DOCSLIB.ORG

Ross E. Davies, Professor, George Mason University School of Law 10

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ross E. Davies, Professor, George Mason University School of Law 10 A CRANK ON THE COURT: THE PASSION OF JUSTICE WILLIAM R. DAY Ross E. Davies, Professor, George Mason University School of Law The Baseball Research Journal, Vol. 38, No. 2, Fall 2009, pp. 94-107 (BRJ is a publication of SABR, the Society for American Baseball Research) George Mason University Law and Economics Research Paper Series 10-10 This paper can be downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Network at http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=1555017 **SABR_BRJ-38.2_final-v2:Layout 1 12/15/09 2:00 PM Page 94 BASEBALL AND LAW A Crank on the Court The Passion of Justice William R. Day Ross E. Davies here is an understandable tendency to date the Not surprisingly, there were plenty of other baseball Supreme Court’s involvement with baseball fans on the Court during, and even before, the period Tfrom 1922, when the Court decided Federal covered by McKenna’s (1898–1925), Day’s (1903–22), Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Pro- and Taft’s (1921–30) service. 13 Chief Justice Edward D. fessional Base Ball Clubs —the original baseball White (1894–1921) 14 and Justices John Marshall Har - antitrust-exemption case. 1 And there is a correspon - lan (1877–1911), 15 Horace H. Lurton (1910–14), 16 and ding tendency to dwell on William Howard Taft—he Mahlon Pitney (1912–22), 17 for example. And no doubt was chief justice when Federal Baseball was decided 2— a thorough search would turn up many more. 18 There is, when discussing early baseball fandom on the Court. 3 however, nothing to suggest that up to 1922 any mem - The first tendency is not only understandable but ber of the Supreme Court was either as deeply also pretty much correct. The Court heard only a few interested in the game as Day was or portrayed as being baseball-related cases before 1922, and none was as deeply interested in the game as Taft was. And so we especially weighty from either a legal or a baseball turn to Taft and Day in their very different capacities as perspective (although each was surely important to the fans of the national pastime. people involved). 4 The second tendency, while also understandable, WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT, THE OFFICIAL-CAPACITY FAN is not so correct. Taft was a baseball fan, but he was Attention to Taft over Day in the context of baseball is neither the first nor the most fanatical on the Court understandable both because Taft was, and remains, that decided Federal Baseball , not by a long shot. so much more noticeable than Day and because Taft Justice Joseph McKenna was first, C L I which is easy to prove: He was a N E 5 D I fan, and he was the longest-serving N S T member of the Court at the time S T 6 U Federal Baseball was decided. D I O , Justice William R. Day was the C O L most fanatical, which is not so easy L E C T to prove: The sketches of Taft-the- I O N fan and Day-the-fan that make up O F T the bulk of this article are intended H E S to give readers enough information U P R to decide for themselves. After con - E M E sidering those sketches and the C O U sources on which they are based, R T O reasonable minds might differ about F T H whether Day was the most intense E U N of the many intense followers of I T E baseball who have served on the D S T A Court—good cases might be made T E S for several others, including Chief . Justice Fred Vinson 7 and Justices Potter Stewart, 8 Harry Blackmun, 9 John Paul Stevens, 10 Samuel Alito, 11 The U.S. Supreme Court, 1921–22. Back row, left to right : Justices Louis D. Brandeis, Mahlon and Sonia Sotomayor 12 —but none Pitney, James McReynolds, and John H. Clarke. Front row, left to right : Justices William R. Day would dispute that he at least de - and Joseph McKenna, Chief Justice William Howard Taft, and Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes serves a place among them. and Willis Van Devanter. 94 **SABR_BRJ-38.2_final-v2:Layout 1 12/15/09 2:00 PM Page 95 DAVIES : A Crank on the Court was, in fact, a baseball fan of a sort, if not a particu - surprise that Taft, who loomed so much larger than larly intense one. Day in person and in office in their own time (and in Taft’s superior noticeability began at a personal history books ever since), should also be more easily level, with the physical differences between the two noticed for his baseball associations. men. (Compare the photos below of Taft on the left Nevertheless, there is little evidence, other than and Day on the right.) Taft was a very substantial occasional and unsubstantiated journalistic froth, 26 human being, an attribute noted and caricatured in the that Taft’s interest in baseball was anything more than news media (see, for example, the cover of Judge mag - friendly, polite, and dutiful. By all appearances, he was azine on page 96) 19 and even privately among his sometimes involved with the game, but never in love friends. 