DOCSLIB.ORG

{Download PDF} the Supreme Court

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
{Download PDF} the Supreme Court THE SUPREME COURT PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Ruadhan Mac Cormaic | 464 pages | 01 Dec 2016 | Penguin Books Ltd | 9781844883400 | English | London, Ireland Home - Supreme Court of the United States Such a process likely requires a vote -- but is not debatable subject to a filibuster. That vote could be by roll call, a voice vote or by unanimous consent so long as there is no objection by any senator. Democrats could create some mischief at this stage by not having a quorum present or demanding a quorum be present -- but not helping constitute a quorum. This step to go to executive session requires a simple majority. Thus, there is no way Democrats could filibuster just starting debate on the nomination. However, Democrats could try to filibuster on the back end. At this stage, McConnell could file cloture to curb debate and overcome a filibuster. August 29, 44—6. October 12, — January 31, Retired. Woodrow Wilson. Louis Brandeis — June 1, 47— June 5, — February 13, Retired. John Hessin Clarke — July 24, Acclamation. October 9, — September 18, Retired. William Howard Taft — June 30, Acclamation. July 11, — February 3, Retired. Warren G. George Sutherland — September 5, Acclamation. October 2, — January 17, Retired. Pierce Butler — December 21, 61—8. January 2, — November 16, Died. Edward Terry Sanford — January 29, Acclamation. February 19, — March 8, Died. Harlan F. Stone — Associate Justice [k]. February 5, 71—6. March 2, — July 2, Continued as chief justice. Calvin Coolidge. February 13, 52— February 24, — June 30, Retired. Herbert Hoover. Owen Roberts — May 20, Acclamation. June 2, — July 31, Resigned. Benjamin N. Cardozo — February 24, Acclamation. March 14, — July 9, Died. Associate Justice [l]. August 17, 63— August 19, — September 17, Retired. Franklin D. Stanley Forman Reed — January 25, Acclamation. January 31, — February 25, Retired. Felix Frankfurter — January 17, Acclamation. January 30, — August 28, Retired. William O. Douglas — April 4, 62—4. April 17, — November 12, Retired. Frank Murphy — January 16, Acclamation. February 5, — July 19, Died. June 27, Acclamation. July 3, — April 22, Died. James F. Byrnes — June 12, Acclamation. July 8, — October 3, Resigned. Robert H. Jackson — July 7, Acclamation. July 11, — October 9, Died. Wiley Blount Rutledge — February 8, Acclamation. February 15, — September 10, Died. Harold Hitz Burton — September 19, Acclamation. October 1, — October 13, Retired. Harry S. Fred M. Vinson — June 20, Acclamation. June 24, — September 8, Died. Tom C. Clark — August 18, 73—8. August 24, — June 12, Retired. Sherman Minton — October 4, 48— October 12, — October 15, Retired. March 1, Acclamation. October 5, [e] — June 23, Retired. Dwight D. March 16, 71— March 28, — September 23, Retired. William J. Brennan Jr. March 19, Acclamation. October 16, [e] — July 20, Retired. Charles Evans Whittaker — March 25, — March 31, Retired. Potter Stewart — May 5, 70— October 14, [e] — July 3, Retired. April 11, Acclamation. April 16, — June 28, Retired. John F. Arthur Goldberg — October 1, — July 25, Resigned. August 11, Acclamation. October 4, — May 14, Resigned. Lyndon B. Thurgood Marshall — August 30, 69— October 2, — October 1, Retired. Warren E. Burger — June 9, 74—3. June 23, — September 26, Retired. Richard Nixon. Harry Blackmun — May 12, 94—0. June 9, — August 3, Retired. Lewis F. Powell Jr. December 6, 89—1. January 7, [m] — June 26, Retired. William Rehnquist — December 10, 68— January 7, [m] — September 26, Continued as chief justice. John Paul Stevens — Associate Justice [n]. December 17, 98—0. December 19, — June 29, Retired. Sandra Day O'Connor born September 21, 99—0. September 25, — January 31, Retired. Ronald Reagan. September 17, 65— September 26, — September 3, Died. Antonin Scalia — September 17, 98—0. September 26, — February 13, Died. Anthony Kennedy born February 3, 97—0. February 18, — July 31, Retired. David Souter born October 2, 90—9. October 9, — June 29, Retired. George H. Clarence Thomas born October 15, 52— October 23, — Incumbent. Ruth Bader Ginsburg — August 3, 96—3. August 10, — September 18, Died. The organization of the federal judicial system, including the size of the Supreme Court, is established by Congress. From to the court comprised six justices. In a seventh justice was added, followed by an eighth and a ninth in and a tenth in The size of the court has sometimes been subject to political manipulation; for example, in Congress provided for the gradual reduction through attrition of the court to seven justices to ensure that President Andrew Johnson , whom the House of Representatives later impeached and the Senate only narrowly acquitted, could not appoint a new justice. The number of justices reached eight before Congress, after Johnson had left office, adopted new legislation setting the number at nine, where it has remained ever since. In the s President Franklin D. Roosevelt