Swearing-in Ceremony Research Articles

‘Swearing Mary’: The Significance of the Speeches Made at Mary Gaudron's Swearing-in as a Justice of the High Court of Australia

During the High Court of Australia’s first century, Mary Gaudron served as the first and only female member of its bench. This paper commemorates the 25th anniversary of Gaudron’s appointment to the High Court by examining the speeches made at her swearing-in ceremony, in February 1987. Largely ignored by scholars, swearing-in ceremonies provide unique insights into the history of courts and the personality and philosophy of their judges. Through the prism of Gaudron’s swearing-in ceremony, this paper showcases the significance of these occasions as a commentary on the institutional and intellectual life of the Court. In particular, Gaudron’s swearing-in ceremony tells a fascinating story of institutional and gender politics in the High Court: the legal community’s varied response to the novelty of a woman High Court Justice; Gaudron’s intricate balancing between her distinctive vision of her obligations as a mentor to women lawyers and her role as ‘one of seven’ on a collegiate bench; and the perennial tension between innovation and tradition in legal method.

CRISIS WHAT CRISIS? THE RECOGNITION ISSUE AND CANADIAN IDENTITY CRISES

During his 1996 swearing-in ceremony, Québec Premier Lucien Bouchard spoke about the need for “a renewed recognition on the northern part of the continent of two profoundly different peoples.”1 Explicitly referring to Québecers and Canadians, he added that these two peoples would soon have to decide upon their respective destinies. Those who are attached to both Québec and Canada will no doubt have difficulty situating themselves within the Premier’s observation. Still, his characterization remains representative of the way in which the national unity debate and the identity crisis that underlies it are often described by those who advocate Québec sovereignty. It also points to the extent to which an important number of Québecers — to be specific the province’s francophones — do not feel a strong attachment to Canada.

Ethical considerations raised by the provision of freebies to veterinary students

coats have for years been featured in a sort of swearing-in ceremony prior to the start of classes at Colorado State University during which each student signs the Colorado State University veterinary program’s honor code. Despite the popularity of these freebies, questions arise regarding their ethical implications. Specifically, does the provision of these corporate freebies to veterinary students conflict with the professional and ethical obligations veterinarians have to their patients and to society as a whole? It is important to understand the influence these practices might have on the future professional behavior of veterinary students, particularly with regard to impacts on prescribing behavior and recommendations to clients, and to appreciate the possible effects on client perceptions.

Swearing-in Ceremony: The Police in the Kovno Ghetto, November 1, 1942

The leaders of the Jewish police in the Kovno ghetto, a controversial public institution, initiated a project of writing the history of the Jewish police. Their purpose was to leave testimonies and records of the police in the ghetto, and to convey their perspective on the events. The writers were aware of their limitations – their subjectivity and closeness to the events. However, they had an urge to present a narrative describing their organization -- not as memoirs or diaries of individual policemen but as a Geschichte of their unit for future generations. The paper offers an analysis of one episode in this “History” – viz. of the text and the contexts of the unusual swearing-in ceremony that was held at a relative late point in the history of the ghetto police and that in the “History” is not presented in the chronologically appropriate place – commenting both on the possible meaning of the event and on the manner of its representation.

