February 14, 2015
Dean Brad Sears
The Williams Institute
UCLA School of Law
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1476
Dear Dean Sears:
I received an email today describing the work being done by
the Williams Institute at UCLA. As a result, I visited your very impressive and
comprehensive web site.
It appears that through the generosity of Mr. Williams, the
University has been able to recruit a formidable staff of scholars,
researchers, writers and speakers which has been diligently and effectively
training 3,000 judges throughout the United States.
In reviewing your web site, I was impressed with both the
similarity and the contrast between the work of the Institute and the famous
Brandeis Brief filed in the 1908 case of Muller v Oregon on behalf of the
defendant State of Oregon by Louis Brandeis, who was later appointed to the
Supreme Court.
The Brandeis Brief, you will recall, was a ground breaking
effort to persuade the court, not so much with historical precedents as with
scientific knowledge and other evidence not introduced in the lower courts,
such as testimony by medics, social scientists and male workers who argued that
long working hours had a negative effect on the health, safety, morals and
general welfare of women.
It became a model for many other presentations before the
Supreme Court of the United States, a practice which has encouraged the Court
to eschew the historic function of adjudication in favor of an activist role as
arbiter of the national welfare and culture.
It would appear that the work of the Williams Institute
constitutes a massive and exhaustive Brandeis Brief in favor of the LGBT
cultural agenda. In the interest of fairness, would it not be desirable to
inform the public and all potential litigants of the names of those 3,000 judges
who had the benefit of your intensive instruction and attitude training?
I should think that litigants currently before the court
debating the marriage issue should be informed which, if any, of the current
Supreme Court Justices are among those 3,000 judicial graduates of the Williams
Institute.
Sincerely,
Thomas E. Brennan
Former Chief Justice of Michigan
Founder of Thomas Cooley Law School
What seems to get lost in this issue of gas marriage is the free association aspect of the first amendment. In light of it, then why is it not unconstitutional for state government to be in the business of issuing licenses for any citizen to freely associate with another.
ReplyDeleteA marriage license is not a license to associate. If it were, the First Amendment might come into play. But a marriage license is a license to propagate human beings, an activity which carries the greatest social consequence. The state has a legitimate interest in the welfare of the next generation.
ReplyDeleteThen why must two octogenarians get a marriage license? A license to propagate is moot.
ReplyDeleteDon't knock octogenarians. Genisis 21:2
ReplyDelete