NewspaperAlum

As the Trade Deadline Looms, Look No Further Than MLB Trade Rumors

As the Major League Baseball deadline approaches, baseball fans, especially those with their favorite team in the playoff hunt, are usually scouring the web, following their favorite beat writer on Twitter and staying glued to ESPN for the latest news of possible trades before the clock strikes midnight on July 31st. The non-waiver Major League trading deadline has been July 31st since the 1986 season.

For the most rabid fans, however, who want to catch wind of trades in the works, there’s really only one source: MLB Trade Rumors , an indispensable site that reports on trades and free agent signings 365 days a year with extensive coverage of all 30 teams. Reports or rumors of trades are conveniently linked to original online stories or reported by their own team of writers. Much like retailers during Black Friday (the day after Thanksgiving, the biggest shopping day of the Christmas season), Christmas comes in July for MLB Trade Rumors, especially the last week of July, when a majority of 11th hour trades are finalized.

Tim Dierkes, the creator of MLB Trade Rumors and a writer and contributor to the site, informs me his site averaged about 600,000 pageviews every day from July 1 through July 21st of this year; and for the last 10 days of this month, leading up the trade deadline, he expects to receive approximately 1.5 million page views per day, with almost six million coming in the last two days.

Last year, MLB Trade Rumors registered 3,485,401 page views on July 31st, baseball's trade deadline. Dierkes, a long-suffering Chicago Cubs fan, who used to work in the search engine marketing field before taking the website full-time in January of 2008, currently lives with his wife and three children in Glen Ellyn, IL..

With practically every baseball beat writer from coast-to-coast live tweeting about anything and everything these days, even if a manager blows his nose, I asked Dierkes if he felt the explosion of Twitter has diverted traffic away from his site?  Dierkes said: ``Beat writers being on Twitter has not hurt traffic...I think a lot of people would like to avoid having to be on Twitter to catch up on the news, so they're happy to have us act as a filter.’’

In addition to a daily feed of trade rumors and transactions, MLB Trade Rumors features a user friendly pull down menu of ``Tools’’, including a ``2013 MLB Free Agent Tracker’’, ``2013 MLB Free Agent List’’, a ``Transaction Tracker’’, and updated database of which agency a major league baseball player is associated with. And for active users accustomed to getting their news on their mobile devices, the site makes available apps for iPhone, iPad, and Android.

Baseball fans are all too well aware that the fast approaching trading deadline can be a wildly exciting time, with a buzz of trade rumors filling the air.

It wasn’t until July 31st, 2007, for example, the last day of the trading deadline, when fans learned that the Atlanta Braves acquired infielder Mark Teixeira and left-handed pitcher Ron Mahay from the Texas Rangers for catcher/1st baseman Jarrod Saltalamacchia, infielder Elvis Andrus, left-handed pitcher Matt Harrison, left-handed pitcher Beau Jones and right-handed pitcher Neftali Feliz. And it was July 31st , 2008,  when the Boston Red Sox unloaded their disgruntled cleanup hitter Manny Ramirez in a three-way deal in exchange for Jason Bay from the Pittsburgh Pirates , while the Red Sox paid $ 7 million left on Ramirez's contract, along with sending reliever Craig Hansen and infielder Brandon Moss to Pittsburgh.

Other notable trades on July 31st have included: The Seattle Mariners trading their staff ace Randy Johnson to the Houston Astros in 1998 for left-fielder Carlos Guillen, pitcher Freddy Garcia and a player to be named; the New York Yankees trading outfielder Ruben Sierra and pitcher Matt Drews to the Detroit Tigers in 1996 for 1st baseman/DH Cecil Fielder; and the Oakland Athletics shipping their star slugger, 1st baseman  Mark McGwire, to the St. Cardinals in 1997 for pitcher T.J. Mathews, pitcher Eric Ludwick and pitcher Blake Stein.

From July 2000-2013, based on statistics compiled by Major League Baseball, the Pittsburgh Pirates have made a total of 39 trades during the month of July, the most of any major league club, while the club with the least amount of trades during the same time period are the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim with only 12.

According to Major League Baseball, a trade deadline in the Major Leagues was first established by the National League on August 20th, 1917. After that date, a player had to clear N.L. waivers before being traded. The American League followed suit in 1920, but with a deadline of July 1st. The following year, both the A.L. and N.L. agreed on a deadline of August 1st.   Subsequently, on December 14, 1922, the deadline was changed again to June 15th after securing approval at the Joint Major League meetings held at the Hotel Commodore in New York and it would remain that way until after the 1985 season.

