DOCSLIB.ORG

Ketter, Chief Justice John Marshall's Judicial Statesmanship

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ketter, Chief Justice John Marshall's Judicial Statesmanship UIC Law Review Volume 53 Issue 4 Article 3 2021 Chief Justice John Marshall’s Judicial Statesmanship Amid In Re Burr: A Pragmatic Political Balancing Against President Jefferson Over Treason, 53 UIC J. Marshall L. Rev. 789 (2021) Christian Ketter Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview Part of the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Christian Ketter, Chief Justice John Marshall’s Judicial Statesmanship Amid In Re Burr: A Pragmatic Political Balancing Against President Jefferson Over Treason, 53 UIC J. Marshall L. Rev. 789 (2021) https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview/vol53/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UIC Law Open Access Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in UIC Law Review by an authorized administrator of UIC Law Open Access Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN MARSHALL’S JUDICIAL STATESMANSHIP AMID IN RE BURR: A PRAGMATIC POLITICAL BALANCING AGAINST PRESIDENT JEFFERSON OVER TREASON CHRISTIAN KETTER* I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................... 791 A. Premise ..................................................................... 794 B. Judicial Statesmanship ........................................... 797 1. Defined ............................................................... 797 2. The Risks of Judicial Statesmanship: Marshall’s Successor Roger B. Taney. ................................ 801 C. John Marshall as a Judicial Statesman ................. 803 II. BACKGROUND ................................................................. 808 A. Relationships at play in In Re Burr ........................ 809 1. Thomas Jefferson vs. John Marshall: Bitter Cousins and American Rivals ........................... 809 2. Judiciary vs. Executive ..................................... 816 B. Judiciary and the People ......................................... 821 1. Jefferson vs. Burr .............................................. 823 2. The Chief Justice and the Marshall Court ...... 825 C. Bollman/Burr Cases ................................................. 828 1. The Incident: Treason? ...................................... 828 2. Ex Parte Bollman: Marshall’s first step ........... 832 3. Burr’s Treason Trial .......................................... 835 a. The Grand Jury is Sworn: May 22, 1807 837 b. The District Court vs. The Executive ...... 841 c. The Grand Jury Indicted Burr ................ 851 d. Bollman versus Burr: A problem in precedent .................................................. 853 e. Burr’s Trial: Public and Political Pressure .................................................... 855 * Professor Ketter is an Adjunct Professor of Criminal Procedure at Morton College. B.A, Communications & Media Studies, cum laude, DePaul University; J.D., cum laude, Dean’s Scholar, The John Marshall Law School. Mr. Ketter is an Associate Attorney with Hervas, Condon & Bersani, P.C., practicing federal civil rights litigation and state tort litigation. He is a former Cook County criminal prosecutor in Chicago, Illinois, having worked as an Assistant State’s Attorney in the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office’s Criminal Prosecutions Bureau. Prior to this Mr. Ketter served in an internship as a judicial clerk at the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit under the Honorable Judge William J. Bauer. He has guest-lectured at Northwestern State University of Louisiana and Morton College respectively on the issues of the career risks for performing artists, rules of evidence and criminal law. Mr. Ketter has written on the subject of constitutional law and gun legislation, first amendment rights, voting rights, administrative law, the Roberts Court, and labor reform. His work has been published in The University of Toledo Law Review, Wayne Law Review, The Arizona State Sports and Entertainment Law Journal, Florida Coastal Law Review, and Cleveland State Law Review. Professor Ketter greatly appreciates the invaluable assistance of Mr. Polatip Subanajouy and Ms. Allison R. Trendle. 789 790 UIC John Marshall Law Review [53:705 f. Final Arguments: August 20-29, 1807 .... 867 III. IN RE BURR: A PRAGMATIC DECISION OF JUDICIAL STATESMANSHIP ............................................................. 872 A. Marshall’s Originalism and Historical Analysis .... 874 B. Marshall’s Textualism: English Jurists and American Judges ....................................................................... 879 C. Marshall’s Structuralism ........................................ 884 D. Marshall’s Common-Law Constitutionalism to Backtrack Bollman. ................................................. 886 E. Marshall’s Living Constitutionalism, Redefining “Treason” in Burr ..................................................... 