DOCSLIB.ORG

Author Query – S0022381613000017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Author Query – S0022381613000017 AUTHOR QUERY – S0022381613000017 1 There are no queries for this article. 1 1 2 Voting for Justices: Change and Continuity in 2 3 3 4 4 5 Confirmation Voting 1937--2010 5 6 6 7 7 8 Charles M. Cameron Princeton University 8 9 Jonathan P. Kastellec Princeton University 9 10 10 11 Jee-Kwang Park The American University in Cairo 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 The contentiousness of Senate voting on Supreme Court nominations increased dramatically from 1937 to 2010. 15 16 We identify four potential sources of the increase: (1) changes in the Senate; (2) changes in the nominees; 16 17 (3) changes in the political environment; and, (4) changes in senators’ evaluative criteria. Using new data and 17 18 improved statistical techniques, we estimate a well-performing model of senators’ individual voting choices on 18 19 Supreme Court nominees. Simulations allow an evaluation of the contribution of the four classes of factors to 19 20 increased contentiousness. The principal source of increased contentiousness was the combination of increasingly 20 21 extreme nominees and an increasingly polarized Senate. Also significant was the increased mobilization of 21 22 interest groups. In sum, increased contentiousness seems largely to reflect the ideological polarization of 22 23 American political elites. 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 n June 12, 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt a clear increasing tendency for senators to vote against 28 29 submitted three Supreme Court nominations Supreme Court nominees. Thus, confirmation politics 29 30 30 to the U.S. Senate, appointing Justice Harlan are clearly becoming more contentious. 31 O 31 32 Stone to the position of Chief Justice and James Byrne Why has Senate voting on Supreme Court nomi- 32 33 and Robert Jackson to associate justices.1 Within a nees become so much more contentious? Does it reflect 33 34 month, all three were confirmed by voice votes in changes in the Senate? Or does it reflect changes in 34 35 the Senate. Thus, Roosevelt was able to secure a new the nominees? Is increased contentiousness driven by 35 36 Chief Justice and replace 22% of the Court’s mem- changes in the evaluative criteria employed by senators? 36 37 37 38 bership seamlessly. Today, even the most ‘‘routine’’ Or does it mirror the growth of ideological interest 38 39 Supreme Court nomination involves months of vet- groups and other changes in society? In this article, we 39 40 ting by the Senate, significant media coverage, interest identify four types of changes potentially responsible 40 41 group activity on both sides, and usually a significant for the dramatic rise in contentiousness surrounding 41 42 number of nay votes by senators. For instance, despite Senate voting on Supreme Court nominees: 42 43 43 being a relatively uncontroversial nominee, Elena Kagan’s 44 d Changes in the Senate—including the growing 44 confirmationin2010wasopposedby37senators. 45 ideological polarization of the Senate. 45 46 These examples bookend a general trend in Supreme 46 d Changes in the nominees—including the increased 47 Court confirmation politics over the past three-quarters 47 ideological extremism of the nominees and changes 48 of a century. Figure 1A depicts the percentage of nay 48 in their perceived quality. 49 votes cast on every nominee from 1937 to 2010.2 The 49 50 d Changes in the political environment—including the 50 line, which is a locally weighted regression line, shows 51 mobilization of interest groups active in confirmation 51 52 52 53 1An online appendix containing supplemental information for this article is available at http://journals.cambridge.org/jop. Replication 53 54 code and data and supporting materials needed to reproduce the numerical results can be found at http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/18723. 54 55 55 2 56 Throughout the article we evaluate the 42 nominees in this time period who received a final confirmation vote by the Senate, including 56 57 voice votes. Three nominations—Homer Thornberry (1968), Douglas Ginsburg (1987), and Harriet Miers—were withdrawn before 57 they received a vote by the Senate. We exclude Abe Fortas’ nomination to become Chief Justice in 1968. Fortas was blocked by a cloture 58 58 vote and never received a final vote. 59 59 60 60 The Journal of Politics, Vol. 0, No. 0, xxx 2013, Pp. 1–17 doi:10.1017/S0022381613000017 61 61 Ó Southern Political Science Association, 2013 ISSN 0022-3816 1 2 charles m. cameron, jonathan p. kastellec, and jee-kwang park 1 FIGURE 1 Changes over Time in Supreme Court Nomination Politics 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 29 29 30 30 31 31 32 32 33 33 34 34 35 35 36 36 37 37 38 38 39 39 40 40 41 41 42 42 43 43 44 44 45 45 46 46 47 47 48 48 49 49 50 50 51 51 52 52 53 53 54 54 55 55 56 56 57 57 58 58 59 59 60 60 61 61 62 62 change and continuity in supreme court confirmation voting 3 1 politics and the opportunity to make high-impact the voting calculations of senators, especially Southern 1 2 move-the-median nominations. Democrats, as the nominees’ racial liberalism became 2 3 3 d Changes in senators’ evaluative criteria—including an important consideration in confirmation politics. 