-Bill Lucey
[email protected]
July 25, 2013

Number of Trades in July by Club: 2000-2013:
Pittsburgh: 39
San Diego: 38
Boston: 36
Los Angeles Dodgers: 34
Chicago Clubs: 34
New York Yankees: 30
Colorado: 29
Cleveland: 28
Chicago White Sox: 27
Cincinnati: 27
Kansas City: 27
San Francisco: 26
Texas: 26
Baltimore: 25
New York Mets: 25
Philadelphia: 25
Seattle: 24
Arizona: 22
Atlanta: 22
Miami: 21
Milwaukee: 21
St. Louis: 20
Washington/Montreal: 20
Toronto: 17
Oakland: 16
Detroit: 15
Tampa Bay: 15
Minnesota: 14
L.A. Angels of Anaheim: 12

Source: Major League Baseball

 

Miami Herald Employees Warming Up To New Digs

Many thanks to the Miami Herald  for passing along photos of their new 150,000-square-foot home in Doral, in the 3300 block of Northwest 91st Avenue, a small city on the west side of Miami-Dade County. The new facility is perfectly tailored for the new media as reporters and  photographers more and more rely on modern technology (smart phones, digital cameras, etc) to better and more efficiently cover breaking news, politics and sports for their 1.5 million readers.
 
While admittedly it’s taking Herald employees a little time getting comfortable with their new headquarters, away from One Herald Plaza with its spectacular view of Biscayne Bay, their new home, which once housed the U.S. Southern Command, comes equipped with a fully-stocked workout room (something they didn’t have at their previous home) and a more expansive newsroom with an interlocking grid of desks and offices, creating a sharp and modern synergistic flow from department to department, where even editors are now more accessible.

-Bill Lucey

[email protected]

July 23, 2013

 A peek inside the CND (Continuous News Desk), the heart of the Herald's news operation. Editors at the table are holding the daily afternoon news planning meeting. Photo Credit: Courtesy / Miami Herald.

 A large group of MHMC (Miami Herald Media Company) employees poses outside the company's new building in Doral shortly after the move from downtown Miami, Photo Credit: Courtesy / Miami Herald.

-- MHMC executives, including Publisher David Landsberg, cut the symbolic ribbon designated the opening of the new facility. Photo Credit: Courtesy / Miami Herald.

 

By George! When Will We Know the Name of Will and Kate's New Baby Boy?

William and Kate deciding on what to name their new son.

In 1982, Diana and Charles show the world their new son, William

***

Pass the cigars and let’s uncork a little of the bubbly with the fabulous news we’ve all been waiting for: Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge and Prince William are proud parents of a new healthy baby boy, who weighed in at 8 pounds, 6 ounces, at central London's St. Mary's Hospital, the same hospital where William and Harry were born.

Before the dawn of the 20^th and 21^st centuries, the birth of a royal baby was marked by a number of regal traditions, which sadly, except for a lingering few, have faded into the night air.  Two British historians (Robert Bucholz and Geoffrey Wandesforde-Smith) told me gone are the traditions of the bells ringing from church steeples across Britain to announce the birth of a new heir to the throne; gone too are the lit bonfires and the court distributing wine at the gates of the palace, especially common during the Tudor period. Patrick Allitt, professor of history at Emory University, moreover, said that before DNA tests became so common and so reliable, the Lord Chancellor was present at the birth to make sure the baby was genuine and that an impostor had not been sneaked into the room (a so-called "warming-pan baby").

Thankfully, a few royal traditions still remained on Monday, namely, the posting of a birth announcement on an easel in the forecourt of Buckingham Palace along with the traditional Town Crier outside St. Mary’s hospital to make known the news of the birth of the new prince.

With the traditional formalities in announcing the birth behind us, now all the proud parents have to do is to reveal to the world the name of their new son.

But don’t hold your breath; the announcement could take a while.  After all, William’s name wasn’t revealed until a week after his birth; and his father Charles-even longer-an entire month in 1948.

So all we can really do is speculate and place down our bets as to what the name of the new prince will be. All we know for sure is the new addition to the royal family will have an H.R.H before his name and be known as ``Prince….of Cambridge.’’

