DOCSLIB.ORG

The Supreme Court: Cases and Controversies”

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

“THE SUPREME COURT: CASES AND CONTROVERSIES” PROFESSOR JONATHAN TURLEY NEW TITLE: THE CUBS AND THE COURT Antonin scalia • 1986-2016 • Appointed by President Ronald Reagan • First Italian- American on the Court 113th redux Merrick Garland Neil Gorsuch the quest for the five decade justice At 49, Gorsuch will be the youngest hominee since Clarence Thomas in 1991 (Thomas was 43) Since 1900, only 12 nominees have been under 50. Myth v. reality • Scalia replacement will be the 125th confirmation. • How long does it take? Depends how you count. • From 1900, it took 25 days for a candidate to be either confirmed or rejected or to withdraw. • Historically, the longest pendency of a nomination was 125 days for Louis Brandeis, the first Jewish member. • If you look at the current members, 68 days. Trivia WHO WERE THE QUICKEST AND THE LONGEST CONFIRMATIONS ON THE CURRENT COURT? ROBERTS - THOMAS SHORTEST: Ginsburg (50 days) John G. Roberts Kennedy (65 days); Jr. - 19 days. Sotomayor (66 LONGEST: days) Breyer (74 days) Clarence Thomas - 99 Alito (82 days). days. Kagan (87 days). CROWD PLEASERS WHO HAD THE BEST AND WORST MARGINS? KENNEDY - THOMAS BEST MARGIN: Ginsburg (96-3) Kennedy (97-0) Breyer (87-9) Sotomayor (68- WORST MARGIN: 31) Thomas (52-48) Kagan (63-37) Alito (58-42). A checkered history • Incompetent justices on undersized court. • Political spasms with every opening on the Court. • Nominees selected for their ease of confirmation rather than proven extraordinary intellect and ability. The court of one • With the nine-member court, we have had long periods of 4-4-1s split with a single swing justice. • Justice Sandra Day O’Connor determines a host of major social issues for years. • That role is now played by Justice Anthony Kennedy • The concentration of such authority in any one justice runs against the founding principles of the Framers. POP QUIZ WHERE DID THE SUPREME COURT FIRST MEET? HOW MANY MEMBERS DID THE COURT HAVE ORIGINALLY? February 1, 1790 • First met in the Royal Exchange Building in New York (Merchants Exchange Building). • Only 2 of 6 members present • Chief Justice John Jay; John Rutledge; William Cushing; James Wilson; John Blair Jr.; and James Iredell. THE CHANGING COURT • The Court increased in 1807 to seven members. • It reached nine members in 1837. • It then was increased to 10 justices in 1863. THE judicial circuits Act of 1866 • For example, in 1866, two justices died, and the Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act of 1866 to leave the two seats empty to reduce the seats to seven to prevent Andrew Johnson from filling the seats. • Chief Justice Salmon Chase supported the reduction in the hopes of increasing the salaries of the justices. HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF? • Henry Stanberry was appointed by Andrew Johnson to the Supreme Court in 1868 (after he successfully defended Johnson at his impeachment) • Johnson remained highly unpopular and the Senate refused to confirm. Marbury v. Madison (1803) • John Adams appoints the federalist “midnight judges”: 16 circuit judges and 42 Justices of the Peace (including William Marbury) as term ends. • John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice but continued to serve as acting Secretary of State and delivered some, but not all, of the commissions. • Thomas Jefferson ordered that the remaining commissions not be delivered, despite Marshall’s assumption that they would be. Conflict of interest? • Democratic-Republican Congress (7th) voids Judiciary Act of 1801 with their own Judiciary Act of 1802. • Marbury filed his petition for the writ of mandamus with the Supreme Court (and Marshall) • Question of original jurisdiction and judicial review. MARBURY WINS (SORT OF) • Unanimous 4-0 ruling that “It is emphatically the Marbury had a right to his province and duty of Commission. the Judicial Department [the • Court acknowledged that it could not force Madison to judicial branch] to say execute the Commission. what the law is. Those who apply the rule to • Marbury never did become a particular cases must, justice of the peace. of necessity, expound and interpret that rule.” Jefferson’s objection “You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy .... The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.” The challenge: history or mythology? John Marshall Andrew Jackson Worcester v. Georgia • Jackson’s legendary response “John to the ruling of the Court declaring Georgia statute Marshall has (prohibiting non-Native Americans from entering made his Indian lands without a state permit) to be decision; now unconstitutional. let him • Established foundation for federal jurisdiction vis-à-vis enforce it!" Indian lands. Letter to john Coffee The quote is questionable Coffee commanded troops