4 4 5 the changing significance of race and variation in But the first or main dimension returned to a dom- 5 6 the importance of ideology as a criterion. inant position after the 1960s. In fact, we find that 6 7 ideological distance on the main dimension has played 7 8 Some of these potential sources have been discussed an unusually important role in explaining the high 8 9 in previous work. For example, several studies empha- level of votes against the three most recent nominees 9 10 10 11 sizetheroleofnomineeideologyandqualificationsin to the Court. Our results thus suggest that the increased 11 12 senators’ evaluation of potential justices (especially contentiousness in Supreme Court confirmation politics 12 13 Cameron, Cover, and Segal (1990) [henceforth CCS]; largely reflects the ideological polarization of American 13 14 Epstein et al. (2006); Kastellec, Lax, and Phillips (2010); political elites, and contentiousness is only likely to 14 15 andSegal,Cameron,andCover(1992)).Segal,Cameron, increase further as American politics becomes more 15 16 and Cover (1992) and Caldeira and Wright (1998) also polarized. 16 17 17 18 examine the impact of interest group participation on 18 19 confirmation voting. Several studies note the changing 19 20 significance of race in nomination politics (especially Sources of Increased 20 21 Overby et al. 1992, 1994). LeMieux and Stewart (1990) Contentiousness 21 22 emphasize the importance of ‘‘move-the-median’’ nom- 22 23 23 24 inees, as does Krehbiel (2007). Nonetheless, many of the The context of Supreme Court confirmation voting 24 25 possible factors have not been evaluated systematically has changed dramatically over the last 70 years. We 25 26 before, including the racial liberalism of nominees and highlight seven potentially important changes, grouped 26 27 the heightened ideological polarization of the Senate. within four broad categories: changes in the Senate, 27 28 No study has evaluated all these factors simultaneously changes in nominees, changes in the political environ- 28 29 within a unified framework. 29 30 ment, and changes in senators’ evaluative criteria. 30 31 In this article, we first review data on each of 31 32 the factors mentioned above, much of it newly Changes in the Senate 32 33 collected. Among the new data are measures of the 33 34 nominees’ racial liberalism (calculated in the sec- Ideological Polarization of Senators. One of the most 34 35 ond DW-NOMINATE dimension), the number of dramatic developments in contemporary American 35 36 36 37 interest groups involved in all nominations since 1937, politics is the ideological polarization of political 37 38 and each nominee’s move-the-median impact on elites, particularly members of the House and Senate 38 39 the Supreme Court calculated in the first (economic (McCarty, Poole, and Rosenthal 2006). Because ide- 39 40 liberalism) DW-NOMINATE dimension. We then ology is central to Supreme Court nomination politics, 40 41 estimate a multilevel model of individual voting on this development is potentially of immense consequence 41 42 nominees that incorporates all the identified factors. because it will increase ideological distances between sen- 42 43 43 44 We evaluate the performance of the model and show atorsandnomineesfromtheoppositeparty.Figure1B 44 45 that it accounts well for observed vote margins in almost depictspolarizationinSenatefromthe1930son(the 45 46 all the nominations over the last 70 years. measure employed is the ideological distance between 46 47 Next, we use simulations to evaluate the contri- the mean Democratic and mean Republican senator, 47 48 bution of each factor to the increased overall con- measured in the first dimension of the DW-NOMINATE 48 49 49 50 tentiousness of confirmation voting. The simulations space). Polarization in the Senate was low from the 50 51 indicate that the principal sources of this increase late 1930s to the mid-1950s. It then jumped upward 51 52 were the tendency of presidents to nominate more somewhat but remained stable until the late 1970s. 52 53 extreme individuals coupled with the growing ideo- Since then, however, it has skyrocketed.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Law and Lawyers: the Road to Reform Kenneth W
    Fordham Law Review Volume 63 | Issue 4 Article 3 1995 Law and Lawyers: The Road To Reform Kenneth W. Starr Recommended Citation Kenneth W. Starr, Law and Lawyers: The Road To Reform, 63 Fordham L. Rev. 959 (1995). Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol63/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized administrator of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LAW AND LAWYERS: THE ROAD TO REFORM KENNETH W. STARR* M Y reflections this evening, which focus on our nation's justice system, reflect broader social concerns, going to the basic struc- ture of American institutions and the precipitous decline in trust re- posed in those institutions. Let me not mince words. As a people, Americans have become highly distrustful and disrespectful of institutions, ranging from the basic social unit of the traditional nuclear family to churches and syna- gogues, schools and universities, and in this election season, of govern- ment itself. Courts-the justice system-are no exception to this powerful trend. In my view, the trend is broad-based and deep enough to be profoundly disturbing. What explains this trend of distrust and disrespect? Part of the an- swer, I believe, lies in America's inherent, culturally rooted suspicion of power. We are, at bottom, an anti-power society. We are a revolu- tionary society.