Possibly, much like Charles and Diana, there might be some sparring going on between Kate and William over the new name. It’s been well documented when Diana gave birth in 1982; she wanted a modern name for her son. Charles and the Queen, on the other hand, insisted on a traditional royal name, one well suited for a future king. A grand bargain was struck when they settled on William, perfect for a future king with echoes to William the Conqueror, the first Norman King of England, who reigned from 1066 until his death in 1087. Diana, still bent on modernizing the name of her new son, shortened it to ``Wills’’ or the more playful ``Wombat.’’

In 1894, Queen Victoria, known for flamboyant fits of anger got worked up over the Duke of York wanting to name her great-grandson Edward after the duke's elder brother (``Eddy’’) who died of pneumonia two years before. The child eventually ended with the name: Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David, later The Duke of Windsor and eventually King Edward VIII before abdicating in 1936 after proposing to Wallis Simpson, an American socialite who was in the midst of divorcing her second husband.

Since my personal suggestions for the name of the baby (Jethro, Sparky, and Wolfgang) have apparently fallen on deaf ears at Buckingham Palace, I thought I would turn to some British specialists who are more equipped than I am in speculating what the name of the new prince will likely be.

Here, then, are some responses which came back.

• ``The names are usually carefully chosen: usually names of former monarchs with a good reputation (e.g. Elizabeth; William; Henry; Edward) or with dynastic associations (e.g. George). Some names seem to have become taboo because of bad associations (e.g. no John since 13th century; no Richard since Richard III; no James since James II). I wonder if Edward will be ruled out in future because of Edward VIII's abdication in 1936.  That said, I don't think most of the public have that much of a historical awareness of such significances - they just know that some names seem to be 'appropriate' for monarchs because they are frequently chosen. Personally I always thought Charles was an odd choice for the present Prince of Wales (Charles I was executed after a Civil War with his own Parliament and Charles II was both personally dissolute and politically suspect because of his liking for France, catholicism and absolutism). The present Charles hasn't exactly been universally respected, come to think of it - maybe it was a prophetic choice! ''

-Keith Wrightson, Randolph W. Townsend Jr. Professor of History at Yale University, specifically ‘early modern’ England (c.1450-1750), specializing in social, economic and cultural history.

 

• ``All names are significant, of course and royal names especially so because you want to avoid bad precedents:  no Richards, no Edwards and they don't seem to be ready yet for another Henry.  My bet's on George or something completely non-royal, like John, Paul or Ringo.’’

- Robert O. Bucholz, a leading authority on the history of the British court, the social history of early modern England, and the emergence of London as global cultural center during and after the sixteenth century is a professor of history at Loyola University Chicago, where he teaches courses on the history of early modern Great Britain, the city of London and Western Civilization.

 

• ``My money is on George, but we’ll have to see. The choice of George could be a way to re-habilitate the old Duke’s reputation, and to honor the present Queen’s father, who was George VI, and about as deeply devoted to public service to the country as the present Queen herself.

 

But a good second favorite might be James, which would be a way of reinforcing the royal family’s connections to Scotland and the importance for Britain of the Act of Union, on the eve of a Scottish referendum to declare independence.

Edward is probably still tainted by the abdication crisis.  Arthur has legendary connections but is tainted by tragedy.  So, the possibilities really are constrained by history and tradition.''

-Geoffrey Wandesforde-Smith, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Political Science at the University of California (Davis Campus).

 

• ``I'm voting for George as a nice way to balance something safe, traditional, and Hanoverian against recent changes in the succession, etc.  George reminds you there will always be an England.''

-John Watkins, Professor in the Department of English (with a specialty in sovereignty and queenship) at the University of Minnesota.

 

• ``Name will come off a short list. I expect, George, Henry, William, Albert, or Edward.''

-Tom Mockaitis, professor of history at DePaul University, where he teaches courses in British, Modern European, and Military History.

 

 - Bill Lucey

[email protected]

July 23, 2013

 

Settling on Just the Right Title For a Book-Never an Easy Chore

Margaret Mitchell considered the title ``Tomorrow is Another Day'' among others,  before settling  on ``Gone With the Wind.''

****

So you if you can’t judge a book by its cover, can you judge it by its title?