20 Day, in contrast, was sufficiently slender and with it. His four famous involvements with baseball frail—“of delicate physique,” as his diplomatic col - reflect this fairly detached relationship. league Justice Charles Evans Hughes put it 21 —to be the First and most famously, on April 14, 1910, he be - target of the occasional cartoon (see, for example, came the first president of the United States to toss “midget” Day on page 97) or friendly barb as well. 22 At the ceremonial first pitch on opening day at a major- a professional level, there were substantial differences league game. 27 The moment came as a surprise to Taft too. Both men were important public figures from the (an odd reaction, in light of the fact that plans report - 1890s onward, but Taft was by far the more prominent. edly had been made for the same stunt at the opening In fact, Taft remains to this day a uniquely successful of the 1909 season): 28 accumulator of high offices in the federal government. He is the only person ever to hold the highest execu - President Taft, provided with pass No. 1, today tive office in the United States (he was president from enjoyed the novel experience of seeing the 1909 to 1913) and the highest judicial office (he was Washington American league team win a ball chief justice from 1921 to 1930). 23 Day’s highest exec - game. utive and judicial positions were secretary of state Last year, the executive saw Washington play (1898) and associate justice (1903–22) 24 —all of which Boston, late in the season, but the local players would be impressive when compared to anyone’s ca - got stage fright when the president arrived and reer other than Taft’s. 25 And so it should come as no threw away the game. Mr. Taft remarked then that 8 C L 0 he must be a “hoodoo” and remained away 7 D 3 7 0 5 - from the ball park the rest of the season. 7 C 7 E - H 2 - 6 G I Z The president took an active part in the game. S D - U C - - L Just before play was started, Umpire “Billy” C , L S , S Evans made his way to the Taft box in the S E S R E G R right wing of the grand stand, and presented N G O N C O the chief magistrate with a new ball. F C O F Y O R Y President Is Surprised. A R R A B I R L The president took the ball in his gloved hand B I L as if he were at a loss what to do with it [seemingly unaware of a Washington baseball tradition in which an official of the District of Columbia government threw out the first pitch of the Senators’ major league season 29 ] until Evans told him he was expected to throw it over the plate when he gave the signal. The president watched the players warm up, and a few minutes later shook hands with the managers, McAleer and Mack. When the bell rang for the beginning of the game, the pres - ident shifted uneasily in his seat, the umpire William Howard Taft, substantial. William R. Day, lean. gave the signal, and Mr. Taft raised his arm. 95 **SABR_BRJ-38.2_final-v2:Layout 1 12/15/09 2:00 PM Page 96 The Baseball Research Journal, Fall 2009 J U Catcher Street stood at the home plate D G E ready to receive the ball, but the presi - 7 4 , dent knew the pitcher was the man N O . who usually began business operations 1 4 6 with it, so he threw it straight to Pitcher 3 ( 3 30 0 Walter Johnson. O C T O B 31 E Taft would later reprise his performance, R 1 9 and his successor Woodrow Wilson 0 9 ) 32 . would continue the practice. Now it is a L I B R national tradition, and a yearly opportu - A R Y nity to remind baseball fans that Taft was O F 33 Taft’s girth was the object of con - C one of their kind. O N siderable comment and caricature G Taft does not seem to have attended R E and, as here, could be used to S S many non-opening-day games during his illustrate aspects of his political , L C presidency.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Actions by the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, and the President
    Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2018: Actions by the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, and the President Updated October 9, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL33225 Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to the Present Summary The process of appointing Supreme Court Justices has undergone changes over two centuries, but its most basic feature, the sharing of power between the President and Senate, has remained unchanged. To receive a lifetime appointment to the Court, a candidate must, under the “Appointments Clause” of the Constitution, first be nominated by the President and then confirmed by the Senate. A key role also has come to be played midway in the process by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Table 1 of this report lists and describes actions taken by the Senate, the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the President on all Supreme Court nominations, from 1789 through 2018. The table provides the name of each person nominated to the Court and the name of the President making the nomination. It also tracks the dates of formal actions taken, and time elapsing between these actions, by the Senate or Senate Judiciary Committee on each nomination, starting with the date that the Senate received the nomination from the President. Of the 44 Presidents in the history of the United States, 41 have made nominations to the Supreme Court. They made a total of 163 nominations, of which 126 (77%) received Senate confirmation. Also, on 12 occasions in the nation’s history, Presidents have made temporary recess appointments to the Court, without first submitting nominations to the Senate.