under Jackson in the Creek War and the but does seem to reflect Battle of New Orleans Jackson’s views from a letter to John Coffee. "...the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate.” Justice robert h. jackson "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.” THE BEST . • John Marshall (CJ, • Oliver Wendell 1801-35) Holmes (1902-32) • Charles Evan Hughes (CJ, 1930- • William Brennan 41) (1956-90) • Earl Warren (CJ, • John Marshall 1953-69) Harlan (1877-1911) • Louis Brandeis • Hugo Lafayette (1916-39) Black (1937-1971) Best of the best – Joseph story • Served 1812-1845 (Joined court at age 32) • Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816) he established the Court’s authority over state decisions • United States v. Dandridge (1827) led to the creation the modern • United States v. Amistad (1841) (Story was later played by Henry Blackmun in the movie) THe rest . • Gabriel Duvall (1811-35) • 18 cases in 23 years • Reportedly so deaf that he was unable to participate in conversations. • Only constitutional decision is three words: “Duvall, Justice Dissented.” John Rutledge • Appointed by George Washington in 1795 to be second Chief Justice. • Given to “mad frolicks” and was “frequently so much deranged as to be in great measure deprived of his senses.” • Senate rejected elevation to Chief Justice. From rutledge to cushing • Rutledge tried to drown himself in the Ashley River (SC). • Rutledge’s confirmed successor was Justice William Cushing, an original member of the court. • Cushing was himself described as “much impaired” mentally and ultimately declined the position. Henry baldwin (1830- 44) • Described by Daniel Webster as suffering from “incurable lunacy” • Later hospitalized but did not resign. • Remained on the Court for 11 more years. Robert C. Grier (1846-70) • Three strokes in 1867 left him unable to participate in decision. • Chief Justice Salmon Chase insisted that he resign . after securing his key on to strike down the Legal Tender Act. NATHAN CLIFFORD (1858-81) • Described as a “babbling idiot” and “particularly vacant.” • Served until his death on the Court. Ward Hunt (1872-82) • Colleague of Clifford who was speechless and paralyzed by illness. • Refused to resign because he needed to finish his 10th year for a pension. • Congress relented and gave him a pension to get him to resign. addiction Frank Murphy (1940-49) William Rehnquist (painkiller Demerol ) (1986-2005) (painkiller Placidyl) TRIVIA In 1945, Rehnquist worked as a weather observer in North Africa (United States Army Air Force) WHAT HISTORIC EVENT OCCURRED IN 1945? ANSWER It was the last time that the Cubs played in the World Series. Game 4 was the start of the Billy Goat Curse by Billy Goat Tavern owner Billy Sianis. Why nine? • In 1863, a 10th Circuit was added. • The added circuit was eliminated in 1866. • With the reduction, Congress let the seat remain under filled. • Simply a matter of riding circuit. Riding circuit • Replication of English system allowing Justices to rule as circuit judges and then again as Supreme Court justices. • Maine and Kentucky were always excluded from the burden as too remote and hostile. • 121 years of circuit riding ended in 1801 – ended by the Federalists but that act was then rescinded a year later by the Republicans. • It was not until the Evarts Act of 1891 that the practice truly ended. The Cloistered Court Some members warned of a “fossilized” Court would result from not riding circuits with justices becomes arrogant and detached. Senator William Smith : “completely cloistered within the city of Washington, and their decisions, instead of emanating from enlarged and liberal minds, will assume a severe and local character.” The Judiciary Act of 1869 (Circuit Judges Act of 1869) Congress codified the size of the United States Supreme Court would consist of the Chief Justice and eight associate justices. THE RIGHT REFORM FOR THE WRONG REASON Franklin Delano Roosevelt had the right reform for the wrong reason. Four horsemen: Pierce Butler, James C. McReynolds, George C. Sutherland, and Willis Van Devanter. Court packing Scheme Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 Allowed the President to appoint an additional justice for every justice over the age of 70 Up to six new justices for a court of 15 All of the four Horsemen were over 70 THE SWITCH IN TIME On the Hughes court, Chief Justice Charles Evan Hughes and Associate Justice Owen Roberts (right) were swing votes. When Roberts shifted in favor of the New Deal, it was declared the “switch in time that saved nine.” The Court’s leading Anti-semite JAMES THE MISSING 1924 MCREYNOLDS COURT PHOTO • One of the Four Horsemen, McReynolds was also a raging anti-Semite. • Legend has it that there is no 1924 Court portrait because McReynolds refused to be photographed with a Jew.
Recommended publications
  • Caqe ,T-)65 61

