Truly from an atty's perspective, however the fact is if a library is a
federal or state depository, they *required to give open access to the
public, not solely to attys.
The fact is, regardless of opinion, there is no legal requirement to carry
an identification card & your example of Blockbuster is backwards - they
may require ID to *Borrow a tape BUT they don't require identification to
merely *enter a store. This discussion is centered around the bldg security
requiring ID & signature to *ENTER the library.. so what *is the point of
your example? Actually, I like it - Why *should a library be any
different than say Blockbuster? `Ever had to run down to your local grocery
on the way home to grab a few items & have to sign in & show ID?? I highly
doubt you would continue to patronize that store just for the *excellent
security ;-) *That IMHO is a bit paranoid ;-)
I'd like to also point out that if the atty. has special needs regarding
work area, treatises, etc., the atty. should have their own library
collection. In fact, I believe it is an ethical req. that an atty., as part
of adequate representation, have the nec. materials - either online or in
their office in book form. Nevertheless, *personally, I have no problem
carrying ID, however, it's important to understand others' perspective -
esp. different than your own -
I'd wager you're not a trial atty. -
Karen Mahnk
At 07:14 AM 11/3/1999 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>At 10:20 AM 11/2/1999 -0500, Kurt Metzmeier wrote:
>>>As far as I understand from a scheduled tour I took during the AALL annual
>>>meeting, access to the U.S. Supreme Court library is strictly restricted
to
>>>the the Court, staff of the Court and attorneys admitted to the U.S.
>>>Supreme Court Bar, although I suspect some exceptions are made. However,
>>>it is also true that the Library of Congress Law Library, not the smaller
>>>Supreme Court library, is closer to being the national law library.
>>>
>>>I'd like to think that high court justices rise above personal comfort and
>>>ease of mind, but it gives one pause to think that a constitutional
>>>challenge to such a policy would be decided by two sets of state and
>>>federal judges who would be surely cognizant that the result may be to
open
>>>their libraries up to unidentified members of the general public. In many
>>>states, because of state constitutional balance of powers issues, any
>>>lawsuit would, by necessity, name the court or a body it administers as
>>>defendant. In many states the legislature or executive is powerless to
>>>apply general public access laws to the judicial branch.
>>>
>>>I guess this raises one point for an elective rather than appointive court.
>>>
>>>Kurt Metzmeier,
>>>University of Kentucky Law Library
>
>............................rseponse......................................
>
>You guys should get out in the real world more often, i.e., court.
>
>As a practicing attorney with thirty years of litigation experience I
>am here to tell you that it does not make a particle of difference
>whether judges are elected or appointed. How do you think elected judges
>GET nominated, anyway? Usually by party hacks. A screening committee
>and independent citizens groups are a far better way of influencing
>the appointment of federal judges, who, by and large are NOT superior
>to State and local judges. I have found excellence and mendacity at all
>levels. People are people.
>
>As far as letting the public into Court libraries, most Federal Court
>libraries, unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, have a paucity of staff. The
>libraries are not considered " public" in the same sense as your local
>Public Library System. Sometimes the staff consists of only one person,
>part time.
>
>When attorneys going to the court need a reference for an oral argument
>or are looking up last minute shepardization, they do not need to be
>confronted with people sitting around reading and not reshelving books.
>( I ALWAYS reshelve my books, even though this seems to have gone out
>of style at my law school library.)
>
>I agree the public should have some right of access to Court
>libraries, even the Supreme Court library, which is critical to the work
>of the Court, the Justices, and their law clerks. But it is not an
>unfettered unregulated right. It should be extended to pro se litigants.
>But the concept that because you might have to show I.D. , that is somehow
>a "national identity card " is ludicrous paranoia.
>
>Try renting a video from Blockbuster without the proper id and see how
>far you get. Try getting a driver's license or passport without proper i.d.
>Why should we risk valuable Court library resources and documents to
>a public known for theft of books, eating in libraries, and general
>selfishness? Do you have any idea how long it takes to get a legal
>publisher to replace a missing book or pocket part? Check your life
>expectancy tables.
>
>Once we revamp society perhaps we can trust all of it to
>do the right thing, at all times. Until then, well......you tell me.
>
>That is not to say that a PUBLIC library is not truly PUBLIC. However,
>can the homeless sleep there when the library is closed? ( maybe they
>should be permitted to do so. )
>
>
>
>
>========================================
>Hal Weiner, COLES & WEINER, P.C
>Members of the National Employment
>Lawyers Association / New York Chapter
>342 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10173
>(212)856-9530 vox (212)682-3770 fax
>http://www.peconic.net/lawyers
>E-mail: druidlaw@interport.net
>========================================
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:50:12 PST