If the early rumbling is any indication, a volcano has erupted over Mark Leibovich’s  new book ``This Town’’ , which takes a hard look inside the nation’s capital, where the streets are paved with gold; assuming, of course, you’re on the right talk shows, rub the right elbows, and dance in the most powerful circles D.C. has to offer. Such blatant cynicism extends to reporters, bloggers, cable shows and members of the new media, who rather than representing dispassionate observers have become co-opted into the celebrity culture or carnival atmosphere that has become so endemic in Washington these days.

Since the book was released, the chief national correspondent for The New York Times’ Magazine has faced heaps of biting criticism from his contemporaries and members of the Washington elite, questioning his audacity for exposing the unwritten rules or codes of Washington reporting when he’s a member of the club himself.

``Washington has been transformed by wealth and the new media more than any other city in the world’’, Leibovich recently told Charlie Rose. As long as you gain a reputation for being a Washington insider, Leibovich reasons, you can hawk your services to any lobbying firm or media outlet for a pretty penny.  Such a culture perpetuates a sense of mediocrity.

``This Town’’ doesn’t merely focus on reporters and the media but includes tough love critiques of the entire Washington elite, including the politicians themselves.

Washington is increasingly become a town where you come to get rich rather than devote yourself to a life of public service. This wasn’t true 20 or 30 years ago, Leibovich observed.  Citing one example to the PBS host, Leibovich offers up Robert Gibbs, the former press secretary to President Obama, who since leaving his post in 2011, has racked up about $2 million in speaking fees.

Explaining just how corrupted the culture of Washington can be for any new arrivals, Leibovitch points out that Barack Obama, the junior senator from Illinois, who came to Washington as the 44^th president of the United States, hoping to be an ``agent of change’’-in the end-fell victim to Washington changing him, more, much more, than Obama changed Washington.  An extremely poignant commentary on the crippling culture in the nation’s capital. And many wonder why voters have become so cynical of Washington.

``Washington has become extremely self-satisfied at a time when the country has become increasingly dissatisfied’’ Leibovich informed Rose.

During his Charlie Rose interview, Leibovich said he thought about a number of titles for the book before settling on ``This Town.’’ Curious what other titles he considered, I immediately shot off an email to the Times’ national correspondent. He replied, writing that he kicked around a few titles: ``One was “Suck Up City” “You’ll Always Eat Lunch in this Town Again” was another. And also “The Club.”

This got me to thinking of other famous books whose authors pondered several titles before deciding on that one magical title that eventually propelled them into national and international best sellers.

Here, then, are some of my favorites:

 

Original Title: ``At This Point in Time''

Published Title: ``All The President's Men’’ (1974)

Authors: Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein

 

Original Title: ``Tomorrow is Another Day''; also ``Tote the Weary Load'', ``Milestones’’, ``Jettison’’, ``Ba! Ba! Black Sheep’’, ``None so Blind’’, ``Not in Our Stars'' and ``Bugles Sang True''

Published Title: ``Gone with the Wind (1936)

Author: Margaret Mitchell

 

Original Title: ``Before This Anger''

Published Title: ``Roots’’ (1976)

Author: Alex Haley

 

Original Title: ``Great White, ``The Shark’’, ``Leviathan Rising’’, ``The Jaws of Death.’’

Published Title: ``Jaws’’ (1974)

Author: Peter Benchley

 

Original Title: ``Catch-18’’

Published Title: ``Catch-22’’ (1961)

Author: Joseph Heller

 

Original Title: ``Four-and-a Half Years of Struggle against Lies, Stupidity, and Cowardice.’’

Published Title: ``Mein Kampf’’ (My Struggle)-1925

Author: Adolf Hitler.

 

Original Title: "Beyond the Birds and Bees"

Published Title: "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex’’ (But Were Afraid to Ask) -1969

Author:  Dr. David Reuben.

