DOCSLIB.ORG

60 Vol. 99 No. 2 New York Daily News / Getty Images News / Getty Daily York New Judicature 61

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
60 Vol. 99 No. 2 New York Daily News / Getty Images News / Getty Daily York New Judicature 61 60 VOL. 99 NO. 2 NEW YORK DAILY NEWS / GETTY IMAGES NEWS / GETTY DAILY YORK NEW JUDICATURE 61 ON MAR. 28, 1996, JUSTICES There have been efforts to intro- these two sessions were combined DAVID SOUTER AND ANTHONY duce cameras into the U.S. Supreme into one video clip. This video depicts KENNEDY testified before a House Court by members of the press since part of the McCutcheon oral argument, Appropriations subcommittee to at least the 1970s,3 and on numerous and then cuts to arguments in Octane discuss the Supreme Court’s budget occasions Congress has tried to pass Fitness, when a 99Rise protester, Kai for the upcoming fiscal year. Souter, legislation permitting cameras in the Newkirk, interrupts the proceedings appointed by President George H.W. Supreme Court.4 At the start of the to denounce the Court’s decision in Bush, was known as a soft-spoken 114th Congress, at least one pending Citizens United v. FEC.10 Nearly a year justice who typically kept out of bill proposed introducing cameras later, on Jan. 21, 2015 — the fifth the limelight. When he and Justice in the high court.5 So far, all of these anniversary of the Citizens United deci- Kennedy were asked of the possibil- efforts have failed. However, the fact sion — seven members of 99Rise inter- ity of televising U.S. Supreme Court that members of Congress still intro- rupted the start of the Court’s session proceedings, Souter responded unchar- duce legislation on this topic, and that to, once again, protest the Citizens acteristically: “I can tell you the day you prominent legal scholars and practi- United decision. This most recent see a camera disruption was come into our captured by courtroom, it’s hidden camera, going to roll but viewers over my dead SHOOTING FROM could not see body.”1 any Justices Justice in the video Kennedy THE HIP frame; the agreed that video depicts introducing the Supreme cameras into CONCEALED CAMERAS IN THE Court cham- the nation’s UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ber and Chief highest court Justice John was a bad Robert’s voice 11 idea. In justi- By Kyle C. Kopko and Erin Krause is audible. In fying their each instance, responses, the demonstra- Justice Souter claimed that when he tioners have argued for cameras in the tors were promptly removed from the was a judge in New Hampshire, he Court,6 demonstrates a continuing Supreme Court chamber by Supreme altered his behavior when a camera demand by some individuals for visual Court police and charged with various was in the courtroom out of fear that access to Supreme Court proceedings. criminal offenses, including violating his comments would be taken out of Recently, and despite restrictions 40 U.S.C. § 6134 for “mak[ing] a context. Justice Kennedy explained on cameras in the Supreme Court, the harangue or oration, or utter[ing] loud, that by excluding cameras from the public received its first video glimpse threatening, or abusive language in the Supreme Court, the Justices signaled of the Court in session. A group named Supreme Court Building or grounds.”12 to the public that the Court was 99Rise — an organization affiliated While these security breaches repre- fundamentally different from the other with the Occupy movement — smug- sent the first time that a session of the political branches of government. Ten gled a hidden video camera into the Supreme Court was recorded with a years later, Justice Kennedy, along with Supreme Court on at least three differ- video camera, it was not the first time Justice Clarence Thomas, reaffirmed ent occasions.7 They did so first on an observer smuggled a camera into the this position when testifying before the Oct. 8, 2013, to film part of the oral high court to document the justices in House Appropriations subcommittee arguments in McCutcheon v. FEC,8 and action. Scholars have usually acknowl- on transportation, treasury, judiciary, then again on Feb. 26, 2014, during edged that there are one13 or two14 and housing and urban development, the oral arguments of Octane Fitness photographs of the Supreme Court in which handles the Court’s budget.2 v. Icon Health & Fitness.9 Segments of session. There are, however, at least three known photographs in existence, IMAGE AT LEFT: THE FIRST DAY OF THE OCTOBER 1937 TERM, AS PUBLISHED IN THE OCT. 5, 1937, EDITION OF THE DAILY in addition to the videos captured by NEWS. THE JUSTICES, APPEARING FROM LEFT TO RIGHT, ARE: CHARLES EVANS HUGHES, LOUIS BRANDEIS, PIERCE BUTLER, 99Rise. Our purpose here is to discuss OWEN ROBERTS, AND HUGO BLACK. how these three images of the Court 4 62 VOL. 99 NO. 2 — all taken in the 1930s — came into snap shot at Mr. Associate Justice Horace existence and discuss a potential expla- It is said that the dignified Gray of Massachusetts while he was nation as to why cameras were origi- members of that high judi- “dozing” on the bench. Judges of the nally banned from the Supreme Court. Supreme Court frequently take “forty This article also represents the first “cial tribunal were deeply winks” during the arguments if the talk time all three images are published mortified recently by the happens to be uninteresting but they together. As we detail in the following manage to conceal the fact from all but sections, the history of these images report that a kodak fiend the closest observers. Justice Gray is is unique, and each image provides a took a snap shot at Mr. the tallest member of the court and for rare glimpse inside the most secretive that reason he is, the most conspicuous; branch of government. Associate Justice Horace besides he has a peculiarly shaped head, Gray of Massachusetts which always attracts attention and elic- JUSTICE HORACE GRAY ASLEEP its comment from visitors. ON THE BENCH, 1895 while he was ‘dozing’ on Unfortunately for Mr. Justice Gray he A former chief justice of the is more given to “nodding on the bench” Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the bench. Judges of the than any of his associates, and when he Horace Gray took his seat on the U.S. Supreme Court frequently takes a nap his head falls low upon his Supreme Court in 1882 and served breast, his mouth hangs open, and he on the bench for 20 years. During his take ‘forty winks’ during could not truthfully be called a “sleeping tenure, Gray wrote several notable the arguments if the talk beauty.” It was during one of his naps that opinions that contributed to the Court’s the kodak fiend got in his work. Naturally body of constitutional jurisprudence — happens to be uninterest- Mr. Justice Gray is very sensitive on the including majority opinions that upheld ing but they manage to subject, and he was further mortified one the use of paper money in peacetime,15 day by receiving a severe reprimand from struck down unapportioned income conceal the fact from all his wife. She had taken some friends to taxes implemented by the Income but the closest observers.” the capitol to witness the proceedings Tax Act of 1894,16 and interpreted the of the court, but principally to show off Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth her husband in his rich silk gown. It so Amendment,17 among many other cases. Court. But, according to a news account happened that the case pending before the Perhaps Justice Gray’s most import- from the late 1800s, Justice Gray was court was dull and the attorneys uninter- ant institutional contribution was also responsible for another important esting, so that when Mrs. Gray and her the introduction of law clerks at the institutional contribution to the U.S. friends entered the courtroom Judge Gray Supreme Court. In Massachusetts, Supreme Court — the Court’s ban on was sound asleep in his chair.21 Gray had hired clerks to assist him in photography and cameras. carrying out his judicial duties, and he Previous research indicates that While it is difficult to say if these continued to do so when appointed to the judiciary has resisted cameras in events took place in the manner the the U.S. Supreme Court. While early the courtroom since 1937, when the unnamed author describes — and it is law clerks primarily completed clerical American Bar Association adopted important to note that such a photo- tasks on behalf of their justice, Gray’s Canon 35.19 However, there is evidence graph has never publicly surfaced clerks took a more expansive role. to suggest that a ban on cameras in the — this unflattering account was Scholars have noted, “Gray was the Supreme Court occurred years earlier. nonetheless reprinted in a number of first [Supreme Court justice] to request On Nov. 17, 1895, the newspaper The newspapers throughout the United that his clerks draft opinions for cases, Sun printed an article titled The Supreme States.22 If accurate, this article although the drafts were only used to Court Bars Kodaks: A Snap Shot Taken at suggests that the ban on cameras in the stimulate Gray’s own writing. Gray Justice Gray While he was Dozing on the Supreme Court occurred in reaction to also debated his clerks regarding the Bench.20 Here is the full text: an embarrassing situation; it may have cases before the Court, and expected been intended as a means of protecting the clerks to defend their views.”18 The Visitors and tourists to Washington the justices from similar circumstances role of Gray’s law clerks, in many ways, are not allowed to take kodaks into the in the future. This stands in contrast to resembles the duties of modern clerks Supreme Court room.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Rare Books & Special Collections Tarlton Law Library University Of