    Caqe ,T-)65 61

    eiF C714rd FF27JAIKL,ti Ckw.i,ZSI CAqE ,t-)65_61,. ;bo'7qra TAE C3h11© I-SuPRLrnE COi.I fF,a,qRh aF- CoFnmi SSiWER.SI 1N fvE: LE VEF2T K. PdE3221't2^. AKC^N.d^l ^f^r's^'L., t.^SES. A- LLCyt:LSTiN P. oSUEL^Sa7.ReGA(a.OGi 115% 511 M.MArN ST ./LMZc^ni.e^l1 4431U< .4AOa.... pE^,' 0 6 Z006 LAWREIJGE R. Sin^TiJ.FS©.,REG.NO.a©2902Es1 ONE CflSCA6E PLZ.. 7t1(.FL..AKR-dN.ON 44 3ej8, MARCIA J NIENGEL, CLERI( AEFTS.,APLEES..RES.... SUPREME CUF;! OF ILELATQiZ.AP('ELLAnfT, PLAu.ITiF'F LEVErc'l` K,C►RIPFrn! MOi IGaI FdR r-N7RY FdOR ALLEGE LdA1rQI.ITN6kI ZE P'cAcT 1 CE aF LAW L6t^^EN AGAwsT ZnTF1 A'T'f'oRAfEYs Lf1ldYER lA1LAPTlOAIEN As AL3ouE SEE NEraLE EXNIL3rT#'^"^4 "C° &IbuS CvMES,RELATafZ.ArPELLqM.PLAinitrFF LEUERT nc.6RIF'FiN.NE(mF3Y PRRY PbfZ RELIEF LLPOni'Ta WlliG.N RELIER CAnr BE GPtAn[TEd. A.rnaTrer.t FrafR Eti1TRY FoR ALLEGE dnrr4uTW0rtraE PreACTrcE aF LAru IoOisEO Afvr^,E6-ra ArTaRuEYs LAwyER. ^nsCA.PTranrE& AS AbevsE_ .SEC r(s,ucE cxAI PEr.li,rmL. L>APPE.FlL As QF R1a13T z^TRFanI Smi?R'Fa L eF RS.Car'.h LEVESZ~1 SOaw Cl-,..uSE- dRDE2 FOp^ REL)Ar11b, MmANf]E& TA)C f'fLEE AT ALL COS*P `TAlS RZEqmCLE5r wER Ciau F3AR rL, U rs 6lFl, PEnrtvAjG AISTddtC A7rVE REL/EF C,u P. RL. 55(a1^6) t*'s4,uERN WJLUE' 7)IE Au7'F1.. SctP CT RL. P"h.'00 , iti{E rgAl2cFoAln RL,$L.LIh^A^t^^JGR^ZEb PrZALT^CECK LAC^/.
  • Justice William Cushing and the Treaty-Making Power