 

Original Title: ``All’s Well That Ends Well''

Published Title: ``War and Peace’’ (1866)

Author: Leo Tolstoy

 

Original Title: ``Incident at West Egg''; also ``Among Ash Heaps and Millionaires'', ``Trimalchio in West Egg'', ```On the Road to West Egg'', ``Gold-Hatted Gatsby'' and ``The High-Bounding Lover''

Published Titles: ``The Great Gatsby’’ (1925)

Author: F. Scott Fitzgerald

 

Original Title: ``First Impressions’’

Published Title: ``Pride and Prejudice’’ (1813)

Author: Jane Austen

 

Original Title of Play: ``The Moth’’ and ``The Poker Night’’

Published Title: ``A Streetcar Named Desire’’ (1947)

Author Tennessee Williams

 

Original Title: ``Mag's Diversion’’; also ``The Copperfield Disclosures’’, ``The Copperfield Records’’, ``The Copperfield Survey of the World as It Rolled’’ and ``Copperfield Complete’’

Published Title: David Copperfield (1849)

Author: Charles Dickens

 

Original Title: ``Alice's Adventures Underground’’

Published Title: ``Alice's Adventures in Wonderland’’ (1865)

Author: Lewis Carroll

 

Original Title: ``Paul Morel’’

Published Title: ``Sons and Lovers’’ (1913)

Author: D.H. Lawrence

 

Original Title: ``The Romantic Egotist’’

Published Title: ``This Side of Paradise’’ (1920)

Author: F. Scott Fitzgerald

 

Original Title: ``Fiesta''; also ``The Lost Generation'', ``River to the Sea'', `` Two Lie Together'', and ``The Old Leaven''

Published Title: ``The Sun Also Rises’’ (1926).

Author: Ernest Hemingway

 

Original Title: ``Salinas Valley’’

Published Title: `` East of Eden’’ (1952)

Author: John Steinbeck

 

Original Title: ``Proud Flesh’’

Published Title: ``All the King's Men'' (1946)

Author: Robert Penn Warren

 

Original Title: ``Something That Happened’’

Published Title: ``Of Mice and Men (1937)

Author: John Steinbeck

 

Original Title:  ``They Don't Build Statues to Businessmen’’

Published Title: ``Valley of the Dolls’’ (1966)

Author: Jacqueline Susann

 

Original Title of Poem: ``He Do The Police in Different Voices.’’

Published Title: ``The Waste Land’’ (1922)

Author: T.S. Eliot

 

Original Title: ``If Wishes Were Horses’’

Published Title: ``From Here to Eternity’’ (1951)

Author: James Jones

 

Original Title: ``Bar-B-Q?!’’

Final Title: The Postman Always Rings Twice (1934)

Author: James M. Cain

 

-Bill Lucey

July 18, 2013

[email protected]

 

All-Star Games Can Get a Little Hairy

Always the trendsetter, Abraham Lincoln.

Rollie Fingers, an All-Star and Hall-of-Famer, best remembered for his handlebar mustache.

***

As we prepare for another mid-season clash between the American and National Leagues in the 84^th annual All-Star game from Citi Field in Queens on Tuesday, some statistics are in order.

But unlike other general baseball stat facts, these might get a little hairy.

It was certainly a hair-raising experience (at least for me) to learn from STATS,  the world’s leading sports statistical analysis company, that facial hair is actually linked with player performance on the diamond; so much so that over the last decade, players with facial hair have clearly outperformed their clean-shaven counterparts during the All-Star games.

Just consider the following All-Star game facts that STATS so skillfully scooped up and fired our way:

• From 2003 through 2012, players with beards have a .287 batting average compared with non facial players who have batted a paltry .226.

 

• From 2003 through 2012, On Base Percentage for players with facial hair is .338 compared with .272 for those without facial hair.

 

• All six All-Star MVP‘s feature facial hair: Melky Cabrera, Prince Fielder, Brian McCann, Carl Crawford, J.D. Drew and Ichiro Suzuki.

 

• In seven out of the last eight All-Star games, players with facial hair batted higher than those without.

 

• Over the last four All-Star Games, clean-shaven players have gone 152 at-bats without bashing one out of the park.

 

Come to think of it, are these statistics really such a surprise?

Looking back through history, would the ``Great Emancipator’’, Abraham Lincoln, really have prevented the country from splitting into two over slavery had not 11-year old Grace Bedell of Westfield, New York, suggested to Mr. Lincoln he grow a beard? Lincoln was actually the real trend setter when it came to facial hair among U.S. presidents as he ushered in what was described as the ``Golden Age of Facial Hair.’’  From 1861 through 1913, all but two presidents (Andrew Johnson and William McKinley) were decorated with facial hair.  Three of those presidents had beards: (Rutherford B. Hayes, James Garfield, and Benjamin Harrison), three mustaches (Grover Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt, and William Howard Taft) and one with sideburns, giant sideburns (Chester Arthur).