    Rare Books & Special Collections Tarlton Law Library University of Texas at Austin 727 E. 26th St., Austin, Texas 78705-3224 512/471-7263 SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS RESEARCH FILES, 1823-1955, Bulk 1860-1939 Inventory Date printed: SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS RESEARCH FILES Inventory Extent: 1.25 linear ft. (3 boxes). Frank, John P., 1917-2002- John P. Frank, a noted attorney and constitutional scholar, was born in 1917. He received his LL.B. at the University of Wisconsin, and his J.S.D. from Yale University. He was law clerk to Justice Hugo L. Black at the October, 1942 term, among other prominent positions. He taught law from 1946 to 1954 at Indiana and Yale Universities. He has authored 12 books on the Supreme Court, the Constitution and constitutional law. A senior partner with the Phoenix firm of Lewis and Roca, which he joined in 1954, Frank was lead counsel on the ground-breaking Miranda v. Arizona case, and served as counsel to Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. While serving on the Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure, Frank led a group that worked on drafting revisions to Rule 11 attorney sanctions. Frank also served from 1960 to 1970 on the Advisory Committee of Civil Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States. Scope and Content: The collection consists of research into U.S. Supreme Court nominations of the 19th and 20th centuries, and includes 8 inches of printed materials and 7 microfilm reels (35mm), 1823-1939 (bulk 1860-1939), collected by Frank, for a research project concerning Supreme Court nominations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impartiality Paradox
    The Impartiality Paradox Melissa E. Loewenstemt The constitutional principles that bind our free society instruct that the American people must "hold the judgeship in the highest esteem, that they re- gard it as the symbol of impartial, fair, and equal justice under law."'1 Accord- ingly, in contrast with the political branches, the Supreme Court's decisions "are legitimate only when [the Court] seeks to dissociate itself from individual 2 or group interests, and to judge by disinterested and more objective standards." As Justice Frankfurter said, "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice. 3 Almost instinctively, once a President appoints a judge to sit on the Su- preme Court,4 the public earmarks the Justice as an incarnation of impartiality, neutrality, and trustworthiness. Not surprisingly then, Presidents have looked to the Court for appointments to high profile and important committees of national concern. 5 It is among members of the judiciary that a President can find individuals certain to obtain the immediate respect of the American people, and often the world community. It is a judge's neutrality, fair-mindedness, and integrity that once again label him a person of impartiality and fairness, a per- son who seeks justice, and a President's first choice to serve the nation. The characteristics that led to a judge's initial appointment under our adversary sys- tem, and which lend themselves to appearances of propriety and justice in our courts, often carry over into extrajudicial activities as well. As Ralph K. Winter, Jr., then a professor at the Yale Law School, stated: [t]he appointment of a Justice of the Supreme Court to head a governmental com- mission or inquiry usually occurs because of the existence of a highly controversial issue which calls for some kind of official or authoritative resolution ....And the use of Supreme Court Justices, experience shows, is generally prompted by a presi- t Yale Law School, J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Justice Owen J. Roberts on 1937