    [Show full text]
  • DISQUALIFICATION of JUDGES: in SUPPORT of the BAYH BILL Jomi P
    DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGES: IN SUPPORT OF THE BAYH BILL Jomi P. FRANK*t The defeat of Judge Clement Haynsworth, Jr., for the Supreme Court demonstrates that the federal law of disqualification of judges needs to be rewritten. As Justice Blackmun said of a shift in his own personal disqualification practice, "The times have changed."1 John Marshall heard Marbury v. Madison although the substance of the case involved problems arising from his own failure to deliver papers when he was Secre- tary of State in the Madison administration. Justices Byron White and Thurgood Marshall, former Deputy Attorney General and Solicitor General, never hear cases involving matters with which they dealt in the Department of Justice. The difference is not in the character of the Justices, but in the governing law and the changed attitudes of recent times. In Marshall's day, the law of disqualifica- tion was governed by two maxims from the sages. Coke, in the most famous rubric of the law of disqualification, had said, "aliquis non debet esse judex in propria causa," or no man shall be a judge in his own case Blackstone had reduced this to a straight matter of pocketbook interest by excluding the possibility of disqualifica- tion for bias or prejudice or relationship, "for the law will not suppose the possi- bility of bias or favor in a judge."' * (Mr. Frank, author of numerous books on the United States Supreme Court, is presently in private practice in Phoenix, Arizona Ed.) t I have been assisted in this article by Mr. John McLamb, a student at Yale Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Law V8n1 2018-8-1
    INTRODUCTION “THE CIRCUIT JUSTICE IS A VERY IMPORTANT PERSON” DID IN-CHAMBERS CONCERNS HELP DERAIL A SUPREME COURT NOMINEE’S CONFIRMATION? Ira Brad Matetsky† his Journal of In-Chambers Practice focuses on opinions and orders that Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States issue in their individual capacity, or “in chambers.” It has now been four Tyears since any Justice issued an in-chambers opinion,1 although the Court’s recent per curiam opinion in Benisek v. Lamone2 cited not one but two of them. The fact that a Justice can act on certain matters individually, rather than as one-ninth of the Court as a whole, ordinarily receives little atten- tion outside the Court, some of its Bar, and readers of its Journal. In at least one instance, however, the significance of the Justices’ in-chambers authority was used strategically, as part of an ultimately successful effort to defeat a nomination to the Supreme Court. In 1969, Justice Abe Fortas resigned. To succeed him, President Rich- ard Nixon nominated Clement Haynsworth, a Judge of the U.S. Court of † Partner, Ganfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer, LLP, New York, N.Y. 1 The Justices’ four most recent in-chambers opinions, issued between 2011 and 2014, are reprint- ed in the Rapp’s Reports section of this issue. 2 138 S.Ct. 1942 (2018) (citing Lucas v. Townsend, 486 U.S. 1301, 3 Rapp 1284 (1988) (Kennedy, J., in chambers); Fishman v. Schaffer, 429 U.S. 1325, 2 Rapp 721 (1976) (Marshall, J. in cham- bers)). See Tony Mauro, In-Chambers Supreme Court Opinions Get Rare Nod in Gerrymandering Ruling, https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2018/06/20/in-chambers-supreme-court-opinions-get- rare-nod-in-gerrymandering-ruling (June 20, 2018).