In light of this, you might be asking yourself, would the crushing defeats of Samuel Tilden (1876) and William Jennings Bryant (1896) turned out differently if they weren’t clean-shaven?

Beginning with Woodrow Wilson in 1913, facial hair would never be seen on a U.S. president again, most of it attributable to the mass production of the razor blade, beginning in 1901.  Additionally, unlike previous wars, U.S. serviceman in World War I were all required to shave.

Before Lincoln, of course, facial hair planted on prominent historical figures did pop up from time to time.  According to at least one historical account, Sir Thomas More, the Renaissance humanist, before laying his head on the block in 1535, pushed aside his beard and said to his executioner, ``My beard has not been guilty of treason; it would be an injustice to punish it.’’

Even Uncle Sam got with the program by having a beard added to his face by 1855.

Today, facial hair on a Pope is unthinkable; but Popes from Clement VII (1523) to Clement XI (1700) wore beards; and Robert Bellarmine (who died in 1621), was considered one of the last great bearded cardinals. He was eventually canonized as Saint Robert.

So forgive me if I can’t help but wonder how history would have been shaped differently, if the following figures had not sported a beard:

• Would God, for example, really have trusted Moses with two stone tablets bearing the 10 commandments on Mount Sinai, if the religious leader, lawgiver, and prophet weren’t wearing a beard much like the creator and sustainer of the universe?

 

• How much precious pearls of wisdom and Western Philosophy would have been passed on to us through the ages had Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, not grown a beard?

 

• I hate to think of all the magnificent literature we would have been deprived of if such accomplished writers like William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Henry Longfellow, Edgar Allan Poe, and Ernest Hemingway, to name just a few, would have been beardless. Would they have been as imaginative in wielding their pen?

 

• Would we even be talking about the mid-season Fall Classic right now had Christopher Columbus been beardless, beardless at least by some historical accounts?   Would the Italian explorer still have discovered America as a clean-shaven navigator?

 

• Would Rollie Fingers, the Oakland A’s and San Diego Padres flame-thrower have gone on to be only the second reliever elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame without his signature waxed handlebar moustache?

 

To all these questions, I guess we’ll never really know.

 

The real moral of this story, however, is if any of the 30 MLB teams hope to advance to the post-season in October, they might give serious thought to throwing their straight edge razors and Remington electric shavers overboard and start growing out that facial hair. In the heat of a pennant race, any advantage you can muster goes a long way.

 

Ditto for the 2016 candidates, hoping to be considered presidential timber, including Hillary Clinton, who might go down in history as the first female U.S. president with a beard.

 

-Bill Lucey

[email protected]

July 16, 2013

 

July 4th Holds a Very Special Place in Carl Bernstein's Heart

Carl Bernstein and Christine Kuehbec. Source: Michael Loccisano/Getty Images North America

****

Before firing up the grills,  briskly raising ``Old Glory'' or dashing  off to a parade, it's worth pointing out that July 4th is a memorable day for more than the Second Continental Congress (meeting in the Pennsylvania State House) approving the Declaration of Independence on July 4^th, 1776.

Among other significant events, July 4th, 1827, was the day slavery was abolished in New York; on July 4th, 1831 ``America (My Country `Tis of Thee)'' was first sung in Boston at the Park Street Church; on July 4, 1855, Walt Whitman's first edition of ``Leaves of Grass’’ was published in Brooklyn; on July 4th, 1863, Confederate Gen. John Pemberton surrendered to Union forces at Vicksburg, Miss.,; and on July 4th, 1884, France presented the United States with a statue called ``Liberty Enlightening the World’’, which became known as the Statue of Liberty.

And…Oh yeah!...July 4th is remembered as a truly special day, if not for all Americans, than at least for investigative reporter and author Carl Bernstein.

It was on July 4th, 2003, when the world-renowned journalist was married in Reykjavik, Iceland, of all places, to Christine Kuehbeck.  ``As a wonderful a day as I can conjure as our tenth wedding anniversary approaches'' Bernstein tells me.    ``No, not an Icelandic bride'' he says, [a former model] ``from California.''

July 4th, 2003 was Bernstein's third marriage. He was previously married to former Washington Post reporter Carol Honsa and writer and director Nora Ephron.

-Bill Lucey

[email protected]

July 3, 2013

 

Which Justices' Prose Reigns Supreme?