asked Congress to consider legislation which it subsequently rejected that would have allowed the president to appoint an additional justice for each member of the court aged 70 years or older who refused to retire. According to the Constitution, appointments to the Supreme Court and to the lower federal courts are made by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate , though presidents have rarely consulted the Senate before making a nomination. The Senate Judiciary Committee ordinarily conducts hearings on nominations to the Supreme Court, and a simple majority of the full Senate is required for confirmation. When the position of chief justice is vacant, the president may appoint a chief justice from outside the court or elevate an associate justice to the position. In either case a simple majority of the Senate must approve the appointment. Members of the Supreme Court are appointed for life terms, though they may be expelled if they are impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted in the Senate. Only one justice has been impeached, Samuel Chase , who was acquitted in In Abe Fortas resigned under threat of impeachment for alleged financial improprieties unrelated to his duties on the court. The federal judicial system originally comprised only trial courts of original jurisdiction and the Supreme Court. As the country grew in size, and in the absence of intermediate appellate courts, the volume of cases awaiting review increased, and fidelity to Supreme Court precedents varied significantly among the lower courts. Supreme Court - HISTORY Building closed to the public. Wright , the Consolidated Fruit Jar Company alleged other jar manufacturers were infringing its patent on Mason jars and requested the Court forbid their competitors from selling their versions of the jar. Toggle navigation. Quick Links. Electronic Filing. Fellows Program. Contact Us. Today at the Court - Wednesday, Oct 21, Building closed to the public Out of concern for the health and safety of the public and Supreme Court employees, the Supreme Court Building will be closed to the public until further notice. The Building will remain open for official business. All public lectures and visitor programs are temporarily suspended. The Court convenes for a session in the Courtroom at 10 a. The session may begin with the announcement of opinions - decisions in argued cases - followed by the swearing in of new members to the Bar of the Supreme Court. However, Democrats could try to filibuster on the back end. At this stage, McConnell could file cloture to curb debate and overcome a filibuster. McConnell could do this as early as Friday, Oct. So, if McConnell files cloture to end debate on Friday, Oct. The cloture petition would ripen on Sunday, Oct. By rule, the Senate can begin voting to end debate on the nomination one hour after the Senate meets, following the intervening day. Again, if they really want to hit the gas, this could happen at 1 a. That entails a simple majority. Once 30 hours have expired, the Senate may take an up-or-down vote on the nomination itself. It only needs 51 votes to confirm Barrett. Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox. List of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia It also established the lower federal court system. Over the years, various Acts of Congress have altered the number of seats on the Supreme Court, from a low of five to a high of Shortly after the Civil War, the number of seats on the Court was fixed at nine. Like all federal judges, justices are appointed by the President and are confirmed by the Senate. They, typically, hold office for life. The salaries of the justices cannot be decreased during their term of office. These restrictions are meant to protect the independence of the judiciary from the political branches of government. The Court has original jurisdiction a case is tried before the Court over certain cases, e. Some examples include cases to which the United States is a party, cases involving Treaties, and cases involving ships on the high seas and navigable waterways admiralty cases. When exercising its appellate jurisdiction, the Court, with a few exceptions, does not have to hear a case. The Certiorari Act of gives the Court the discretion to decide whether or not to do so. In a petition for a writ of certiorari, a party asks the Court to review its case. The Supreme Court agrees to hear about of the more than 7, cases that it is asked to review each year. The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. In this case, the Court had to decide whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Political Effects of the Addition of Judgeships to the United States Supreme Court Following Electoral Realignments