889 F. Marshall’s judicial statesmanship and public policy concerns .................................................................... 893 1. In the wake of In Re Burr ................................. 898 G. A Political Epilogue: Another Prosecution and Jefferson’s Reprise ................................................... 899 IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................... 905 Every opinion, to be correctly understood, ought to be considered with a view to the case in which it was delivered.1 -Chief Justice John Marshall In Re Burr (1807) It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is . If courts are to regard the Constitution . [as] superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.2 -Chief Justice John Marshall Marbury v. Madison (1803) While Burr’s case is depending before the court, I will trouble you, from time to time, with what occurs to me . the case of Marbury v. Madison has been cited, and I think it material to stop . citing that case as authority, and to have it denied to be law . I have long wished for a proper occasion to have the gratuitous opinion in Marbury v. Madison brought before the public, & denounced as not law; & I think the present a fortunate one, because it occupies such a place in the public attention . [its] reverse will be the rule of action with the executive.3 -President Thomas Jefferson 1. In re Burr, 8 U.S. 470 (1807) (hereinafter) United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 55, 165 (C.C.D. Va. 1807). 2. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 137 (1803). 3. Letter from Thomas Jefferson to George Hay (June 2, 1907), in 10 THE WORKS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON IN TWELVE VOLUMES 396 (Paul Leicester Ford ed., Federal ed. 1905). 2020] A Pragmatic Political Balancing 791 I. INTRODUCTION The effects of Chief Justice John Marshall’s tenure on the Supreme Court from 1801-1835 are still visible today.4 Marshall’s written opinions instruct on American governance, history, law, and politics. The nuances and historical context of those opinions demonstrate that his role on the Court was far more than merely presiding thereover. Marshall shaped modern judicial review.5 As Chief Justice, he quintessentially brought the authority of a political branch, the dignity of statesmanship, and the appearance of total impartiality to the Supreme Court.6 His efforts have been continually minimized, enlarged, and misunderstood by scholars, and yet, there are aspects of his career still to be revealed.7 This Article focuses upon John Marshall’s judicial statesmanship within the case of In Re Burr. Aaron Burr’s treason trial has its notable place in history due to the political climate during the case and the figures involved in the case both in and outside of the courtroom.8 Chief Justice Marshall and the Court felt immense political pressure from President Thomas Jefferson and the public. Marshall’s diplomacy as a judicial statesman, driven by forces facing the Judiciary in Burr, however, necessitate the scrupulous analysis given to other cases in which the Marshall Court averted disabling political pressure.9 At the time of Burr, 4. G. Edward White, Recovering the World of the Marshall Court, 33 J. MARSHALL L. REV. 781, 790 (2000) (noting that Chief Justice Marshall wrote 547 opinions of the Court’s total 574). 5. See Samuel R. Olken, The Ironies of Marbury v. Madison and John Marshall’s Judicial Statesmanship, 37 J. MARSHALL L. REV. 391, 403 (2004) (writing that Marshall is incorrectly attributed to have created judicial review. In reality, Marshall enhanced constitutional powers already present). 6. See G. EDWARD WHITE, THE AMERICAN JUDICIAL TRADITION: PROFILES OF LEADING AMERICAN JUDGES 12, 15 (3d ed. 2007) (“Consequently[,] under Marshall's guidance[,] the Court became not only an increasingly important force in national politics but also a source of pride and inspiration to the men appointed to its bench.”). 7. Olken, supra note 5, at 403. 8. CHARLES F. HOBSON, THE AARON BURR TREASON TRIAL 1 (2006), www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/trials/burrtrial.pdf [perma.cc/XXU5-ALVK]. 9. See Id. (“Momentous legal issues were involved, including the scope of executive privilege and the constitutional and common law definitions of treason. The trial’s political dimensions were equally significant: at stake was the reach of Thomas Jefferson’s influence over the federal courts and the power of John Marshall to limit Jefferson’s influence.”); G. EDWARD WHITE, THE MARSHALL COURT & CULTURAL CHANGE: 1815-1835, at 232 (1991) (writing that In Re Burr “was the cause célébre of the early Marshall Court years”); see also
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]
  • 16-1423 Ortiz V. United States (06/22/2018)