For passionate U.S. Supreme Court watchers, the last couple of weeks must have felt like Christmas came early; what with momentous decisions handed down on key social issues, including same- sex marriage, affirmative action and the highly explosive decision which struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Overall, in the latest U.S. Supreme Court term, which began on October 1, 2012 (and ends on Sunday, October 6, 2013), the justices have signed 73 opinions after oral arguments, according to the ScotusBlog, a private blog devoted to comprehensively covering the Supreme Court of the United States.

To get a sense just how much reading U.S. Supreme Court analysts and correspondents have had to wade through over the past several months, just consider there have been 169 opinions issued by the 9 justices, including 78 majority opinions, 39 concurring opinions, and 52 dissenting opinions.

All this adds up to a boatload of reading for the few, those lucky few, who are responsible for covering the U.S. Supreme Court and sifting through the thicket of opinions.

As you can imagine just by the breadth of issues covered and the monstrous size of the opinions released, this doesn’t exactly make for light reading. What’s more, if an individual justice has a predilection for writing long-winded rambling opinions, it must make the correspondents’ job all the more difficult.

Curious just how many of the current justices have a natural flair for writing with a fluid poetic style when composing their opinions; I thought I would check in with some U.S. Supreme Court correspondents. According to Adam Liptak, who covers the Court for The New York Times, `` There are three great writers on the Court: [John G.] Roberts and [Elena] Kagan are great explainers and debaters, and both can turn a phrase.’’ `` [Antonin] Scalia is also enormously readable’’, Liptak says, ``though his sarcasm is not to everyone's taste.’’

Hailing Roberts, Kagan, and Scalia as some of the more graceful writers on the present Court, as Liptak does (and most of his contemporaries would most likely agree) this led me to wonder how these justices stack up against their predecessors, dating back to 1789?

With that in mind, I consulted with some of the leading legal scholars in the country, to get their opinion which justices exhibited a natural gift for the written word.

What follows, then, are some answers that came back.

• ``I think you might find general agreement that Robert Jackson wrote the best prose of any of the justices -- eloquent without being florid, shrewdly realistic without being cynical. Like John Marshall, another great stylist, Jackson had a knack for expounding the structural design of the Constitution, and also the conflicts within that design.  For a sample, see his opinions in the Barnette and Gobitis (compulsory flag-salute) cases and his famous opinion in the steel seizure case.

Holmes had the most brilliant aphorisms, which is probably why he is the most quoted of all the justices ("great cases, like hard cases, make bad law", "general propositions do not decide concrete cases", etc.)and also was capable of great eloquence (see his dissents in the Abrams free-speech cases and the Schwimmer case of a woman denied immigration because she would not swear to bear arms.

My own favorite on the current Court is Ruth Ginsburg. Her style is spare and unadorned, without rhetorical flourishes or quotable soundbites, but it is tightly reasoned and always well supported by evidence and examples.  She reminds me of Justice Brandeis in her powerful intellect and keen perception of the real-life consequences of Supreme Court decisions.  Her concurring opinion in the Obamacare case and dissent in the recent Voting Rights case are virtuoso performances. They are (characteristically) understated, but efficiently grind up the opposing opinions into rubbish.  This small, frail lady has been doing valuable service to the republic.''

-Robert W. Gordon, Professor of Law at Stanford University; a preeminent legal historian, prolific scholar with expertise in American legal history is author of a number of key works on legal philosophy, including ``The Legacy of Oliver Wendell Holmes (1992), and `Storie Critiche del Diritto'' (Critical Legal Histories) (1995).

 

• ``Several earlier justices come to mind as notable prose stylists. Holmes and Brandeis were wonderful writers. Holmes gave us some wonderful language. For example, dissenting in Lochner v. New York, which struck down a state law limiting working hours, he tartly observed: "The Fourteenth Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics." He also cautioned, in Schenck v. United States, that "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre and causing a panic." And his dissenting opinion in Abrams v. United States gave us the wonderful image of the marketplace of ideas as the basis of the First Amendment. There are many other examples.

As for Brandeis, I am particularly partial to this line from his opinion in Whitney v. California, which remains to my mind the most eloquent defense of freedom of speech ever articulated by anyone on the Supreme Court: "Men feared witches and burned women." Brandeis also observed that "in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right." Both of these lines came in dissenting opinions (well, as a technical point, the Whitney opinion is called a concurrence, but Brandeis rejected the Court's whole approach to the First Amendment issue yet reluctantly agreed with the result because of how the issue was presented in the lower courts).