Nuremberg Misremembered

Nuremberg Misremembered Jeremy Rabkin (bio) More than fifty years after they ended, the Nuremberg Trials have been much in the news over the past year. A short piece in the New York Times magazine, published in early January of this year, perfectly captured the appeal of such reminiscences: “The war crimes tribunals for Bosnia and Rwanda, the newborn international criminal court and a Spanish judge’s indictment of Gen. Augusto Pinochet of Chile are expressions of the idea that how a nation treats its own citizens is everybody’s business. That principle was established 50 years ago at the Nuremberg trials.” 1 In fact, the International Criminal Court remains quite controversial in this country, at least under the terms concluded at a United Nations Conference in Rome in July 1998. 2 The Clinton administration has refused to support the resulting treaty text, for fear that it might expose U.S. military personnel to international prosecutions. So too, there is much controversy about whether General Pinochet should have been seized while on an official diplomatic mission to Britain last summer and held for extradition to Spain. While the European Parliament expressed strong support for trying Pinochet in Europe—for tortures and killings of Chileans, on Chilean soil, while Pinochet was head of state in Chile—the U.S. State Department has pointedly refrained from endorsing such a trial. Yet there are many advocates in this country (including human rights activists, international law scholars, and enthusiasts for global cooperation) who urge the United States to endorse the International Criminal Court and to support such ventures as a European prosecution of Pinochet. Such advocates now summon [End Page 81] the Nuremberg precedent to show that ventures of this kind are, after all, in our own national tradition. As law professor Diane Orentlicher flatly declared in the Los Angeles Times last December, we have “derived from Nuremberg,” the principle “that the law of humanity can be enforced by any state....For justice will likely elude victims of mass atrocities unless bystander states take up their claims.” 3 Before Nuremberg becomes, in this way, an unquestioned axiom for arguments on vexing contemporary issues, we should recall with more precision what actually was done there. The actual record of Nuremberg is different, in many ways, from the iconic image now invoked by contemporary advocates for “international justice.” The Nuremberg Trials were more flawed than we like to remember, but also less truly international. If we are going to draw lessons from that experience, we might profitably attend to the self-protectiveness of the states that organized the trials—and their understanding of the responsibility of great powers. “Crimes Against Humanity” Were Peripheral The International Military Tribunal (IMT) for the trial of Nazi leaders was established at a conference of delegates from the Big Four Allied Powers, that met in London in July 1945—at the same time as the Big Four Conference at Potsdam was making wider decisions about the Allied occupation of Germany. After very hasty trial preparations, the IMT convened in Nuremberg in November of 1945 for the joint trials of twenty-four defendants. Almost a full year later, the tribunal handed down its verdicts, which included eleven death sentences and three acquittals. Apart from the contemporaneous trial of Japanese war criminals by an international tribunal in Tokyo, there has been nothing quite like it to this day. One of the reasons for the absence of such international tribunals is that, at the time, the Nuremberg Trials were enveloped in considerable controversy. Many Americans, including some very distinguished jurists, regarded the proceedings at Nuremberg as political “show trials.” Harlan Fiske Stone, the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, refused to take part in a swearing-in ceremony for the U.S.-appointed judges to the IMT. Stone characterized the whole undertaking (in private) as “a high-grade [End Page 82] lynching party.” 4 Only a few years later, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas protested—in print—that the leading Nazis had been tried under “an ex post facto law” and “their guilt did not justify us in substituting power for principle.” By the mid-1950s, Senator John F. Kennedy thought it...

A Changing of the Guard in India

For the first time in more than 50 years since Independence, India is to be led by a right-wing party with an ideology rooted in Hindu nationalism. When the greatest need of the hour was for a clear electoral result, India was again saddled with a fragmented political verdict, a fractured political elite, a deeply divided Parliament, and a hydra-headed government. India's watershed 12th general election was held over 13 days in four stages, starting on February 16, 1998. The scale of the exercise is mindboggling. There were 4,750 candidates chasing 605 million eligible voters, up from 593 million in 1996. Just one state, Uttar Pradesh (UP), has over 100 million voters. The largest electorate, Outer Delhi, has 2.8 million voters; the smallest is Lakshadweep with 37,000. Over 2.5 million ballot boxes and almost 774,000 polling stations were used for the elections, the total cost of which was Rs 6.64 billion (about $166 million). The voter turnout was 62.2%, an increase of over 3% from 1996. With 539 of the 543 results declared at the time of writing, the election produced three groups in the Lok Sabha (House of the people): the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and allies with 250 seats, the Congress and allies with 148, the United Front (UF) with 97 seats, and 44 others.1 On March 11, 1998, President Kocheril Raman Narayanan asked Atal Behari Vajpayee, BJP parliamentary leader, to prove that he was able and willing to form the government. On March 15, the president asked Vajpayee to form the government, with the swearing-in ceremony held on March 19. The conventional fault lines and settled patterns of India's national and state politics have disappeared for good. The three Lok Sabha elections held in the 1990s portend a five-fold change of lasting significance in Indian politics: the decline of the Congress Party, the shift in the center of political