    A Compliant Court: The Political Effects of the Addition of Judgeships to the United States Supreme Court Following Electoral Realignments Lauren Paige Joyce Judson Thesis submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of: Master of Arts In Political Science Jason P. Kelly, Chair Wayne D. Moore Karen M. Hult August 7, 2014 Blacksburg, Virginia Keywords: Judicial Politics, Electoral Realignment, Alteration to the Supreme Court Copyright 2014, Lauren J. Judson A Compliant Court: The Political Effects of the Addition of Judgeships to the United States Supreme Court Following Electoral Realignments Lauren J. Judson ABSTRACT During periods of turmoil when ideological preferences between the federal branches of government fail to align, the relationship between the three quickly turns tumultuous. Electoral realignments especially have the potential to increase tension between the branches. When a new party replaces the “old order” in both the legislature and the executive branches, the possibility for conflict emerges with the Court. Justices who make decisions based on old regime preferences of the party that had appointed them to the bench will likely clash with the new ideological preferences of the incoming party. In these circumstances, the president or Congress may seek to weaken the influence of the Court through court-curbing methods. One example Congress may utilize is changing the actual size of the Supreme The size of the Supreme Court has increased four times in United States history, and three out of the four alterations happened after an electoral realignment. Through analysis of Supreme Court cases, this thesis seeks to determine if, after an electoral realignment, holdings of the Court on issues of policy were more congruent with the new party in power after the change in composition as well to examine any change in individual vote tallies of the justices driven by the voting behavior of the newly appointed justice(s).
    [Show full text]
  • Hugo Lafayette Black and John Harlan - Two Faces of Constitutional Law with Some Notes on Teaching of Thayer's Subject
    Louisiana State University Law Center LSU Law Digital Commons Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1982 Hugo Lafayette Black and John Harlan - Two Faces of Constitutional Law With Some Notes on Teaching of Thayer's Subject O. W. Wollensak Paul R. Baier Louisiana State University Law Center, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Wollensak, O. W. and Baier, Paul R., "Hugo Lafayette Black and John Harlan - Two Faces of Constitutional Law With Some Notes on Teaching of Thayer's Subject" (1982). Journal Articles. 372. https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/faculty_scholarship/372 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HUGO LAFAYETTE BLACK AND JOHN MARSHALL HARLAN: TWO FACES OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-WITH SOME NOTES ON THE TEACHING OF THAYER'S SUBJECT Bv 0. W. WoLLENSAK* I. It was a great surprise last semester when Supreme Court Justices Hugo Black and John Marshall Harlan visited the LSU Law Center for what turned out to be a heated dialogue on color video tape. The program was hosted by LSU's media mastermind, Professor Paul Baier,** who apparently has given up suing hospitals, see Baier v. Woman's Hospital, 1 and turned to producing television shows, his latest entitled "Hugo Lafayette Black and John Marshall Harlan: Two Faces of Constitutional Law."2 Professor Baier believes that constitutional law includes • Editor's note: Professor Baier is following Karl Llewellyn in using a pseudo­ nym.
    [Show full text]
  • In Defence of the Court's Integrity
    In Defence of the Court’s Integrity 17 In Defence of the Court’s Integrity: The Role of Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes in the Defeat of the Court-Packing Plan of 1937 Ryan Coates Honours, Durham University ‘No greater mistake can be made than to think that our institutions are fixed or may not be changed for the worse. We are a young nation and nothing can be taken for granted. If our institutions are maintained in their integrity, and if change shall mean improvement, it will be because the intelligent and the worthy constantly generate the motive power which, distributed over a thousand lines of communication, develops that appreciation of the standards of decency and justice which we have delighted to call the common sense of the American people.’ Hughes in 1909 ‘Our institutions were not designed to bring about uniformity of opinion; if they had been, we might well abandon hope.’ Hughes in 1925 ‘While what I am about to say would ordinarily be held in confidence, I feel that I am justified in revealing it in defence of the Court’s integrity.’ Hughes in the 1940s In early 1927, ten years before his intervention against the court-packing plan, Charles Evans Hughes, former Governor of New York, former Republican presidential candidate, former Secretary of State, and most significantly, former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, delivered a series 18 history in the making vol. 3 no. 2 of lectures at his alma mater, Columbia University, on the subject of the Supreme Court.1 These lectures were published the following year as The Supreme Court: Its Foundation, Methods and Achievements (New York: Columbia University Press, 1928).