    Summary 6/25/2018 1:41:01 PM Differences exist between documents. New Document: Old Document: 16-1423_new 16-1423 71 pages (394 KB) 71 pages (394 KB) 6/25/2018 1:40:53 PM 6/25/2018 1:40:53 PM Used to display results. Get started: first change is on page 43. No pages were deleted How to read this report Highlight indicates a change. Deleted indicates deleted content. indicates pages were changed. indicates pages were moved. file://NoURLProvided[6/25/2018 1:41:22 PM] (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2017 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus ORTIZ v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES No. 16–1423. Argued January 16, 2018—Decided June 22, 2018 Congress has long provided for specialized military courts to adjudicate charges against service members. Today, courts-martial hear cases involving crimes unconnected with military service. They are also subject to several tiers of appellate review, and thus are part of an in- tegrated “court-martial system” that resembles civilian structures of justice. That system begins with the court-martial itself, a tribunal that determines guilt or innocence and levies punishment, up to life- time imprisonment or execution.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Understandings of the "Judicial Power" in Statutory Interpretation
    ARTICLE ALL ABOUT WORDS: EARLY UNDERSTANDINGS OF THE 'JUDICIAL POWER" IN STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, 1776-1806 William N. Eskridge, Jr.* What understandingof the 'judicial Power" would the Founders and their immediate successors possess in regard to statutory interpretation? In this Article, ProfessorEskridge explores the background understandingof the judiciary's role in the interpretationof legislative texts, and answers earlier work by scholars like ProfessorJohn Manning who have suggested that the separation of powers adopted in the U.S. Constitution mandate an interpre- tive methodology similar to today's textualism. Reviewing sources such as English precedents, early state court practices, ratifying debates, and the Marshall Court's practices, Eskridge demonstrates that while early statutory interpretationbegan with the words of the text, it by no means confined its searchfor meaning to the plain text. He concludes that the early practices, especially the methodology ofJohn Marshall,provide a powerful model, not of an anticipatory textualism, but rather of a sophisticated methodology that knit together text, context, purpose, and democratic and constitutionalnorms in the service of carrying out the judiciary's constitutional role. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................................... 991 I. Three Nontextualist Powers Assumed by English Judges, 1500-1800 ............................................... 998 A. The Ameliorative Power .............................. 999 B. Suppletive Power (and More on the Ameliorative Pow er) .............................................. 1003 C. Voidance Power ..................................... 1005 II. Statutory Interpretation During the Founding Period, 1776-1791 ............................................... 1009 * John A. Garver Professor ofJurisprudence, Yale Law School. I am indebted toJohn Manning for sharing his thoughts about the founding and consolidating periods; although we interpret the materials differently, I have learned a lot from his research and arguments.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume II: Rights and Liberties Howard Gillman, Mark A. Graber
    AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM Volume II: Rights and Liberties Howard Gillman, Mark A. Graber, and Keith E. Whittington INDEX OF MATERIALS ARCHIVE 1. Introduction 2. The Colonial Era: Before 1776 I. Introduction II. Foundations A. Sources i. The Massachusetts Body of Liberties B. Principles i. Winthrop, “Little Speech on Liberty” ii. Locke, “The Second Treatise of Civil Government” iii. The Putney Debates iv. Blackstone, “Commentaries on the Laws of England” v. Judicial Review 1. Bonham’s Case 2. Blackstone, “Commentaries on the Laws of England” C. Scope i. Introduction III. Individual Rights A. Property B. Religion i. Establishment 1. John Witherspoon, The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Man ii. Free Exercise 1. Ward, The Simple Cobler of Aggawam in America 2. Penn, “The Great Case of Liberty of Conscience” C. Guns i. Guns Introduction D. Personal Freedom and Public Morality i. Personal Freedom and Public Morality Introduction ii. Blackstone, “Commentaries on the Laws of England” IV. Democratic Rights A. Free Speech B. Voting i. Voting Introduction C. Citizenship i. Calvin’s Case V. Equality A. Equality under Law i. Equality under Law Introduction B. Race C. Gender GGW 9/5/2019 D. Native Americans VI. Criminal Justice A. Due Process and Habeas Corpus i. Due Process Introduction B. Search and Seizure i. Wilkes v. Wood ii. Otis, “Against ‘Writs of Assistance’” C. Interrogations i. Interrogations Introduction D. Juries and Lawyers E. Punishments i. Punishments Introduction 3. The Founding Era: 1776–1791 I. Introduction II. Foundations A. Sources i. Constitutions and Amendments 1. The Ratification Debates over the National Bill of Rights a.