Introduction

Introduction Philip E. Urofsky Soon after President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed him to the Supreme Court, Justice William O. Douglas began keeping an official diary — a diary clearly intended as the basis for a future autobiography and limited solely to the public part of Douglas’s life: the Court, politics, and personalities. The “voice” ofthis diary, two years of which have survived, is the same voice as the Douglas ofGo East,Young Man and The Court Years: a Douglas intending only to give his opinion on whatever struck his fancy, but not willing to allow anyone into his personal life. For instance, his children are only mentioned twice: in his description of his swearing-in ceremony at the Court and in referring to his difficulty in explaining to his son the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ position in the first flag salute case. Similarly, in his discussion of his work on the Court, he never mentions his own staff, although he refers occasionally to other Justices’ clerks. Taking it on its own terms, several themes emerge in the diary. First, Douglas clearly did not, if he ever did, retreat into the monastery of the Court in his first few Terms. The diary is sprinkled with references to meetings with Presi­ dent Roosevelt, including references to helping him draft a significant speech on the European war, advising him on the 1940 campaign, and, of course, attending the famous poker parties. Douglas also discussed policy and politics with many members ofthe Roosevelt Administration, such as Harold Ickes. Finally, Douglas was him­ self the apparently involuntary object of politi­ cal speculation, with many of his friends pro­ moting him for the vice presidential spot in Roosevelt’s 1940 campaign. A second theme is Douglas’s near-worship of Louis D. Brandeis, whose seat on the Court he took, and his sensitivity to Brandeis’ opinion on everything from the decisions of the Court to politics. In the diary’s very first entry, Douglas describes how he and the President spoke oftheir shared acceptance of Brandeis’ views on The Curse of Bigness. During the period leading up to the 1940 Democratic Convention, Douglas mentions several times Brandeis’ disapproval of rumors that Douglas would be asked to run for Vice President, and he states that, at Brandeis’ urging, he publicly disavowed any wish to leave the Court and, further, delayed publication of a collection of his works to avoid any appearance of courting the nomination. Brandeis’ presence was also felt on the Court as Douglas reports instances in which both Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and Justice Felix Frankfurter invoked his name and claimed his support to obtain a majority on a particular opinion. In one of the most significant instances, Douglas states that he joined Justice Frankfurter’s opin­ ion in the first flag salute case in large part because Brandeis had “no doubts” that Frankfurter’s position was correct. Finally, although Douglas does not go into detail on any ofthe cases decided in the first two Terms ofthe Court, the cases he chooses to men­ tion highlight several themes that marked his jurisprudence. First, throughout these Terms, the Court wrestled with the difficult issue of double taxation. During the Depression, the states sought new revenue by taxing any intan­ gible assets that had even a tenuous connection to the state. This, of course, resulted in several states attempting to tax the same asset, such as the capital stock of a corporation incorporated in one state but doing business in another. Chief Justice Hughes, with other members ofthe “Old Court,” pushed throughout this period for the Court to adopt, on constitutional due process grounds, a rule permitting taxation only in the state in which the intangible assets had a “busi­ ness situs.” The “New Court,” the Roosevelt appointees and Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, resisted this manifestation of substantive due process, stating, as Douglas succinctly puts it in his diary, “I certainly have not been able to find anything in the constitution about “business situs.’” In these cases, as in several others, the Roosevelt Court, two years after “the switch in time that saved nine,” solidified its opposition to economic substantive due process and DOUGLAS DIARY 79 declared...

Proposed Remarks of Sir Robin Cooke at Swearing-In Ceremony (Justice Mcgechan)

These are the remarks of Sir Robin Cooke at the swearing in ceremony for Mr Justice Andrew McGechan. Sir Robin notes that New Zealand judicial work has increased in volume and become more difficult since 1952, when the New Zealand population was two million, and that therefore “it is important at least to maintain judicial standards”. He then remarks on Justice McGechan’s biography, comment on Sir Robin’s own experience presiding in Brightwell v ACC [1985] 1 NZLR 132 (CA), a case in which Mr McGechan appeared as counsel, Garrow and McGechan on Procedure, and Professor Robert Orr McGechan, Justice McGechan’s father. Abstract by Tim Cochrane.

Proposed Remarks of Sir Robin Cooke at the Swearing-In Ceremony of Mr Justice Ellis

This paper contains the proposed remarks of Sir Robin Cooke at the swearing-in ceremony of Mr Justice Ellis at the Wellington High Court on 27 June 1985. Sir Robin notes that the first judicial oath was taken in 1842 by Chief Justice Martin and that Mr Justice Ellis was the 104th man to receive that appointment, 143 years later (as no women had yet been appointed to the New Zealand bench). He comments that the work of a Judge has become more difficult in a “restless era”. In criminal law, drug-related offences, violent offences, and sentencing policy have been particularly challenging. In civil law, Sir Robin refers to the need to develop the common law to meet the needs to the community. Finally, he praises Mr Justice Ellis for his contribution to the legal profession so far, especially in his rank as Queen’s Counsel, and welcomes his appointment to the Bench.

NOAA swearing-in ceremonies

NOAA swearing-in ceremonies