painting, the crucifix and the skull, point to the limits of earthly life, the limits of earthly vision, of man's knowledge, and the inevitability of death and the promise of Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

Facts

In 1966, several months after the Watts riots and in response to the killing of Leonard Deadwiler (a Black man shot by police while driving his pregnant wife to the hospital), John Harris, Jr., was arrested while handing out leaflets which said, among other things, "Wanted for the murder of Leonard Deadwiler, Bobo the cop."[2]

Harris, a member of the Progressive Labor Party, was indicted on two violations of the California Criminal Syndicalism Act, §§11400 and 11401. These statutes prohibited advocating "unlawful acts of force or violence [to] effect political change." Harris faced 14 years on each count.[2]

While prosecution was pending, Harris sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to get an injunction preventing District Attorney Evelle J. Younger from enforcing the law on the grounds that it violated the free speech guarantee. He was joined in this action by Jim Dan and Diane Hirsch, members of the PLP, and Farrel Broslawsky, a history instructor. In Harris v. Younger, 281 F. Supp. 507 (C.D. Cal. 1968), the district court found the Act unconstitutional, enjoining the state from further prosecution of Harris.[3] Younger appealed.

Decision and precedent

In an 8–1 decision, the Court held that federal courts may not hear the case until the person is convicted or found not guilty of the crime unless the defendant will suffer an irreparable injury that is "both great and immediate." Merely having to endure a criminal prosecution is no such irreparable harm.

There are three exceptions to Younger abstention:

  1. Where the prosecution is in bad faith (i.e. the state knows the person to be innocent)—as applied in Dombrowski v. Pfister; or
  2. Where the prosecution is part of some pattern of harassment against an individual; or
  3. Where the law being enforced is utterly and irredeemably unconstitutional (e.g., if the state were to pass a law making it a crime to say anything negative about its governor under any circumstances).

Dissent

In dissent, Justice Douglas noted,

If the ‘advocacy’ which Harris used was an attempt at persuasion through the use of bullets, bombs, and arson, we would have a different case. But Harris is charged only with distributing leaflets advocating political action toward his objective...

The eternal temptation, of course, has been to arrest the speaker rather than to correct the conditions about which he complains. I see no reason why these appellees should be made to walk the treacherous ground of these statutes. They, like other citizens, need the umbrella of the First Amendment as they study, analyze, discuss, and debate the troubles of these days. When criminal prosecutions can be leveled against them because they express unpopular views, the society of the dialogue is in danger.

Status as precedent

The doctrine was later extended to situations where the state is seeking to execute a civil fine against someone, or has jailed a person for contempt of court. The doctrine applies even where the state does not bring an action until after the person has filed a lawsuit in federal court, provided that the federal court has not yet taken any action on the suit. Moreover, the principle of abstention applies to some state administrative proceedings.

In regard to the exceptions which the Younger Court articulated, later decisions make it clear that these are highly difficult to meet.

  1. Bad faith prosecution: in no case since Younger was decided has the Supreme Court found there to exist bad faith prosecution sufficient to justify a federal court injunction against state court proceedings. The Court has specifically declined to find bad faith prosecution even in circumstances where repeated prosecutions had occurred. As commentator Erwin Chemerinsky states, the bad-faith prosecution exception seems narrowly limited to facts like those in Dombrowski.[4] Other scholars have even asserted that the possible range of cases which would fit the Dombrowski model and allow an exception to the no-injunction rule is so limited as to be an "empty universe."[5]
  2. Patently unconstitutional law: in no case since Younger was decided has the Supreme court found there to exist a patently unconstitutional law sufficient to justify a federal court injunction against state court proceedings. The Court has specifically declined to find such patent unconstitutionality in at least one case (Trainor v. Hernandez) [6]
  3. Inadequate state forum: the Supreme Court has found the state forum in question to be inadequate on a small number of occasions.[7]

See also

References

  1. ^ Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
  2. ^ a b "Oral Argument" (PDF). April 1, 1969. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  3. ^ Harris v. Younger.
  4. ^ Erwin Chemerinsky, Federal Jurisdiction (5th ed. 2007), Aspen Publishers, p. 860.
  5. ^ Chemerinsky, p. 859-60.
  6. ^ 431 US 434 (1977), oyez.org.
  7. ^ e.g. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975), oyez.org Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564 (1973), oyez.org.

External links

This page was last edited on 13 September 2023, at 03:39
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.