    JUSTICE OWEN J. ROBERTS ON 1937 Edward L. Carter & Edward E. Adams† HE MOTIVATIONS FOR Supreme Court Justice Owen J. Roberts’ so-called “switch in time that saved nine” in 1937 remain largely obscured. For much of the past 75 years, judges, lawyers, and scholars have discussed – in- cluding recently in this journal1 – why Roberts would vote to up- T 2 hold minimum-wage legislation in March 1937 when he had voted to invalidate similar legislation in June 1936.3 Because President Franklin D. Roosevelt unveiled his court-packing plan on February 5, 1937, externalists have ascribed political motivations to Roberts and the Court.4 Internalists, meanwhile, have pointed to legal rea- sons for the switch.5 With the exception, however, of a memoran- dum Roberts gave to Justice Felix Frankfurter in 1945 that was first published a decade later,6 Roberts’ own voice has been largely miss- ing from the discussion. † Ed Carter is an Associate Professor of Communications and Ed Adams is a Professor of Communications at Brigham Young University. Copyright © 2012 Edward L. Carter and Edward E. Adams. 1 Barry Cushman, The Hughes-Roberts Visit, 15 GREEN BAG 2D 125 (2012). 2 West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937). 3 Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo, 298 U.S. 587 (1936). 4 See Laura Kalman, The Constitution, the Supreme Court, and the New Deal, 110 AM. HIST. REV. 1052 (2005) (compiling articles). 5 Id. (same). 6 Felix Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Roberts, 104 U. PA. L. REV. 311 (1955). 15 GREEN BAG 2D 375 Edward L.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court of the United States
    The Supreme Court of the United States Hearings and Reports on the Successful and Unsuccessful Nominations Now Includes the Kavanaugh and Preliminary Barrett Volumes! This online set contains all existing Senate documents for 1916 to date, as a result of the hearings and subsequent hearings on Supreme Court nominations� Included in the volumes are hearings never before made public! The series began with three volumes devoted to the controversial confirmation of Louis Brandeis, the first nominee subject to public hearings. The most recent complete volumes cover Justice Kavanaugh. After two years, the Judiciary Committee had finally released Kavanaugh’s nomination hearings, so we’ve been able to complete the online volumes� The material generated by Kavanaugh’s nomination was so voluminous that it takes up 8 volumes� The definitive documentary history of the nominations and confirmation process, this ongoing series covers both successful and unsuccessful nominations� As a measure of its importance, it is now consulted by staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee as nominees are considered� Check your holdings and complete your print set! Volume 27 (1 volume) 2021 Amy Coney Barrett �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������Online Only Volume 26 (8 volumes) - 2021 Brett Kavanaugh ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������Online Only Volume 25 (2 books) - 2018 Neil M� Gorsuch ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������$380�00
    [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]
  • A Tale of Two Textualists: a Critical Comparison of Justices Black and Scalia Michael J
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty and Deans 1994 A Tale of Two Textualists: A Critical Comparison of Justices Black and Scalia Michael J. Gerhardt Repository Citation Gerhardt, Michael J., "A Tale of Two Textualists: A Critical Comparison of Justices Black and Scalia" (1994). Faculty Publications. 990. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/990 Copyright c 1994 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs ARTICLES A TALE OF TWO TEXTUALISTS: A CRITICAL COMPARISON OF JUSTICES BLACK AND SCALIA MICHAEL J. GERHARDT* The idea that Justices Hugo Black and Antonin Scalia have anything in common jurisprudentially is counterintuitive. Justice Black is associated with the progressive social and economic legislation symbolized by the New Deal and with judicial activism in protecting the poor and disen­ franchised.1 He is beloved by many liberals as a champion of individual rights, especially freedom of speech and of the press. In contrast, Justice Scalia is revered by conservatives as a true believer-combating the rising tide of liberalism, big government, and judicial activism-set on restoring traditional notions of federalism and judicial restraint.2 Any effort to liken these two Justices makes both liberals and conservatives recoil. * Professor of Law, Marshall-Wythe School of Law, The College of William and Mary. B.A. Yale University; M.Sc. London School of Economics; J.D. University of Chicago. I am grateful for the encouragement and helpful comments on earlier drafts I received from Marc Arkin, Erwin Chemerinsky, George Cochran, Neal Devins, Jill Fisch, Tracy Higgins, Michael Herz, Sandy Levinson, Chip Lupu, Tracey Maclin, John McGinnis, Peter Shane, Bill Treanor, Steve Wermiel, and Ron Wright.