A few other justices also come to mind. One is Robert Jackson, who in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette observed that, "if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion." Jackson also famously observed in Brown v. Allen: "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."

Another is the second Justice John Marshall Harlan, who observed in Cohen v. California (a case that overturned the disorderly-conduct conviction of a man who at the height of the Vietnam War had a jacket emblazoned with "Fuck the Draft"): "While the particular four-letter word being litigated here is perhaps more distasteful than most others of its genre, it is nevertheless often true that one man's vulgarity is another's lyric."

Justice Stevens was no slouch as a stylist, either. One of my favorites from him comes from his opinion in Young v. American Mini Theatres, which upheld zoning restrictions on adult cinemas and bookstores: "Few of us would march our sons and daughters off to war to preserve the citizen's right to watch 'Specified Sexual Activities' in the theaters of our choice."

Finally, although I don't think he quite ranks with these others overall, Justice Souter produced a jaw-dropping line in a footnote during his first term on the Court. The case, American National Red Cross v. S.G., dealt with a very technical procedural issue. Responding to Justice Scalia's scathing dissent, Souter wrote: "The dissent accuses us of repeating what it announces as Chief Justice [John] Marshall's misunderstanding, in [Case 2], of his own previous opinion in [Case 1]. We are honored."

-Jonathan L. Entin,  Associate Dean for Academic Affairs; David L. Brennan Professor of Law, and Professor of Political Science at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Cleveland, Ohio, where he teaches Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Courts, Public Policy, and Social Change, along with a Supreme Court Seminar.  Professor Entin clerked for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg when she was on the U.S. court of Appeals.

 

• ``I like [Robert] Jackson, with his Barnette decision [Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protected students from being forced to salute the American flag and say the Pledge of Allegiance in school]  being the classic example. [Oliver Wendell] Holmes is good also, but he tends to be a bit on the sarcastic side in his dissents. I think [Louis] Brandeis writes better and with more passion. Compare their two dissents in Olmstead. I think the first [John Marshall] Harlan wrote well, as shown in particular by his Plessy dissent. On the current Court, I think [Anthony] Kennedy writes very well—his recent decision in Windsor is a good example. ''

-Robert Langran, Professor in the Department of Political Science at Villanova University and author of ``The United States Supreme Court: An Historical and Political Analysis'' and ``The Supreme Court: A Concise History.''

 

• ``One's appreciation of writing style probably has something to do with one's agreement with the content.  In my opinion, Justice Scalia is the most rhetorically gifted member of the Court.  He is especially good at skewering obfuscation and pretension.  No doubt that is more winning if one is not the target.

For an example of Scalia's mature style, with all the features that excite both fans and critics, I don't think you can do better than Part I of his dissent in Windsor, the Defense of Marriage Act case decided last week.''

-John C. Jeffries, Jr., David and Marry Harrison Distinguished Professor Law at the University of Virginia Law School and author of a biography on Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., a justice he once clerked for soon after graduating from the University of Virginia Law School.

 

• `For [Robert] Jackson, it's hard to top his majority opinion in West Va School Bd v. Barnette and his dissent in Korematsu.  For [John]  Marshall, the classics are Marbury and McCulloch.  [Louis} Brandeis's dissents in Olmstead and Whitney top his list.  For Harlan, I'd go with the Plessy dissent.  And OMG, I left out Holmes, for whom the Abrams dissent, the Lochner dissent, and the majority in Missouri v. Holland would be my stylistic favorites.''

 

-Michael C. Dorf, Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law at Cornell University Law School, who has written over seventy law review articles and essays on constitutional law and related subjects and is the co-author (with Laurence Tribe) of ``On Reading the Constitution.''(Harvard University Press, 1991).

 

 ``John Marshall--Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.--Robert Jackson were certainly gifted writers but for a "poetic" style, I would go with Holmes who, in Grant Gilmore's words, "knew how to reduce an idea to its bare bones in a single, flashing phrase."

-Philip C. Bobbitt, Distinguished Senior Lecturer, School of Law at The University of Texas at Austin is one of the nation's leading constitutional theorists and author of six books, including: ``Constitutional Fate'' (1982) and ``Constitutional Interpretation'' (1991).

 

-Bill Lucey

[email protected]

July 1, 2013