    [Show full text]
  • Public Opinion on the Supreme Court
    AEI Public Opinion S Studies PUBLIC OPINION ON THE SUPREME COURT (Updated June 2012) Compiled by Karlyn H. Bowman, Senior Fellow and Andrew Rugg, Research Assistant 1 Table of Contents TRENDS IN CONFIDENCE IN THE COURT .................................................................................. 4 APPROVAL ........................................................................................................................................... 9 FAVORABILITY ................................................................................................................................. 12 THE COURT’S POWER AND BALANCE TODAY ......................................................................... 13 THE IDEOLOGY OF THE NEXT JUSTICE, NEW COURT.......................................................... 17 What Americans Wanted of Obama’s Nominees ......................................................................... 17 What Americans Wanted of George W. Bush’s Nominees ......................................................... 18 THE PRESIDENT’S DECISION OR THE SENATE’S?................................................................. 21 THE NEXT NOMINEE: LEGAL BACKGROUND AND OTHER ISSUES ................................... 24 Views and Qualifications of the Nominee ................................................................................... 24 Roberts’s views on Abortion ........................................................................................................ 27 Bush’s Nominees and Abortion ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Character, Competency, and Constitutionalism: Did the Bork Nomination Represent a Fundamental Shift in Onfirc Mation Criteria? Frank Guliuzza III
    Marquette Law Review Volume 75 Article 5 Issue 2 Winter 1992 Character, Competency, and Constitutionalism: Did the Bork Nomination Represent a Fundamental Shift in onfirC mation Criteria? Frank Guliuzza III Daniel J. Reagan David M. Barrett Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Frank Guliuzza III, Daniel J. Reagan, and David M. Barrett, Character, Competency, and Constitutionalism: Did the Bork Nomination Represent a Fundamental Shift ni Confirmation Criteria?, 75 Marq. L. Rev. 409 (1992). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol75/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHARACTER, COMPETENCY, AND CONSTITUTIONALISM: DID THE BORK NOMINATION REPRESENT A FUNDAMENTAL SHIFT IN CONFIRMATION CRITERIA? BY FRANK GULIUZZA III,* DANIEL J. REAGAN,** DAVID M. BARRETr*** I. INTRODUCTION Some constitutional scholars contend that with the reelection of Ronald Reagan, and his political opponent's perception that he was in a solid posi- tion to fashion the Supreme Court in his own image, the nomination and confirmation process for nominees to the Supreme Court experienced a fun- damental transformation. These commentators argue that the Senate has altered the criteria by which it judges nominees to the Court, shifting its focus from nominees' personal character and professional competency to an emphasis upon their social and judicial philosophy-their "constitutional- ism." This shift from character and competency questions to constitution- alism concerns was most evident in the nomination, and the Senate's subsequent rejection, of Judge Robert Bork in 1987.1 Others disagree and claim that there has been no shift in confirmation criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • The Confirmation Process and the Quality of Political Debate
    Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons Faculty Publications 1993 The Confirmation Process and the Quality of Political Debate Jonathan L. Entin Case Western University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/faculty_publications Part of the President/Executive Department Commons Repository Citation Entin, Jonathan L., "The Confirmation Process and the Quality of Political Debate" (1993). Faculty Publications. 287. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/faculty_publications/287 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. The Confirmation Process and the Quality of Political Debate "-Jonathan L. Entin t Because so many important public issues have become the subject of constitutional litigation, the selection of Supreme Court justices has potentially significant political consequences. For most of the twentieth century, debate over prospective appointments focused upon seemingly neutral concepts of professional competence-knowledge of the law, intelligence, experience, integrity, and aspects of character embodied in the notion of judicial tempera­ ment-rather than upon candidates' substantive views. 1 Recently, however, the debate has changed dramatically, and consideration of prospective justices' personal philosophy has dominated the confirmation process.2 The former approach might be called the competence model, the latter the ideological model. 3 Those who favor full discussion of major political issues might be expected to approve the emergence of the ideological model. After all, this approach emphasizes substantive constitutional visions and focuses directly upon subjects that lie at the heart of national debate.