    [Show full text]
  • Justice Under Law William F
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Popular Media Faculty and Deans 1977 Justice Under Law William F. Swindler William & Mary Law School Repository Citation Swindler, William F., "Justice Under Law" (1977). Popular Media. 264. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/popular_media/264 Copyright c 1977 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/popular_media INL Chief Justice John Marshall, portrayed by Edward Holmes, is the star of the P.B.S. "Equal Justice under Law" series. By William F. Swindler T HEBuilding-"Equal MOTTO on the Justice facade under of-the Law"-is Supreme also Court the title of a series of five films that will have their pre- mieres next month on the Public Broadcasting Service network. Commissioned by the Bicentennial Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States and produced for public television by the P.B.S. national production center at WQED, Pittsburgh, the films are intended to inform the general public, as well as educational and professional audiences, on the American constitutional heritage as exemplified in the major decisions of the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall. ABOVE: Marshall confers with Justice Joseph Story (left) and Jus- Four constitutional cases are dramatized in the tice Bushrod Washington (right). BELOW: Aaron Burr is escorted to series-including the renowned judicial review issue jail. in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the definition of "nec- essary and proper" powers of national government in the "bank case" (McCulloch v.
    [Show full text]
  • Just Because John Marshall Said It, Doesn't Make It So: Ex Parte
    Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship 2000 Just Because John Marshall Said it, Doesn't Make it So: Ex Parte Bollman and the Illusory Prohibition on the Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus for State Prisoners in the Judiciary Act of 1789 Eric M. Freedman Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship Recommended Citation Eric M. Freedman, Just Because John Marshall Said it, Doesn't Make it So: Ex Parte Bollman and the Illusory Prohibition on the Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus for State Prisoners in the Judiciary Act of 1789, 51 Ala. L. Rev. 531 (2000) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship/53 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MILESTONES IN HABEAS CORPUS: PART I JUST BECAUSE JOHN MARSHALL SAID IT, DOESN'T MAKE IT So: Ex PARTE BoLLMAN AND THE ILLUSORY PROHIBITION ON THE FEDERAL WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR STATE PRISONERS IN THE JUDIcIARY ACT OF 1789 Eric M. Freedman* * Professor of Law, Hofstra University School of Law ([email protected]). BA 1975, Yale University;, MA 1977, Victoria University of Wellington (New Zea- land); J.D. 1979, Yale University. This work is copyrighted by the author, who retains all rights thereto.