    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.
  • Conflicts of Interest in Bush V. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally? Richard K

    Conflicts of Interest in Bush V. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally? Richard K

    Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship Spring 2003 Conflicts of Interest in Bush v. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally? Richard K. Neumann Jr. Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship Recommended Citation Richard K. Neumann Jr., Conflicts of Interest in Bush v. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally?, 16 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 375 (2003) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship/153 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]. ARTICLES Conflicts of Interest in Bush v. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally? RICHARD K. NEUMANN, JR.* On December 9, 2000, the United States Supreme Court stayed the presidential election litigation in the Florida courts and set oral argument for December 11.1 On the morning of December 12-one day after oral argument and half a day before the Supreme Court announced its decision in Bush v. Gore2-the Wall Street Journalpublished a front-page story that included the following: Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 76 years old, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 70, both lifelong Republicans, have at times privately talked about retiring and would prefer that a Republican appoint their successors.... Justice O'Connor, a cancer survivor, has privately let it be known that, after 20 years on the high court,'she wants to retire to her home state of Arizona ...
  • High Court of Congress: Impeachment Trials, 1797-1936 William F

    High Court of Congress: Impeachment Trials, 1797-1936 William F

    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Popular Media Faculty and Deans 1974 High Court of Congress: Impeachment Trials, 1797-1936 William F. Swindler William & Mary Law School Repository Citation Swindler, William F., "High Court of Congress: Impeachment Trials, 1797-1936" (1974). Popular Media. 267. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/popular_media/267 Copyright c 1974 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/popular_media High Court of Congress: Impeachment Trials, 1797-1936 by William F. Swindler Twelve "civil officers" of the United States have tacle, appear to have rested more on objective (and been subjected to trials on impeachment articles perhaps quasi-indictable) charges. in the Senate. Both colorful and colorless figures The history of impeachment as a tool in the struggle have suffered through these trials, and the nation's for parliamentary supremacy in Great Britain and the fabric has been tested by some of the trials. History understanding of it at the time of the first state constitu- shows that impeachment trials have moved from tions and the Federal Convention of 1787 have been barely disguised political vendettas to quasi-judicial admirably researched by a leading constitutional his- proceedings bearing the trappings of legal trials. torian, Raoul Berger, in his book published last year, Impeachment: Some Constitutional Problems. Like Americans, Englishmen once, but only once, carried the political attack to; the head of state himself. In that encounter Charles I lost his case as well as his head. The decline in the quality of government under the Com- monwealth thereafter, like the inglorious record of MPEACHMENT-what Alexander Hamilton called American government under the Reconstruction Con- "the grand inquest of the nation"-has reached the gresses, may have had an ultimately beneficial effect.
  • The Role of Politics in Districting the Federal Circuit System

    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
  • Keep Reading Wilson As a Justice