    [Show full text]
  • Commentary on Selecting Federal Judges Thomas G
    Kentucky Law Journal Volume 77 | Issue 3 Article 11 1989 Commentary on Selecting Federal Judges Thomas G. Walker Emory University Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj Part of the Judges Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Walker, Thomas G. (1989) "Commentary on Selecting Federal Judges," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 77 : Iss. 3 , Article 11. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol77/iss3/11 This Symposium Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Law Journal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Commentary on the Selection of Federal Judges By THoMAs G. WALKER* This conference on the Selection of Judges in the United States has shown, among other things, the rich variety of ways in which one can confront the topic of judicial selection; The two articles presented by Professors Peter Fish and Burton At- kins represent very different approaches to expanding our un- derstanding of the judiciary. As such, the articles reflect the diversity that traditionally has been associated with research regarding the selection of judges. Because the articles are dissim- ilar in methodology and focus, separate consideration is given to each article rather than attempting to integrate the two into a single perspective. The article by Professor Atkins compares the judicial selec- tion system of the United States with that of England.
    [Show full text]
  • Justice John Paul Stevens: Ticing Antitrust Law
    COVER STORIES Antitrust , Vol. 34, No. 1, Fall 2019. © 2019 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association. So how did Justice Stevens, who had spent his legal career mostly defending large companies against antitrust claims, become such an ardent trustbuster on the bench? To answer that question, we begin with his childhood in Chicago. “Chicago, my home town ”7 Justice Stevens’s background could not have been more differ - ent from the man he replaced, William O. Douglas. 8 Whereas Douglas was raised by his poor widowed mother in a small town in Washington, Stevens was born into a prominent family in the country’s second largest city at the time, Chicago. And whereas Douglas had always been restless in seeking to advance his TRUST BUSTERS career prior to his appointment to the Court, Stevens had lived in Chicago for most of his life before being appointed to the Court and had spent almost his entire career at a single law firm prac - Justice John Paul Stevens: ticing antitrust law. Justice Stevens’s early childhood in Chicago was one of enor - Keeping the Antitrust mous privilege. His grandfather, J.W. Stevens, was a successful businessman who became extremely wealthy through real estate Flame Alive investments and other ventures, including several hotels in Chicago. 9 Stevens’s father earned a law degree from North - western, but never practiced law.
    [Show full text]
  • Harry S. Dent Papers, White House Special Files, 1969-1972
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c89887j5 No online items Harry S. Dent Papers, White House Special Files, 1969-1972 1969-1972 Harry S. Dent Papers, White 6829676 1 House Special Files, 1969-1972 Descriptive Summary Title: Harry S. Dent Papers, White House Special Files, 1969-1972 Dates: 1969-1972 Collection Number: 6829676 Creator/Collector: Dent, Harry S., 1930-2007 Extent: 6 linear feet, 7 linear inches; 15 boxes Repository: Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum Abstract: The Harry Dent file group includes information pertaining to his tenure as Deputy Counsel and as Special Counsel to the President. Dent's responsibilities included liaison with the South and the many Federal agencies. Some topics in the Dent files are busing, the nomination of Clement Haynsworth to the Supreme Court, support of Congressional candidates, and the textile industry. Language of Material: English Access Collection is open for research. Some materials may be unavailable based upon categories of materials exempt from public release established in the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act of 1974. Publication Rights Most government records are in the public domain, however, this series includes commercial materials, such as newspaper clippings, that may be subject to copyright restrictions. Researchers should contact the copyright holder for information. Preferred Citation Harry S. Dent Papers, White House Special Files, 1969-1972. Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum Acquisition Information These materials are in the custody of the National Archives and Records Administration under the provisions of Title I of the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-526, 88 Stat.
    [Show full text]
  • The Confirmation Process and the Quality of Political Debate
    The Confirmation Process and the Quality of Political Debate Jonathan L. Entint Because so many important public issues have become the subject of constitutional litigation, the selection of Supreme Court justices has potentially significant political consequences. For most of the twentieth century, debate over prospective appointments focused upon seemingly neutral concepts of professional competence-knowledge of the law, intelligence, experience, integrity, and aspects of character embodied in the notion of judicial tempera- ment-rather than upon candidates' substantive views.' Recently, however, the debate has changed dramatically, and consideration of prospective justices' personal philosophy has dominated the confirmation process.2 The former approach might be called the competence model, the latter the ideological model. 3 Those who favor full discussion of major political issues might be expected to approve the emergence of the ideological model. After all, this approach emphasizes substantive constitutional visions and focuses directly upon subjects that lie at the heart of national debate. Besides, it is more honest than the competence model, which has often concealed substantive disagreements beneath layers of symbolic arguments about ethics and character.4 In fact, the f Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University. Charles Cole, Melvyn Durchslag, Erik Jensen, Ronald Kahn, Harold Krent, Karen Nelson Moore, and Richard Myers offered helpful comments on earlier drafts. 1. See, e.g.. HENRY J. ABRAHAM, JUSTICES AND PRESIDENTS 4 (3d ed. 1992); JOEL B. GROSSMAN, LAWYERS AND JUIDES 50-51, 106-08, 199 (1965); Felix Frankfurter, The Supreme Court in the Mirror of Justices, 105 U. PA. L. REV. 781, 793-94, 796 (1957). For a critique of this approach, see Stephen L.