    [Show full text]
  • Time to Drop the Infield Fly Rule and End a Common Law Anomaly
    A STEP ASIDE TIME TO DROP THE INFIELD FLY RULE AND END A COMMON LAW ANOMALY ANDREW J. GUILFORD & JOEL MALLORD† I1 begin2 with a hypothetical.3 It’s4 the seventh game of the World Series at Wrigley Field, Mariners vs. Cubs.5 The Mariners lead one to zero in the bottom of the ninth, but the Cubs are threatening with no outs and the bases loaded. From the hopeful Chicago crowd there rises a lusty yell,6 for the team’s star batter is advancing to the bat. The pitcher throws a nasty † Andrew J. Guilford is a United States District Judge. Joel Mallord is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania Law School and a law clerk to Judge Guilford. Both are Dodgers fans. The authors thank their friends and colleagues who provided valuable feedback on this piece, as well as the editors of the University of Pennsylvania Law Review for their diligent work in editing it. 1 “I is for Me, Not a hard-hitting man, But an outstanding all-time Incurable fan.” OGDEN NASH, Line-Up for Yesterday: An ABC of Baseball Immortals, reprinted in VERSUS 67, 68 (1949). Here, actually, we. See supra note †. 2 Baseball games begin with a ceremonial first pitch, often resulting in embarrassment for the honored guest. See, e.g., Andy Nesbitt, UPDATE: 50 Cent Fires back at Ridicule over His “Worst” Pitch, FOX SPORTS, http://www.foxsports.com/buzzer/story/50-cent-worst-first-pitch-new-york- mets-game-052714 [http://perma.cc/F6M3-88TY] (showing 50 Cent’s wildly inaccurate pitch and his response on Instagram, “I’m a hustler not a damn ball player.
    [Show full text]
  • ) I by Supreme Court of the United States
    BRARY & COURT. U. & ) I by Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER TERM In the Matter of: Docket No. 645 JOHN DAVIS Petitioner; Oftice-Sujy*®# Cwjrt, U.S. F ILED vs, MAR 11 1969 STATE OP MISSISSIPPI i*HN f. «avis, clerk Respondent.. x Duplication or copying of this transcript by photographic, electrostatic or other facsimile means is prohibited under the order form agreement. Place Washington, D„ C. Date February 27 1969 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. 300 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. NA 8-2345 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 REBUTTAL ARGUMENT; PAGE Melvyn Zarrf Esq», on behalf of 3 Petitioner 27 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 !! 12 13 14 15 13 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 2 October Terra, 1968 3 "X JOHN DAVIS, Petitioner; 6 vs, No® 645 7 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI , a Respondent, 9 !0 Washington, D® C. February 27, 1969 11 The above-entitled matter came on for further 12 argument at 10:10 a.in, 13 BEFORE: 14 EARL WARREN, Chief Justice 15 HUGO L« BLACK, Associate Justice WILLIAM O, DOUGLAS, Associate Justice 16 JOHN M. HARLAN, Associate Justice WILLIAM J, BRENNAN, JR®, Associate Justice 17 POTTER STEWART, Associate Justice BYRON R, WHITE, Associate Justice 18 THURGOOD MARSHALL, Associate'Justice 19 APPEARANCES: 20 MELVYN ZARR, Esq. 10 Columbus Circle 21 New York, N. Y. 10019 22 G. GARLAND LYELL, JR., Esq, Assistant Attorney General 23 State of Mississippi Hew Capitol Building 24 Jackson, Mississippi 23 26 P R 0 C E E D I N G S MR.