    [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]
  • INFORMATION to USERS This Manuscript Has Been Reproduced
    INFO RM A TIO N TO U SER S This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI film s the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be fromany type of con^uter printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependentquality upon o fthe the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and inqjroper alignment can adverse^ afreet reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note wiD indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one e3q)osure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photogr^hs included inoriginal the manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for aiy photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI direct^ to order. UMJ A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA 313.'761-4700 800/521-0600 LAWLESSNESS AND THE NEW DEAL; CONGRESS AND ANTILYNCHING LEGISLATION, 1934-1938 DISSERTATION presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Robin Bernice Balthrope, A.B., J.D., M.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Selections from the Private Papers of Justice William O. Douglas. Edited with an Introduction by Melvin L
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 1988 Book Review: The ouD glas Letters: Selections from the Private Papers of Justice William O. Douglas. Edited with an Introduction by Melvin L. Urofsky. Michael E. Parrish Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Parrish, Michael E., "Book Review: The ouD glas Letters: Selections from the Private Papers of Justice William O. Douglas. Edited with an Introduction by Melvin L. Urofsky." (1988). Constitutional Commentary. 723. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/723 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Constitutional Commentary collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1988] BOOK REVIEW 505 problems in Barendt's analysis originate not so much in his assump­ tion that philosophical reasoning may be valuable, as in his method of importing philosophy into constitutional interpretation. By as­ serting that philosophical principles tell us what the first amend­ ment means, Barendt not only transforms the amendment but also elevates particular philosophical principles to a status that they have not earned and may not merit. Such an approach reduces the incentive to evaluate philosophical arguments seriously and realisti­ cally. When scholars forego the temptation to pass off their philos­ ophy as interpretation of what the Constitution means, they will likely find themselves forced to do better philosophy. THE DOUGLAS LE'ITERS: SELECTIONS FROM THE PRIVATE PAPERS OF JUSTICE WILLIAM 0.
    [Show full text]
  • The Appointment of Hugo L. Black
    The University of Chicago Law Review VOLUME 41 NUMBER 1FALL 1973 A Klansman Joins the Court: The Appointment of Hugo L. Black William E. Leuchtenburgj I. THE NOMINATION On August 12, 1937, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, rebounding from the worst setback of his long Presidency, took the first of a series of steps toward creating what historians would one day call "the Roose- velt Court." Galling defeat had come less than a month before when the Senate had killed his scheme to add a Justice to the Supreme Court for every member aged seventy or over who did not resign or retire. The original plan would have allowed the President to name as many as six new Justices, but after a bitter 168-day fight, the measure was buried, amid loud rejoicing from FDR's opponents. Roosevelt was not finished yet, however, for one legacy of the protracted struggle was the creation of a vacancy on the Supreme Court, and it was the President's prerogative to nominate a successor. The choice he finally made would trigger an acrimonious controversy and would have a momentous im- pact on the disposition of the Court. The vacancy resulted, at least indirectly, from Roosevelt's "Court- packing" plan. The President had advanced his bold proposal in February because he was frustrated by the performance of the Supreme Court, particularly the conservative "Four Horsemen"--Willis Van t De Witt Clinton Professor of History, Columbia University. This article is an expanded version of a paper presented as the second annual William Winslow Crosskey Lecture in Legal History at The University of Chicago Law School on February 28, 1973.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rehnquist Court and Beyond: Revolution, Counter-Revolution, Or Mere Chastening of Constitutional Aspirations?
    THE REHNQUIST COURT AND BEYOND: REVOLUTION, COUNTER-REVOLUTION, OR MERE CHASTENING OF CONSTITUTIONAL ASPIRATIONS? THE PROCESSES OF CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: FROM PARTISAN ENTRENCHMENT TO THE NATIONAL SURVEILLANCE STATE Jack M. Balkin & Sanford Levinson* I. INTRODUCTION: PARTISAN ENTRENCHMENT Five years ago, we offered a theory of how constitutional change and constitutional revolutions occurred, which we called the theory of “partisan entrenchment.”1 Much has happened in the subsequent half-decade, and we are grateful for this opportunity to offer an update of our thoughts, together with some amendments to our initial formulation. By far the most important amendment is to draw out in more detail how the development of constitutional doctrine by courts occurs within the broader framework of changes in constitutional regimes, which include changes in institutions, legislation, and administrative regulation. The forces of democratic politics drive these regime changes, and the major actors are not courts but the political branches. Although courts may initially resist these changes, in the long run, they cooperate with them, shape their contours, and legitimate them through the development of constitutional doctrine. In the second half of this essay, we describe an emerging regime of institutions and practices that we call the “National Surveillance State,” which, we think, represents the major constitutional development of our era. The National Surveillance State responds to the particular needs of warfare, foreign policy, and domestic law enforcement in the twenty-first century. That such a state is emerging has become clear in the wake of 9/11 and debates about the War on Terror. However, it is not limited to the * Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment, Yale Law School.
    [Show full text]