Bernard Siegan

Bernard Siegan had one guiding principle when it came to interpreting the U.S. Constitution: What did the founding fathers intend? His conclusions often put him at odds with mainstream legal thought. The legal scholar and constitutional expert believed that 19th century Supreme Court justices were wrong to have allowed the printing of paper money, because the Constitution refers to only the minting of "gold and silver coin."

Bernard Siegan had one guiding principle when it came to interpreting the U.S. Constitution: What did the founding fathers intend? His conclusions often put him at odds with mainstream legal thought. The legal scholar and constitutional expert believed that 19th century Supreme Court justices were wrong to have allowed the printing of paper money, because the Constitution refers to only the minting of "gold and silver coin."

A U.S. Senate confirmation hearing for Bernard Siegan, the University of San Diego law professor nominated by President Reagan to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, has been postponed indefinitely. The hearing had been scheduled for Tuesday, but Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee chose to put off consideration of Siegan's nomination and instead to focus on the even more controversial nomination of appellate Judge Robert H. Bork to fill an open seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Bernie Siegan spent the first 63 years of his life believing that he was a well-liked fellow with scarcely an enemy in the world. A genial, soft-spoken man, Siegan claims that he rarely ruffled a feather during his initial career as a Chicago land-use attorney and later as a constitutional law professor at the University of San Diego. Then President Reagan nominated him for a seat on a federal appeals court.

The long-delayed debate over the nomination of University of San Diego Prof. Bernard Siegan to a federal appeals court may again be pushed aside as the Senate considers the promotion of Robert H. Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court. A Senate aide said a scheduled July 21 confirmation hearing for Siegan is likely to be postponed until after the Senate acts on Bork's nomination. The nomination of Siegan to the U.S.

University of San Diego law professor Bernard Siegan, known for his strong defense of economic freedom and libertarian views on property rights, was nominated Friday by President Reagan for a seat on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 62-year-old constitutional scholar, if confirmed, would serve on the West's federal appeals bench, which has jurisdiction over appellate matters in California, eight other states, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.

People for the American Way charged that a University of San Diego law professor nominated to be a federal appeals judge has "bizarre and radical views" on free speech, religion and civil rights. Bernard Siegan, 63, was selected by President Reagan last Feb. 2 to fill a vacancy on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. His nomination has been delayed by Senate Judiciary Committee members who are concerned that his judicial philosophy is too extreme and by efforts to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.

University of San Diego law professor Bernard Siegan, known for his strong defense of economic freedom and for his libertarian views on property rights, was nominated Friday to a seat on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 62-year-old constitutional scholar was named by President Reagan to serve on the 9th Circuit, the highest federal court in the West, with jurisdiction over federal appellate matters in California, eight other states, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.

The long-languishing nomination of a University of San Diego law professor to a federal appeals court appeared to pick up steam again Thursday when the Senate Judiciary Committee agreed to hold a confirmation hearing for the candidate early next month. Congressional staff members said a date for the hearing to evaluate libertarian scholar Bernard Siegan's candidacy for a seat on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals could be set as early as today.

Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley on Tuesday joined a growing chorus of opposition to the nomination of San Diego law professor Bernard Siegan to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, claiming that the nominee's "iconoclastic" views would "wreak havoc" on local government's efforts to protect the environment and manage growth. In a letter to U.S. Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.

The Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday voted down the nomination of University of San Diego law professor Bernard H. Siegan to serve on the federal appellate court in California, making Siegan the first of President Reagan's appeals court nominees to be defeated. Eight Democrats voted against Siegan, a conservative scholar and friend of outgoing Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III, and six Republicans voted for him.

Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III on Thursday told Bernard H. Siegan, his close friend and controversial choice for a federal judgeship, that his nomination is doomed, Justice Department sources said. The sources said Meese spoke by telephone with Siegan, who told the attorney general that he wanted a few days to consider whether to have his nomination to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California withdrawn.

In a move that could signal defeat for one of President Reagan's most controversial judicial nominees, Sen. Alan Cranston and two other Senate Democrats declared Monday that they will oppose UC San Diego law professor Bernard H. Siegan's bid for a federal appeals court seat and will seek to block any Senate action on the nomination.

A skeptical Senate Judiciary Committee sharply questioned appeals court nominee Bernard H. Siegan on Thursday and signaled that the conservative legal scholar will not receive a favorable recommendation for confirmation. Committee Democrats, who control the panel and appear to be lined up solidly against the 63-year-old Siegan, attacked his lack of court experience and his long list of fundamental disagreements with current Supreme Court doctrines.

Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley on Tuesday joined a growing chorus of opposition to the nomination of San Diego law professor Bernard Siegan to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, claiming that the nominee's "iconoclastic" views would "wreak havoc" on local government's efforts to protect the environment and manage growth. In a letter to U.S. Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.

Most legal conservatives think the Supreme Court was wrong to declare that women have a constitutional right to an abortion. Many are still upset at the court for striking down prayer in schools, and a few even think the court should not have outlawed segregated schools as "inherently unequal." But Bernard Siegan may be alone in thinking that, in addition to all these, the Supreme Court was wrong to allow Congress to print paper money, because the Constitution mentions only the minting of coins.

Contrary to a published report, University of San Diego law professor Bernard Siegan--nominated by President Reagan to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals--never intended to criticize a landmark civil rights decision in an article assessing the Supreme Court, correspondence with his editors indicates. But spokesmen for liberal and civil rights groups--which had called for close scrutiny of Siegan's nomination because of a report that he had castigated the court's 1954 decision in Brown vs.

People for the American Way charged that a University of San Diego law professor nominated to be a federal appeals judge has "bizarre and radical views" on free speech, religion and civil rights. Bernard Siegan, 63, was selected by President Reagan last Feb. 2 to fill a vacancy on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. His nomination has been delayed by Senate Judiciary Committee members who are concerned that his judicial philosophy is too extreme and by efforts to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.

After nine months of delays, the confirmation process for University of San Diego law professor Bernard Siegan finally opened Thursday, with the nominee for the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals pledging that as a judge he would be guided by legal precedent, not by his own conservatism. "I'm not there (on the appeals court) to tell the world how it should run. . . . I wouldn't dream of imposing my will over that of the Supreme Court," Siegan said under sharp questioning from Sen.