    [Show full text]
  • Tales from the Blackmun Papers: a Fuller Appreciation of Harry Blackmun's Judicial Legacy
    Missouri Law Review Volume 70 Issue 4 Fall 2005 Article 7 Fall 2005 Tales from the Blackmun Papers: A Fuller Appreciation of Harry Blackmun's Judicial Legacy Joseph F. Kobylka Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Joseph F. Kobylka, Tales from the Blackmun Papers: A Fuller Appreciation of Harry Blackmun's Judicial Legacy, 70 MO. L. REV. (2005) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol70/iss4/7 This Conference is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Kobylka: Kobylka: Tales from the Blackmun Papers: Tales from the Blackmun Papers: A Fuller Appreciation of Harry Blackmun's Judicial Legacy Joseph F. Kobylka' This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to termi- enough 2 nate her pregnancy. - Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe v. Wade I believe we must analyze respondent Hardwick's claim in the light of the values that underlie the constitutional right to privacy. If that right means anything, it means that, before Georgia can prosecute its citizens for making choices about the most intimate aspects of their lives, it must do more than assert that the choice they have made3 is an "'abominable crime not fit to be named among Christians.' - Justice Harry A.
    [Show full text]
  • Opinion Assignment on the Rehnquist Court
    Opinion assignment on the Rehnquist Court Rehnquist’s opinion assignments reflected his ability to balance both the Court’s organizational needs and, occasionally, strategic policy considerations. by FORREST MALTZMAN and PAUL J. WAHLBECK ARTVILLE hen William H. Rehnquist replaced Warren E. completed their work efficiently.4 Rehnquist’s preference Burger as chief justice in 1986, administration for allowing the Court’s administrative needs to guide his Wof the Supreme Court changed markedly. In his opinion assignments was especially pronounced as the 17 years on the job, Chief Justice Burger was reputed to end of the term approached. act strategically to advance his policy objectives. Critics Our account certainly comports with Rehnquist’s own complained that he cast “phony votes” and manipulated description of the factors he weighed in making assign- the assignment of opinions to his brethren.1 For exam- ments: “I tried to be as evenhanded as possible as far as ple, Justice William O. Douglas charged the chief with numbers of cases assigned to each justice, but as the term attempting to “bend the Court to his will by manipulating goes on I take into consid- NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY assignments” when Chief Justice Burger assigned the task eration the extent to of writing the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade to his col- which the various justices league, fellow Nixon appointee Harry A. Blackman.2 are current in writing and As chief justice, Rehnquist claimed that he approached the task of opinion assignment in a strikingly different manner. “This is an important responsibility,” Rehnquist Justice Harry A. Blackmun, whose papers contain once observed, “and it is desirable that it be discharged 3 the assignment sheets carefully and fairly.” Quantitative analysis of patterns in that the chief justice Rehnquist’s assignment of opinions confirms that he circulated at the close of administered this task largely consistent with the goal of every oral argument.