    [Show full text]
  • Early 19C America: Cultural Nationalism
    OPENING- SAFE PLANS Study for Ch. 10 Quiz! • Jefferson (Democratic • Hamilton (Federalists) Republicans) • S-Strict Interpretation • P-Propertied and rich (State’s Rights men • A-Agriculture (Farmers) • L-Loose Interpretation • F-France over Great Britain • A-Army • E-Educated and common • N-National Bank man • S-Strong central government Jeffersonian Republic 1800-1812 The Big Ideas Of This Chapter 1. Jefferson’s effective, pragmatic policies strengthened the principles of two-party republican gov’t - even though Jeffersonian “revolution” caused sharp partisan battles 2. Despite his intentions, Jefferson became deeply entangled in the foreign-policy conflicts of the Napoleonic era, leading to a highly unpopular and failed embargo that revived the moribund Federalist Party 3. James Madison fell into an international trap, set by Napoleon, that Jefferson had avoided. The country went to war against Britain. Western War Hawks’ enthusiasm for a war with Britain was matched by New Englanders’ hostility. “We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists” Is that true? Economically? Some historians say they are the same b/w Jefferson and Hamilton both dealt with rich people - be they merchants or southern planters Some historians say they are the same b/c Jefferson did not hold to his “Strict Constructionist” theory because 1. Louisiana purchase 2. Allowing the Nat’l bank Charter to expire rather than “destroying it” as soon as he took office 1800 Election Results 1800 Election Results (16 states in the Union) Thomas Democratic Virginia 73 52.9%
    [Show full text]
  • Justice William Cushing and the Treaty-Making Power
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 10 Issue 2 Issue 2 - February 1957 Article 9 2-1957 Justice William Cushing and the Treaty-Making Power F. William O'Brien S.J. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation F. William O'Brien S.J., Justice William Cushing and the Treaty-Making Power, 10 Vanderbilt Law Review 351 (1957) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol10/iss2/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. JUSTICE WILLIAM CUSHING AND THE TREATY-MAKING POWER F. WILLIAM O'BRIEN, S.J.* Washington's First Appointees Although the work of the Supreme Court during the first few years was not great if measured in the number of cases handled, it would be a mistake to conclude that the six men who sat on the Bench during this formative period made no significant contribution to the develop- ment of American constitutional law. The Justices had few if any precedents to use as guides, and therefore their judicial work, limited though it was in volume, must be considered as stamped with the significance which attaches to all pioneer activity. Moreover, most of this work was done while on circuit duty in the different districts, and therefore from Vermont to Georgia the Supreme Court Justices were emissaries of good will for the new Constitution and the recently established general government.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Politics in Districting the Federal Circuit System
    PUSHING BOUNDARIES: THE ROLE OF POLITICS IN DISTRICTING THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT SYSTEM Philip S. Bonforte† I. Introduction ........................................................................... 30 II. Background ............................................................................ 31 A. Judiciary Act of 1789 ......................................................... 31 B. The Midnight Judges Act ................................................... 33 C. Judiciary Act of 1802 ......................................................... 34 D. Judiciary Act of 1807 ....................................................... 344 E. Judiciary Act of 1837 ....................................................... 355 F. Tenth Circuit Act ................................................................ 37 G. Judicial Circuits Act ........................................................... 39 H. Tenth Circuit Act of 1929 .................................................. 40 I. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 1980 ...................................................... 42 J. The Ninth Circuit Dilemma ................................................ 44 III. The Role of Politics in Circuit Districting ............................. 47 A. The Presence of Politics ..................................................... 48 B. Political Correctness .......................................................... 50 IV. Conclusion ............................................................................. 52 † The author is a judicial clerk
    [Show full text]
  • Morris-Jumel Mansion and the American Colonial Revival
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Dissertations and Theses City College of New York 2014 Morris-Jumel Mansion and the American Colonial Revival Ken Moss CUNY City College How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cc_etds_theses/258 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] Morris-Jumel Mansion and the American Colonial Revival Kenneth Moss Advisor – Professor Gregory Downs May 1, 2011 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts of the City College of the City University of New York. Table of Contents List of Illustrations i Introduction 1 Motivations and the Proprietary Model 18 Objects and Structures 52 Conclusion 72 Bibliography 79 i List of Illustrations Figure 1: Morris-Jumel Mansion, First Floor Hall, 1886. Photograph. Morris-Jumel Mansion, Gladys Brooks Commemorative Archive Figure 2: Washington's Bedroom, circa 1916. Postcard. Morris-Jumel Mansion, Gladys Brooks Commemorative Archive. Figure 3: Jumel Mansion, Dining Room, Circa 1910. Photograph. Morris-Jumel Mansion, Gladys Brooks Commemorative Archive. Introduction On November 19, 1904 an unlikely face-off occurred at the headquarters of the New York City Parks Department, the Arsenal, in Central Park. It was the latest volley in a battle that had raged in government and in the press for more than a year. The decision at hand was so grave it had deadlocked in the New York State legislature with each house supporting a different protagonist.
