KTVU-TV, July 30, 2010 by Debora Villalon
http://www.ktvu.com/news/24460964/detail.html
Historically considered a left leaning court, that’s gradually eased, and in this first appeal stage, only three judges hear arguments. “It all depends on who the three judges are, they’re certainly not short of some very conservative judges,” said Choper.
KQED-FM News, June 28, 2010 Host Cy Musiker
http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R201006281730
“I don’t think there’s any question that a ban on assault weapons could not be challenged. Because, two years ago, when the Court first decided this question of gun control and held that the second amendment gave an individual the right to possession of a gun in the home in order to protect yourself, and your family, and your property; it went out of the way to say that the decision granting the second amendment right to bear arms did not extend to such matters as automatic weapons, weapons outside the home, weapons in public buildings and so forth.”
Los Angeles Times, May 23, 2010 by Carol J. Williams
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-tattoo-speech-20100524,0,2921523.story
“If it’s art, it’s art, and art gets protection,” UC Berkeley law professor and 1st Amendment expert Jesse Choper said of the debate over whether tattoos are protected speech.
KALW-FM Crosscurrents, May 10, 2010 by Casey Miner
http://kalwnews.org/audio/2010/05/10/california-militias-prepare-disaster_356274.html
“If there isn’t any law barring it, then I would say they can’t be convicted of anything by simply going out, and trying to do good deeds. The question becomes well, are the deeds good, or do they violate other laws?”
San Francisco Chronicle, May 6, 2010 by Bob Egelko
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/05/06/MNOM1D9VPG.DTL
Crabb ruled correctly, “if you take seriously the proposition that any government action that is taken solely to aid religion is unconstitutional,” said Jesse Choper, a UC Berkeley law professor and self-described moderate. But he predicted an appeals court would overturn the decision based on national tradition.
San Francisco Chronicle, April 25, 2010 by Debra J. Saunders
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/25/INT91C14DU.DTL&type=printable
UC Berkeley law Professor Jesse Choper told me, “I do believe that he will make an honest attempt to figure out what the circuit (court) precedent or the Supreme Court precedent is.”
KQED Forum, April 21, 2010 Host Michael Krasny
http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R201004210900
“I think it’s important to understand that this is a relatively narrow decision. The court did not say what Congress could prohibit in terms of the depiction of animal cruelty. What they said is that the statute had language that was too broad. It portrayed any depiction of harmful acts involving killing animals or wounding animals. And even though there were a series of limitations to the prohibition, such as permitting these things if they were serious or religious or political or scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value, they nonetheless said the statue was too broad.”
San Francisco Chronicle, April 11, 2010 by Debra J. Saunders
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/10/INSQ1C138G.DTL
Choper considers Liu to be “a moderate liberal.” He wrote to the committee, “I am confident that, if confirmed to the Ninth Circuit, (Liu) will not seek to enforce his views as law.”
The Daily Californian, April 9, 2010 by Kaori Zinke
http://www.dailycal.org/article/108998/boalt_professor_liu_faces_republican_criticism_
According to Boalt Hall spokesperson Susan Gluss, Liu is being held to a different standard than prior nominees. “Professor Liu has probably made the most complete disclosure of any nominee in recent times,” she said in an e-mail. “Liu is highly-respected by leading scholars on both sides of the political aisle for his integrity, independent-thinking, and fairness. This political skirmish doesn’t change that at all.”
Some say that his nomination has become politically charged, including Boalt Hall Law Professor Jesse Choper. “The Republicans have latched on to this as a major matter,” he said. “I certainly don’t think he merits the kind of reaction that’s been produced by those who are opposing him. It’s unfortunate the judicial appointments have become so politicized.”
San Francisco Chronicle, March 14, 2010 by Bob Egelko
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/14/MN9K1C9QP9.DTL
Fellow law Professor Jesse Choper, chairman of the faculty committee that approved tenure for Liu in 2008, described him as a “moderate liberal” who respects others’ views and would put his own preferences aside on the bench. “He understands the proper role of an intermediate appellate court, applying the law as the Supreme Court gives it to you,” Choper said.
Parade, February 28, 2010 by George Vernadakis
http://www.parade.com/news/intelligence-report/archive/100228-can-campus-religious-groups-exclude-non-believers.html
Jesse Choper, a law professor at UC Berkeley, says that conflicting legal precedents are at work. In 2000, the Supreme Court decided that the Boy Scouts were within their rights to deny membership to homosexuals. However, Choper notes, “even if you have a First Amendment right to do something, it does not entitle you to funding to exercise your right.”
Los Angeles Times, January 12, 2010 by David G. Savage and Carol J. Williams
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-cameras12-2010jan12,0,1169353.story
“It’s obviously a disagreement between the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court on bringing television or live video into a federal courtroom,” said Jesse Choper, a constitutional law scholar at UC Berkeley…. They disagreed, and the Supreme Court has the final word.”