    [Show full text]
  • Union Calendar No. 502
    1 Union Calendar No. 502 107TH CONGRESS "!REPORT 2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 107–801 REPORT ON THE LEGISLATIVE AND OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS DURING THE 107TH CONGRESS JANUARY 2, 2003.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 19–006 WASHINGTON : 2003 COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS BILL THOMAS, California, Chairman PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida FORTNEY PETE STARK, California NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut ROBERT T. MATSUI, California AMO HOUGHTON, New York WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania WALLY HERGER, California SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland DAVE CAMP, Michigan JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin JIM NUSSLE, Iowa JOHN LEWIS, Georgia SAM JOHNSON, Texas RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts JENNIFER DUNN, Washington MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York MAC COLLINS, Georgia WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana ROB PORTMAN, Ohio JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania XAVIER BECERRA, California WES WATKINS, Oklahoma KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas JERRY WELLER, Illinois EARL POMEROY, North Dakota KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado RON LEWIS, Kentucky MARK FOLEY, Florida KEVIN BRADY, Texas PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin (II) LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, Washington, DC, January 2, 2003. Hon. JEFF TRANDAHL, Office of the Clerk, House of Representatives, The Capitol, Washington, DC. DEAR MR. TRANDAHL: I am herewith transmitting, pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 1(d), the report of the Committee on Ways and Means on its legislative and oversight activities during the 107th Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • Does Eliminating Life Tenure for Article Iii Judges Require a Constitutional Amendment?
    DOW & MEHTA_03_15_21 (DO NOT DELETE) 3/17/2021 6:41 PM DOES ELIMINATING LIFE TENURE FOR ARTICLE III JUDGES REQUIRE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT? DAVID R. DOW & SANAT MEHTA* ABSTRACT Beginning in the early 2000s, a number of legal academicians from across the political spectrum proposed eliminating life tenure for some or all Article III judges and replacing it with a term of years (or a set of renewable terms). These scholars were largely in agreement such a change could be accomplished only by a formal constitutional amendment of Article III. In this Article, Dow and Mehta agree with the desirability of doing away with life tenure but argue such a change can be accomplished by ordinary legislation, without the need for formal amendment. Drawing on both originalism and formalism, Dow and Mehta begin by observing that the constitutional text does not expressly provide for lifetime tenure; rather, it states that judges shall hold their office during good behavior. The good behavior criterion, however, was not intended to create judicial sinecures for 20 or 30 years, but instead aimed at safeguarding judicial independence from the political branches. By measuring both the length of judicial tenure among Supreme Court justices, as well as voting behavior on the Supreme Court, Dow and Mehta conclude that, in fact, life tenure has proven inconsistent with judicial independence. They maintain that the Framers’ objective of insuring judicial independence is best achieved by term limits for Supreme Court justices. Copyright © 2021 David R. Dow & Sanat Mehta. * David Dow is the Cullen Professor at the University of Houston Law Center; Sanat Mehta, who graduated magna cum laude from Rice University in 2020 with a degree in computer science and a minor in Politics, Law, and Social Thought, is a data analyst at American Airlines.
    [Show full text]
  • The 112Th World Series Chicago Cubs Vs. Cleveland Indians Saturday, October 29, 2016 Game 4 - 7:08 P.M
    THE 112TH WORLD SERIES CHICAGO CUBS VS. CLEVELAND INDIANS SATURDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2016 GAME 4 - 7:08 P.M. (CT) FIRST PITCH WRIGLEY FIELD, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 2016 WORLD SERIES RESULTS GAME (DATE RESULT WINNING PITCHER LOSING PITCHER SAVE ATTENDANCE Gm. 1 - Tues., Oct. 25th CLE 6, CHI 0 Kluber Lester — 38,091 Gm. 2 - Wed., Oct. 26th CHI 5, CLE 1 Arrieta Bauer — 38,172 Gm. 3 - Fri., Oct. 28th CLE 1, CHI 0 Miller Edwards Allen 41,703 2016 WORLD SERIES SCHEDULE GAME DAY/DATE SITE FIRST PITCH TV/RADIO 4 Saturday, October 29th Wrigley Field 8:08 p.m. ET/7:08 p.m. CT FOX/ESPN Radio 5 Sunday, October 30th Wrigley Field 8:15 p.m. ET/7:15 p.m. CT FOX/ESPN Radio Monday, October 31st OFF DAY 6* Tuesday, November 1st Progressive Field 8:08 p.m. ET/7:08 p.m. CT FOX/ESPN Radio 7* Wednesday, November 2nd Progressive Field 8:08 p.m. ET/7:08 p.m. CT FOX/ESPN Radio *If Necessary 2016 WORLD SERIES PROBABLE PITCHERS (Regular Season/Postseason) Game 4 at Chicago: John Lackey (11-8, 3.35/0-0, 5.63) vs. Corey Kluber (18-9, 3.14/3-1, 0.74) Game 5 at Chicago: Jon Lester (19-5, 2.44/2-1, 1.69) vs. Trevor Bauer (12-8, 4.26/0-1, 5.00) SERIES AT 2-1 CUBS AT 1-2 This is the 87th time in World Series history that the Fall Classic has • This is the eighth time that the Cubs trail a best-of-seven stood at 2-1 after three games, and it is the 13th time in the last 17 Postseason series, 2-1.