    Keep Reading Wilson As a Justice

    Wilson as a Justice MAEVA MARCUS* ABSTRACT James Wilson, a founding father of great intellect and promise, never ful®lled his potential as a Justice. This paper explores his experience on the Supreme Court and the reasons that led to his failure to achieve the distinction that was expected of him. James Wilson very much wanted to be the ®rst Chief Justice.1 But when George Washington denied him that honor and nominated him to be an Associate Justice, he accepted and threw himself into the work with characteristic industry.2 Other than a title and $500 more in annual salary3 (Wilson probably wanted this more than anything else), Wilson lost little. Life as an Associate Justice would be no different from life as the Chief. A Justice occupied one of the most exalted positions in the new government and was paid more than any other federal em- ployee, except the President and the Vice-President.4 Nominations were the sub- ject of ®erce competition.5 But in 1789 no one knew exactly what that job would entail. This paper gives the reader some idea of what a Justice, and speci®cally James Wilson, did in the 1790s.6 Wilson spent more of his time on the bench of circuit courts than he did on the Supreme Court bench; thus, this paper will focus signi®- cantly on his circuit court activities.7 And Wilson performed his circuit court * Currently Director of the Institute for Constitutional History at the New-York Historical Society and Research Professor at the George Washington University Law School and General Editor of the Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise History of the Supreme Court of the United States, Maeva Marcus previously edited The Documentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789-1800, an eight-volume series completed in 2006.
  • Supreme Court Justices

    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.
  • The Signers of the U.S. Constitution

    The Signers of the U.S. Constitution

    CONSTITUTIONFACTS.COM The U.S Constitution & Amendments: About the Signers (Continued) The Signers of the U.S. Constitution On September 17, 1787, the Constitutional Convention came to a close in the Assembly Room of Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. There were seventy individuals chosen to attend the meetings with the initial purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation. Rhode Island opted to not send any delegates. Fifty-five men attended most of the meetings, there were never more than forty-six present at any one time, and ultimately only thirty-nine delegates actually signed the Constitution. (William Jackson, who was the secretary of the convention, but not a delegate, also signed the Constitution. John Delaware was absent but had another delegate sign for him.) While offering incredible contributions, George Mason of Virginia, Edmund Randolph of Virginia, and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts refused to sign the final document because of basic philosophical differences. Mainly, they were fearful of an all-powerful government and wanted a bill of rights added to protect the rights of the people. The following is a list of those individuals who signed the Constitution along with a brief bit of information concerning what happened to each person after 1787. Many of those who signed the Constitution went on to serve more years in public service under the new form of government. The states are listed in alphabetical order followed by each state’s signers. Connecticut William S. Johnson (1727-1819)—He became the president of Columbia College (formerly known as King’s College), and was then appointed as a United States Senator in 1789.
  • “Crisis”: Charting a Path for Federal Judiciary Reform

    “Crisis”: Charting a Path for Federal Judiciary Reform

    University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository University of New Hampshire – Franklin Pierce Law Faculty Scholarship School of Law 7-1-2020 Revisiting and Confronting the Federal Judiciary Capacity “Crisis”: Charting a Path for Federal Judiciary Reform Ryan G. Vacca University of New Hampshire School of Law, [email protected] Peter S. Menell University of California, Berkeley, School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/law_facpub Part of the Courts Commons, and the Judges Commons Recommended Citation 108 Cal. L. Rev. 789 (2020) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of New Hampshire – Franklin Pierce School of Law at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Revisiting and Confronting the Federal Judiciary Capacity “Crisis”: Charting a Path for Federal Judiciary Reform Peter S. Menell* and Ryan Vacca** The modern federal judiciary was established well over a century ago by the Judiciary Act of 1891. Over the next seventy years, the structure and core functioning of the judiciary largely remained unchanged apart from gradual increases in judicial slots. By the mid- 1960s, jurists, scholars, practitioners, and policy-makers had voiced grave concerns about the capacity of the federal system to function effectively in the face of ever-increasing caseloads. Heeding calls for reform, in 1972 Congress charged a commission chaired by Senator Roman Hruska to study the functioning of the federal courts and recommend reforms.
  • Protecting the Supreme Court: Why Safeguarding the Judiciary’S Independence Is Crucial to Maintaining Its Legitimacy

    Protecting the Supreme Court: Why Safeguarding the Judiciary’S Independence Is Crucial to Maintaining Its Legitimacy