    [Show full text]
  • Original Sin and Judicial Independence: Providing Accountability for Justices
    William and Mary Law Review VOLUME 50 NO. 4, 2009 ORIGINAL SIN AND JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE: PROVIDING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR JUSTICES PAUL D. CARRINGTON & ROGER C. CRAMTON * TABLE OF CONTENTS I. A DEFINING CHALLENGE ............................ 1106 A. The Founding Vision ............................ 1109 1. The Federalists’ “Ark of Safety” .................. 1115 B. Removing a Disabled Judge: The Pickering Case ..... 1128 C. The Impeachment of Justice Chase: Are Justices Different? ........................... 1141 1. How To Remove A Justice .................... 1144 CONCLUSION ....................................... 1152 * Paul D. Carrington, Professor of Law, Duke University; Roger C. Cramton, Stevens Professor of Law Emeritus, Cornell University. Thanks to James Boyle, Henry Monaghan, Randall Roth, and Sanford Levinson for their helpful comments and to Michael Schobel for his research assistance. Thanks also to those attending the conference on The Citizen Lawyer presented at the Marshall-Wythe School of Law at the College of William and Mary, to whom this Essay was presented on February 8, 2008, and to the Duke Law faculty workshop. 1105 1106 WILLIAM AND MARY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 50:1105 I. A DEFINING CHALLENGE The independence of the judiciary is an enduring and defining objective of the legal profession. We lawyers, of all citizens, have the greatest stake in shielding judges from intimidation or reward. And that task of protecting judicial independence stands today at the very top of the agenda of the American legal profession. 1 The integrity of law and legal institutions requires more than just the protection of judges. It is equally dependent on the willingness and ability of judges to maintain virtuous disinterest in their work. 2 Some might explain their occasional failings as manifesta- tions of the original sin inherited from Adam; 3 whatever their source, the proclivities of judges to indulge or celebrate themselves are perpetual temptations and judicial self-restraint is a perpetual challenge.
    [Show full text]
  • Spring/Summer 2018
    TIMELINE SPRING/SUMMER 2018 Stories of Loss A Landscape of Landmarks Fashion Agency and Survival As we continue to engage in meaningful Kristen Stewart, Nathalie L. Klaus Curator conversations, David Voelkel, Elise H. Wright of Costume and Textiles, explores Pretty Meg Hughes, Curator of Archives, highlights Curator of General Collections, discusses Powerful: Fashion and Virginia Women, some of what visitors will see in the timely the relevance of the upcoming exhibition her new show examining fashion as an exhibition . Pandemic: Richmond Monumental: Richmond Monuments (1607–2018). instigator of social change. 1 5 6 A B C D A A The Valentine’s new exhibition Pandemic: Richmond traces the B to serve as a turning place for city’s encounters with seven contagious diseases: smallpox, boats and barges and as a source tuberculosis, cholera, typhoid fever, polio, the 1918–1919 of water for mills, its standing influenza and HIV/AIDS. These diseases shaped Richmond’s water and sewage contaminants history, changing where and how people lived and prompting life- made it a perfect environment saving advances in health care. for cholera. Here is a closer look at Richmond’s experience with cholera, just Richmonders waited in fear as one of the diseases featured in this timely exhibition: cholera broke out in U.S. cities, finally reaching Tidewater by Cholera first appeared in pandemic form in the early-19th century, August 1832. In September, the with at least seven major global outbreaks between 1817 and the city saw its first case, caught present. This terrifying new disease produced severe vomiting by an 11-year-old enslaved and diarrhea that could lead to coma and death within hours.
    [Show full text]