    [Show full text]
  • Revisiting the Federalism Decisions of the Burger Court
    DAVID SCOTT LOUK Repairing the Irreparable: Revisiting the Federalism Decisions of the Burger Court A B ST R ACT. The text of a Supreme Court opinion rarely tells the full story of the debates, discussions, and disagreements that resulted in a particular decision. Drawing on previously unexamined archival papers of the Justices of the Burger Court, this Note tells the story of the Burger Court's federalism jurisprudence between 1975 and 1985, famously bookended by a pair of rare and abrupt reversals of Supreme Court precedent. The Note documents the Justices' deliberations for the first time, sheds new light on the institutional workings of the Court, and enriches our understanding of the foundations of modern federalism. In its federalism cases, the Burger Court grappled with the challenge of balancing the states' autonomy against the rise of new national problems and an expanding federal government's solutions to them. The Justices' papers show that they were more attuned to policy outcomes and the real-world consequences of their decisions than may typically be assumed. Above all, the papers reveal the Burger Court's deep struggle to articulate a sustainable federalism jurisprudence given the constraints of judicial craft. As the Note concludes, however, the Burger Court's uneven federalism experiments nonetheless laid the groundwork for the Court's subsequent attempts to fashion more workable doctrines. The Rehnquist and Roberts Courts have adjudicated federalism disputes more effectively by avoiding impracticable doctrines and remaining mindful of the institutional limitations of courts as federalism referees. A U T H 0 R. Law clerk to the Honorable James E.
    [Show full text]
  • A Summer Wildfire: How the Greatest Debut in Baseball History Peaked and Dwindled Over the Course of Three Months
    The Report committee for Colin Thomas Reynolds Certifies that this is the approved version of the following report: A Summer Wildfire: How the greatest debut in baseball history peaked and dwindled over the course of three months APPROVED BY SUPERVISING COMMITTEE: Co-Supervisor: ______________________________________ Tracy Dahlby Co-Supervisor: ______________________________________ Bill Minutaglio ______________________________________ Dave Sheinin A Summer Wildfire: How the greatest debut in baseball history peaked and dwindled over the course of three months by Colin Thomas Reynolds, B.A. Report Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts The University of Texas at Austin May, 2011 To my parents, Lyn & Terry, without whom, none of this would be possible. Thank you. A Summer Wildfire: How the greatest debut in baseball history peaked and dwindled over the course of three months by Colin Thomas Reynolds, M.A. The University of Texas at Austin, 2011 SUPERVISORS: Tracy Dahlby & Bill Minutaglio The narrative itself is an ageless one, a fundamental Shakespearean tragedy in its progression. A young man is deemed invaluable and exalted by the public. The hero is cast into the spotlight and bestowed with insurmountable expectations. But the acclamations and pressures are burdensome and the invented savior fails to fulfill the prospects once imagined by the public. He is cast aside, disregarded as a symbol of failure or one deserving of pity. It’s the quintessential tragedy of a fallen hero. The protagonist of this report is Washington Nationals pitcher Stephen Strasburg, who enjoyed a phenomenal rookie season before it ended abruptly due to a severe elbow injury.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court Justices