    Protecting the Supreme Court: Why Safeguarding the Judiciary’s Independence is Crucial to Maintaining its Legitimacy Democracy and the Constitution Clinic Fordham University School of Law Isabella Abelite, Evelyn Michalos, & John Roque January 2021 Protecting the Supreme Court: Why Safeguarding the Judiciary’s Independence is Crucial to Maintaining its Legitimacy Democracy and the Constitution Clinic Fordham University School of Law Isabella Abelite, Evelyn Michalos, & John Roque January 2021 This report was researched and written during the 2019-2020 academic year by students in Fordham Law School’s Democracy and the Constitution Clinic, where students developed non-partisan recommendations to strengthen the nation’s institutions and its democracy. The clinic was supervised by Professor and Dean Emeritus John D. Feerick and Visiting Clinical Professor John Rogan. Acknowledgments: We are grateful to the individuals who generously took time to share their general views and knowledge with us: Roy E. Brownell, Esq., Professor James J. Brudney, Christopher Cuomo, Esq., Professor Bruce A. Green, and the Honorable Robert A. Katzmann. The report greatly benefited from Gail McDonald’s research guidance and Stephanie Salomon’s editing assistance. Judith Rew and Robert Yasharian designed the report. Table of Contents Executive Summary .....................................................................................................................................1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................4
  • Judicial Politics

    Judicial Politics

    CHAPTER 7 Judicial Politics distribute or Photo 7.1 Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy swears in Neil Gorsuch as a new member of the Court while President Trump and Gorsuch’spost, wife, Louise, look on. oday politics lies squarely at the heart of the federal judicial selection Tprocess. That is nothing new, but partisan maneuvering in the Senate, which has the power to confirm or reject Supreme Court and lower federal court nominees put forward by the president, went to new extremes dur- ing the last year of the Obama administration and the opening months of the Trumpcopy, administration. The lengths to which the Republican-controlled Senate went to block the confirmation of Obama’s judicial nominees gave Trump the opportunity to appoint a backlog of judges when he took office. The most visible, and arguably the most audacious, obstruction came at the Supreme Court level when Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Court’s notmost reliably conservative voters, died unexpectedly on February 13, 2016. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) almost immediately declared that the Republican-controlled Senate would not even consider any nominee put forward by President Obama. Retorting that the Senate had Do a constitutional duty to act on a nominee, Obama nonetheless nominated Merrick Garland, the centrist chief judge of the D.C. Circuit, on March 16, 401 Copyright ©2021 by SAGE Publications, Inc. This work may not be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without express written permission of the publisher. 2016. He did so with more than ten months left in his term—more than enough time to complete the confirmation process.
  • Tie Votes in the Supreme Court Justin Pidot

    Tie Votes in the Supreme Court Justin Pidot

    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 2016 Tie Votes in the Supreme Court Justin Pidot Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Pidot, Justin, "Tie Votes in the Supreme Court" (2016). Minnesota Law Review. 139. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/139 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 Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Article Tie Votes in the Supreme Court Justin Pidot† INTRODUCTION What should the Supreme Court do with a tie vote? Since at least 1792, the Court has followed the rule that where the Justices are evenly divided, the lower court’s decision is af- firmed, and the Supreme Court’s order has no precedential ef- fect.1 Such cases are unusual but hardly scarce. Since 1866, an odd number of Justices have composed the Supreme Court, and when an odd number of individuals vote, that vote typically doesn’t result in a tie.2 Yet due to death, retirement, or recusal, there have been 164 tie votes in the Supreme Court between 1925 and 2015.3 These ties have largely, but not entirely, gone unnoticed, in part because few of them involved particularly contentious cases in the eye of the public.4 † Associate Professor, University of Denver Sturm College of Law. I would like to thank Bob Bone, Alan Chen, Lee Epstein, Tara Leigh Grove, Lee Kovarsky, Nancy Leong, Margaret Kwoka, Alan Morrison, Jim Pfander, Ju- dith Resnick, Allan Stein, and Ben Spencer for sharing their insights and also my research assistant Courtney McVean for all of her help.