    [Show full text]
  • “THE MOVEMENT of COERCION” Justice David J. Brewer
    “THE MOVEMENT OF COERCION” BY Justice David J. Brewer _______ FOREWORD BY DOUGLAS A. HEDIN Editor, MLHP David Josiah Brewer served on the Supreme Court from December 18, 1889 to March 27, 1910. Off the court, he continued to express his views on a wide range of subjects, legal and otherwise, through articles in journals, books and numerous public addresses, including the following to the New York State Bar Association in January 1893. 1 His topic was “The Movement of Coercion” which, he explained, referred to the demands of the “multitudes” to share the wealth earned and accumulated by a few: I wish rather to notice that movement which may be denominated the movement of "coercion," and which by the mere force of numbers seeks to diminish protection to private property. It is a movement which in spirit, if not in letter, violates both the Eighth and Tenth Command- ments; a moment, which, seeing that which a man has, attempts to wrest it from him and transfer it to those who have not. It is the unvarying law, that the wealth of a community will not be in the hands of a few, and the greater the general wealth, the greater the individual accumulations. 1 In his biography of the justice, Michael J. Brodhead devotes an entire chapter to his “off-the- bench activities.” David J. Brewer: The Life of a Supreme Court Justice, 1837-1919 116-138 (Southern Illinois Univ. Press, 1994)(“In fact, he was the most visible and widely known member of the Fuller Court.”). 1 He argued that the “coercion movement” against private property expressed itself through, first, unions and, second, excessive regulation, though neither was evil per se : First, in the improper use of labor organizations to destroy the freedom of the laborer, and control the uses of capital.
    [Show full text]
  • The Warren Court and the Pursuit of Justice, 50 Wash
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 50 | Issue 1 Article 4 Winter 1-1-1993 The aW rren Court And The Pursuit Of Justice Morton J. Horwitz Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Morton J. Horwitz, The Warren Court And The Pursuit Of Justice, 50 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 5 (1993), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol50/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE WARREN COURT AND THE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE MORTON J. HoRwiTz* From 1953, when Earl Warren became Chief Justice, to 1969, when Earl Warren stepped down as Chief Justice, a constitutional revolution occurred. Constitutional revolutions are rare in American history. Indeed, the only constitutional revolution prior to the Warren Court was the New Deal Revolution of 1937, which fundamentally altered the relationship between the federal government and the states and between the government and the economy. Prior to 1937, there had been great continuity in American constitutional history. The first sharp break occurred in 1937 with the New Deal Court. The second sharp break took place between 1953 and 1969 with the Warren Court. Whether we will experience a comparable turn after 1969 remains to be seen.
    [Show full text]
  • Justice Jackson in the Jehovah's Witnesses' Cases
    FIU Law Review Volume 13 Number 4 Barnette at 75: The Past, Present, and Future of the Fixed Star in Our Constitutional Article 13 Constellation Spring 2019 Justice Jackson in The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Cases John Q. Barrett Professor of Law, St. John’s University School of Law, New York City Follow this and additional works at: https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/lawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, and the Religion Law Commons Online ISSN: 2643-7759 Recommended Citation John Q. Barrett, Justice Jackson in The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Cases, 13 FIU L. Rev. 827 (2019). DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.25148/lawrev.13.4.13 This Keynote Address is brought to you for free and open access by eCollections. It has been accepted for inclusion in FIU Law Review by an authorized editor of eCollections. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 10 - BARRETT.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 5/9/19 6:03 PM JUSTICE JACKSON IN THE JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES’ CASES John Q. Barrett* I. Robert H. Jackson Before He Became Justice Jackson ..................828 II. Barnette in Its Supreme Court Context: The Jehovah’s Witnesses Cases, 1938–1943 ...........................................................................831 A. The General Pattern of the Decisions: The Court Warming to Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Constitutional Claims .......................831 1. The Pre-July 1941 Court ....................................................831 2. The July 1941–May 1943 Court ........................................833 3. The June 1943 Court ..........................................................834 B. Some Particulars of Supreme Court Personnel, Cases, and Decisions, From Gobitis (1940) to Barnette (1943) ................834 III. Justice Jackson on Jehovah’s Witnesses: The Author of Barnette Wrote First, and Significantly, in Douglas .....................................844 IV.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 116-Part 8