The Fresno Bee, January 7, 2010 by Charles Piller
http://www.fresnobee.com/1148/story/1772209.html
Professor Jesse Choper, a constitutional scholar at UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law, said that even funding for higher education should not be set in constitutional concrete, impervious to other state needs. “You’ve got to be very selective in what you make immune to normal changes of mind,” he said.
Los Angeles Times, November 13, 2009 by Josh Meyer
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-mosque-seizures13-2009nov13,0,3625317.story
“Whether it is seizing a mosque or seizing a bookstore, it doesn’t mean there is a special 1st Amendment scrutiny,” or protection, Choper said.
PBS, The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer, October 20, 2009 by Spencer Michels
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/july-dec09/tenure_10-20.html
Christopher Edley, dean, U.C. Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law: While many students and faculty are critical of the Bush administration policies and even of some of John’s actions, they think that academic freedom means that his right to be here and to teach has to be protected, until or unless there’s some sort of a conviction.
Christopher Kutz, president, U.C. Berkeley Academic Senate: You need something more than simply incompetence to revoke a professor’s tenure, especially somebody who’s been hired, promoted, published in the top journals. John is one of the most prolific scholars on the Boalt faculty.
Jesse Choper, law professor: He gave them an approach that was wholly consistent with virtually everything he did as a scholar beforehand.
-Los Angeles Times, October 18, 2009 Editorial Board
http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-passings18-2009oct18,0,3963453,print.story
Colleagues said Barnett, who retired in 2003, was a tireless advocate of free speech rights and had spent his last years as a vocal critic of the speed with which the California Supreme Court handed down its decisions and the way it went about much of its day-to-day business.
-The Recorder, October 19, 2009 by Petra Pasternak
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202434697325&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
“If there is such a thing as a constructive gadfly, that was Steve,” said Berkeley law professor Richard Buxbaum, who knew him since Barnett joined the faculty in 1967…. He had an engaging way of making deans and faculty members uncomfortably aware of some of the consequences of their decisions,” Buxbaum said, “often to the betterment later.”
Choper said he often called Barnett a muckraker because the professor would uncover policies at the school he didn’t agree with and “he just wouldn’t let it go…. He wanted to do something about it.” Choper, who served for a time as the dean, said he’d receive regular memos from Barnett outlining what he could be doing better.
-San Francisco Chronicle, October 21, 2009 by Bob Egelko
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/21/BAH11A6VDB.DTL&type=printable
He was a leader in “shaping public policy concerning the industrial structure and public regulation of both print and visual media,” said Richard Buxbaum, a fellow Berkeley law professor.
“In his scholarship, Steve was a devastating critic of the practices of the California Supreme Court and the California State Bar,” said another UC Berkeley colleague, Melvin Eisenberg. “He did a lot of acute, penetrating research that no one else has done regarding judicial transparency and legitimacy.”
-The New York Times, October 21, 2009 by William Grimes
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/us/22barnett.html?_r=2
“Stephen Barnett was probably California’s leading analyst and critic of the way the California Supreme Court goes about its business,” said Stephen Sugarman, a professor and associate dean at Berkeley’s law school.
The New York Times, October 1, 2009 by Malia Wollan and Jesse McKinley
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/us/02lodi.html?_r=2
Jesse H. Choper, a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, said that the 1983 Supreme Court ruling in Marsh v. Chambers found that prayer before public meetings was allowed if the prayers remained nonsectarian. “What we do know is the use of God is not unacceptable,” Professor Choper said.
Contra Costa Times, September 29, 2009 by Allison White
http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_13443210
Jesse Choper said the letter constitutes hate speech, which is constitutionally protected. “If you could find out who sent the letter, then it becomes a matter of freedom of speech,” he said. However, that would not apply if the letter had been threatening. “If it had said, ‘If you stay on the job, you’ll suffer,’ that’s not protected,” he said.
The Oakland Tribune, September 20, 2009 by Josh Richman
http://www.contracostatimes.com/politics/ci_13354829?source=rss
“I think that great dangers to the Constitution are very much in the eyes of the beholder. When an administration is in power that people don’t like, they often find that what that administration does is threatening to our basic values,” said Jesse Choper…. And for all the rhetoric cavalierly cast about over what is and isn’t constitutional, Choper said, few people truly understand what the Constitution actually does and doesn’t say.
Pittsburgh Post Gazette, September 12, 2009 by Rich Lord and Paula Reed Lord
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09255/997503-482.stm
Mr. Choper said governments “can stop people from protesting so it disrupts the event.” But demonstrators are “entitled to some place where [they] can effectively communicate … within sight” of the targets of their message. Rules that aim to keep demonstrators from embarrassing their host city or guests have been struck down, he said.