    [Show full text]
  • Of William O. Douglas, His Autobiography and Other Things Edward G
    Document generated on 09/28/2021 12:07 p.m. Les Cahiers de droit Of William O. Douglas, his Autobiography and Other Things Edward G. Hudon Volume 22, Number 2, 1981 Article abstract Cet article porte sur la vie et l'autobiographie du juge William O. Douglas de la URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/042445ar Cour suprême des États-Unis. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/042445ar Le juge Douglas fut successivement, pendant sa longue carrière, professeur de droit, membre, puis président de la Securities and Exchange Commission et juge See table of contents de la Cour suprême où il siégea plus longtemps qu'aucune autre personne. Il exerça une influence considérable sur le développement du droit constitutionnel américain. Publisher(s) Botaniste amateur, coureur des bois, écrivain et voyageur dans le monde entier, ses intérêts dépassaient de loin le droit. Les deux volumes de son Faculté de droit de l’Université Laval autobiographie racontent les événements de sa vie pendant laquelle il connut aussi bien la pire des pauvretés que le plus fantastique des succès. ISSN 0007-974X (print) 1918-8218 (digital) Explore this journal Cite this article Hudon, E. G. (1981). Of William O. Douglas, his Autobiography and Other Things. Les Cahiers de droit, 22(2), 473–500. https://doi.org/10.7202/042445ar Tous droits réservés © Faculté de droit de l’Université Laval, 1981 This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit (including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be viewed online. https://apropos.erudit.org/en/users/policy-on-use/ This article is disseminated and preserved by Érudit.
    [Show full text]
  • The Federal Judicial Vacancy Crisis: Origins and Solutions
    Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont CMC Senior Theses CMC Student Scholarship 2012 The edeF ral Judicial Vacancy Crisis: Origins and Solutions Ryan Shaffer Claremont McKenna College Recommended Citation Shaffer, Ryan, "The eF deral Judicial Vacancy Crisis: Origins and Solutions" (2012). CMC Senior Theses. Paper 321. http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/321 This Open Access Senior Thesis is brought to you by Scholarship@Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in this collection by an authorized administrator. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CLAREMONT McKENNA COLLEGE THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL VACANCY CRISIS: ORIGINS AND SOLUTIONS SUBMITTED TO PROFESSOR JOHN J. PITNEY, JR. AND DEAN GREGORY HESS BY RYAN SHAFFER FOR SENIOR THESIS SPRING 2012 APRIL 23, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION: OBAMA’S VACANCY CRISIS . 1 I. THE FOUNDERS’ JUDICIARY . 6 II. JURISPRUDENCE FROM MARSHALL TO WARREN . 10 III. FORTAS AND NIXON . 23 IV. DRAWING THE BATTLE LINES . 32 V. ESCALATION: BUSH AND CLINTON . 41 VI. THE CONFLICT GOES NUCLEAR: BUSH AND OBAMA . 50 VII. FIXING ADVICE AND CONSENT . 60 CONCLUSION . 66 BIBLIOGRAPHY . 67 INTRODUCTION: OBAMA’S VACANCY CRISIS On January 20 th , 2009, Barack Obama’s first day in the White House, there were 55 vacancies in the federal judicial system. His first nomination, of David Hamilton for the Seventh Circuit, came only two months later; Hamilton did not win confirmation until November 19 th , 59-39, with only one Republican supporter. By September, the number of vacancies had jumped to 93; the administration had made 16 nominations, with no confirmations. For all of 2010, the number of judicial vacancies would remain above 100, of 874 authorized judgeships, and for more than half of those seats, the administration had not even submitted nominees.
    [Show full text]