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Q:ongrcssional1Rc(ord st PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 9 I CONGRESS SECOND SESSION VOLUME 116-PART 8 APRIL 1, 1970. TO APRIL 10, 1970 (PAGES 9923 TO 11270) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, 1970 9960 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE crumb from the opposition Is hard to explain service on the highest court In the land (lack self to these issues. I ask unanimous con­ to the publlc. of judicial experience or close identification in RECORD. It could be that the organized forces op­ with special interests), all were routinely sent that it be printed the posing Judge Carswell are more alert to press approved. There being no objection the editorial agentry than the loose coalition in the sen­ And now here comes Goldberg to say that was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, Rte that is supporting him. JUdge Carswell is "not fit." as follows: The press agent offers fresh news, while We wondered what our reaction had been FAILURES OF ECONOMIC POLICY the Record brings It stale to the attention to Goldberg's own nomination, and checked of news gatherers upon whom there Is great The cost of living index took another big the files. jump last month. Nationally, consumer prices pressure to start every day off new with the "The obvious thing to say of President abundance of news you know Is going to de­ were rising at an annual rate of 6.3 per cent; Kennedy's appointment of Arthur J. Gold­ in New York City the cllmb was at a 9.6 per velop that day.
    [Show full text]
  • Robert H. Jackson: How a “Country Lawyer”
    FEATURES Antitrust , Vol. 27, No. 2, Spring 2013. © 2013 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association. too brief to complete this task. That was left to his successor, Thurmond Arnold, who served as head of the Division for five years, from March 1938 until March 1943, and whose story we will pick up in our next article in this series. World War I and the Sudden Decline of Antitrust Enforcement As the United States was slowly drawn into the First World War, Woodrow Wilson shifted his attention from domestic to interna - tional issues and to expanding war production to win the war. The war quickly overwhelmed any interest his administration might otherwise have had in strong antitrust enforcement. Appropria - tions for antitrust at the Department of Justice fell by two-thirds, from $300,000 in 1914 to $100,000 in 1919. 2 New case filings TRUST BUSTERS dropped even faster, from 22 in 1913 to just two in 1916. 3 The FTC made some effort to take up the slack, filing 64 restraint of trade cases in 1918 and 121 in 1919. 4 But unlike the head - Robert H. Jackson: line-capturing cases the Taft administration had brought under the Sherman Act to break up huge trusts like International How a “Country Lawyer” Harvester and U.S. Steel, these FTC cases mostly involved ver - tical restraints of trade imposed by small companies not critical Converted Franklin to the war effort.
    [Show full text]
  • David Josiah Brewer and the Christian Constitution, 81 Marq
    Marquette Law Review Volume 81 Issue 2 Winter 1998: Symposium: Religion and the Article 13 Judicial Process: Legal, Ethical, and Empirical Dimensions David Josiah Brewer And The hrC istian Constitution J. Gordon Hylton Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation J. Gordon Hylton, David Josiah Brewer And The Christian Constitution, 81 Marq. L. Rev. 417 (1998). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol81/iss2/13 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DAVID JOSIAH BREWER AND THE CHRISTIAN CONSTITUTION J. GORDON HYLTON* Professor Berg does a great service by reminding us that religion has been an important factor in the lives of many of the men and women who have served on the United States Supreme Court. Unfortunately, historians, legal scholars, and judicial biographers have paid scant atten- tion to this aspect of our constitutional experience. I hope to illustrate the advantage of exploring the connections between religious belief and constitutional theory through a brief examination of the life and career of Justice David Josiah Brewer, who figures prominently in Professor Berg's paper. Brewer was born in Smyrna, Asia Minor, to missionary parents in 1837. He was raised in New England, but in the late 1850s, he migrated to Kansas where he later served on the state supreme court and the fed- eral circuit court.