    The Supreme Court Justices Supreme Court Justices *asterick denotes chief justice John Jay* (1789-95) Robert C. Grier (1846-70) John Rutledge* (1790-91; 1795) Benjamin R. Curtis (1851-57) William Cushing (1790-1810) John A. Campbell (1853-61) James Wilson (1789-98) Nathan Clifford (1858-81) John Blair, Jr. (1790-96) Noah Haynes Swayne (1862-81) James Iredell (1790-99) Samuel F. Miller (1862-90) Thomas Johnson (1792-93) David Davis (1862-77) William Paterson (1793-1806) Stephen J. Field (1863-97) Samuel Chase (1796-1811) Salmon P. Chase* (1864-73) Olliver Ellsworth* (1796-1800) William Strong (1870-80) ___________________ ___________________ Bushrod Washington (1799-1829) Joseph P. Bradley (1870-92) Alfred Moore (1800-1804) Ward Hunt (1873-82) John Marshall* (1801-35) Morrison R. Waite* (1874-88) William Johnson (1804-34) John M. Harlan (1877-1911) Henry B. Livingston (1807-23) William B. Woods (1881-87) Thomas Todd (1807-26) Stanley Matthews (1881-89) Gabriel Duvall (1811-35) Horace Gray (1882-1902) Joseph Story (1812-45) Samuel Blatchford (1882-93) Smith Thompson (1823-43) Lucius Q.C. Lamar (1883-93) Robert Trimble (1826-28) Melville W. Fuller* (1888-1910) ___________________ ___________________ John McLean (1830-61) David J. Brewer (1890-1910) Henry Baldwin (1830-44) Henry B. Brown (1891-1906) James Moore Wayne (1835-67) George Shiras, Jr. (1892-1903) Roger B. Taney* (1836-64) Howell E. Jackson (1893-95) Philip P. Barbour (1836-41) Edward D. White* (1894-1921) John Catron (1837-65) Rufus W. Peckham (1896-1909) John McKinley (1838-52) Joseph McKenna (1898-1925) Peter Vivian Daniel (1842-60) Oliver W.
    [Show full text]
  • Stjpreme Cotjet of the United States
    ; 1 STJPREME COTJET OF THE UNITED STATES. Monday, October 11, 1915. The court met pursuant to law. Present: The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice McKenna, Mr. Justice Holmes, Mr. Justice Day, Mr. Justice Hughes, Mr. Justice Van Devanter, Mr. Justice Pitney, and Mr. Justice McReynolds, Adrian Riker, of Newark, N. J. ; Clarence C. Caldwell, of Howard, S. Dak. ; Alex. Simpson, of Jersey City, N. J. ; Robert Szold, of Chi- cago, 111. ; Leo F. Wormser, of Chicago, 111. ; William S. Haskell, of New York City, N. Y. ; Alfred D. Lind, of New York City ; Edward P. Holmes, of Lincoln, Nebr. George W. Berge, of Lincoln, Nebr.; ; Harold J. Adams, of Buffalo, N. Y. ; Morton S. Cressy, of Chicago, 111. Ralph D. Hurst, of Greensburg, Pa. ; James A. George, of Dead- ; wood, S. Dak.; Harry J. Dingeman, of Detroit, Mich.; Edwin P. Matthews, of Dayton, Ohio; James W. McCarter, of Washington, D. C. ; J. Sidney Condit, of Chicago, 111. ; Edw. W. Everett, of Chi- cago, 111. ; John C. Bane, of Pittsburg, Pa. ; Jeremiah F. Hoover, of Newark, N. J.; Colin S. Monteith, of Columbia, S. C; Frank G. Tompkins, of Columbia, S. C. ; Rush B. Johnson, of Chicago, 111.; of Alphonso C. Stewart, St. Louis, Mo. ; Wiley E. Jones, of Phoenix, Ariz.; Percy Sommer Benedict, of New Orleans, La.; John B. A. Wheltle, of Baltimore, Md. ; Burdette B. Webster, of Baltimore, Md. George W. Lindsay, of Baltimore, Md. George P. Decker, of ; Rochester, N. Y. ; Leslie C. Hardy, of Phoeniz, Ariz.; Martin A. Schenck, of New York City; and Charles K. Wheeler, of Paducah, Ky., were admitted to practice.
    [Show full text]