    [Show full text]
  • Abington School District V. Schempp 1 Ableman V. Booth 1 Abortion 2
    TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 Bill of Rights 66 Birth Control and Contraception 71 Abington School District v. Schempp 1 Hugo L. Black 73 Ableman v. Booth 1 Harry A. Blackmun 75 Abortion 2 John Blair, Jr. 77 Adamson v. California 8 Samuel Blatchford 78 Adarand Constructors v. Peña 8 Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell 79 Adkins v. Children’s Hospital 10 Bob Jones University v. United States 80 Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl 13 Boerne v. Flores 81 Advisory Opinions 15 Bolling v. Sharpe 81 Affirmative Action 15 Bond v. United States 82 Afroyim v. Rusk 21 Boumediene v. Bush 83 Age Discrimination 22 Bowers v. Hardwick 84 Samuel A. Alito, Jr. 24 Boyd v. United States 86 Allgeyer v. Louisiana 26 Boy Scouts of America v. Dale 86 Americans with Disabilities Act 27 Joseph P. Bradley 87 Antitrust Law 29 Bradwell v. Illinois 89 Appellate Jurisdiction 33 Louis D. Brandeis 90 Argersinger v. Hamlin 36 Brandenburg v. Ohio 92 Arizona v. United States 36 William J. Brennan, Jr. 92 Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing David J. Brewer 96 Development Corporation 37 Stephen G. Breyer 97 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition 38 Briefs 99 Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority 38 Bronson v. Kinzie 101 Assembly and Association, Freedom of 39 Henry B. Brown 101 Arizona v. Gant 42 Brown v. Board of Education 102 Atkins v. Virginia 43 Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association 104 Automobile Searches 45 Brown v. Maryland 106 Brown v. Mississippi 106 Bad Tendency Test 46 Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company 107 Bail 47 Buchanan v.
    [Show full text]
  • Mr. Justice Stanton by James W
    At Sidebar Mr. Justice Stanton by James W. Satola I love U.S. Supreme Court history. Sometimes, the more arcane the better. So, for my At Sidebar con- tribution, I want to share a little bit of what I love.1 Perhaps calling to mind the well-known story behind Marbury v. Madison, here is a lesser-known story of a presidential commission not delivered on time (though in this case, it was not anyone’s fault). The story of Mr. Justice Edwin M. Stanton.2 James W. Satola is an As one walks through the Grand Concourse of attorney in Cleveland, Ohio. From 2010 to the Ohio Supreme Court building in Columbus, Ohio 2016, he served as (officially, the Thomas J. Moyer Ohio Judicial Center, an FBA Circuit Vice which had a first life as the “Ohio Departments Build- President for the Sixth ing,” opening in 1933, then restored and reopened as Circuit, and from 2002 the home of the Ohio Supreme Court in 2004), one’s to 2003, he was Presi- dent of the FBA Northern eye is drawn to nine large bronze plaques mounted District of Ohio Chapter. on the East Wall, each showcasing one of the U.S. © 2017 James W. Satola. Supreme Court justices named from Ohio.3 This story All rights reserved. is about the fourth plaque in that series, under which reads in brass type on the marble wall, “Edwin Mc- Masters Stanton, Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1869-1869.” Justice Stanton? One finds no mention of “Justice Stanton” among the lists of the 113 men and women who have served on the Supreme Court of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States Washington, D.C
    Supreme Court of the United States Washington, D.C. Pointe-au-Pic, Canada, July 25, 1928. My dear George: I have your letter of July 3d, and am delighted to read it and to follow you and Mrs. Sutherland in your delightful journey through Italy. My wife’s sister, Miss Maria Herron, has done a great deal of traveling in Italy and elsewhere, and she says that you have marked out for yourselves one of the most delightful trips in the World. I have been through part of it myself, and therefore know enough to congratulate you. I sincerely hope that you find Cadenabbia just as good now as it was when you wrote the letter, and that you find that your rest is accomplishing the result that your doctor had in mind. Of course we are most anxious about the election of Hoover, and I am bound to say that I think the Republicans feel that the chances are strongly in favor of Hoover’s election, but I don’t know how wisely they judge. There are so many cross currents in the election that it is hard to calculate what their effect will be, but as the campaign opens, it is fairly clear that the farm question is entirely out of the picture. Even old Norris says that they can not have another party, and the consequence is that if Smith is going to win, he has got to do it with New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts, and by a retention of all the southern States.
    [Show full text]