Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices: a Collective Biography, 1933-1963

PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT JUSTICES: A COLLECTIVE BIOGRAPHY, 1933-1963 By DARYI, R. FAIR* COURTS are, in part, political institutions. Politics, broadly conceived, has to do with the making of authoritative social policy, and courts of all kinds are incontestably important policy- makers for society. The current storm over the Supreme Court of the United States was precipitated by the Court itself when it began to move into several sensitive policy areas at a rate too fast to suit certain important segments of society. The recent ap- portionment controversies in Pennsylvania, in which the state Supreme Court has been involved, testify that state courts are also involved in the making of policies that have social, political, and economic consequences. The judicial process, then, has policy implications that cannot be ignored. At the heart of the judicial process lies the making of decisions. Difficult choices must be made between competing interpretations of what the law is and how it should be applied to the case at hand. Where hard choices must be made, an element of discretion invariably is involved. It has long been recognized that "Judges do and must legislate."'. The man who wears the robes is a human being, a product of his total environment. Knowledge of that environment is essential to an understanding of how courts func- tion, of why judicial decision-makers select one course of action rather than another. The conviction that the political decision-maker's behavior and decisions are influenced by his personal life experiences not only has a long and honorable history but also is substantiated by modern psychological and socio- logical research..2 *Dr. Fair is assistant professor of Political Science at Rider College, New Jersey. 1justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., dissenting in Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U. S. 205 (1917), 221. 2 Donald R. Matthews, The Social Background of Political Decision- Jllakers (New York: Random House, 1954), p. 2. 243 244 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY A\ppreciation of the role courts play in the policy-mnaking process, then, is hampered 1v lack of information about judges, the judicial policy-makers. Very little systematic informiation on the socio economic backgrounds of state judges is readilv available. The data are widely scattered and often virtually inaccessible. This study is intended to serve the purpose of bringing together data on the judges of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania for the period between 1933 and 1963. This era was chosen because of its correspondence with tl-e most recent distinct period of American history-that beginning with the New Deal in 1933. All judges who sat on Pennsylvania's SSupreme Court during this time are subjects of this study in collective judicial biography. Patterns and regularities in the socio- economic backgrounds of these judges are investigated in an at- tempt to clarify factors operative in the Pennsylvania political vsytem in relation to judicial selection. Although no systematic aplproach to the relation of background characteristics to judicial behavior is attempted here, the study is devoted to traits com- monly thought to be related to attitudes and behavior. Thus subsequent evaluations of the influence of euvironmiental factors might possibly be built upon this foundation. This study draws upon data from several types of sources. State (loculnents, in particular the various editions of The Pennsylvania 1iailntal, were helpful. So, too, were standard biographical di- rectories such as f7 hIo's W/ho ai the East and the Directory of J,11icrican Jntdges. Newspaper and periodical articles were con- sulted writings of the judges themselves were checked for auto- biographical references. Finally, a questionnaire was sent to all living judges- involved in the study and to relatives of deceased justices, whenever possible. The information obtained by these means, while not complete, is more extensive than that available for thesec jurists in any other single source. Tui COURTI iennmsylvania's highest court consists of seven judges who are elected at large by plurality vote of the electorate for a term of twenty-one years; they are not eligible for reelection. The senior elected judge, in point of tenure, is automatically Chief Justice. In case of a vacancy on the bench, the Governor appoints someone PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT JUSTICES 215 to fill the seat. Persons so appointed serve until the first Moonday of the January following the first general (November) election that takes place three or more months after the vacancy occurs. Thus the maximum appointive term is approximately seventeen months; needless to say, such terms are rarely that long. Normally, tlhe person appointed to fill a vacancy runs for election to a full term on the Court. Thus, although nominally an elected bench, tile Pennsylvania Supreme Court does depend partly upon appoint- ment by the chief executive. Along with the factor of judicial elections oh a partisan ballot, dependence on executive appoillt- ment makes partisanship very significant in Pennsylvania juttlicial politics. POLITICAL PARTY Studies of voting behavior have repeatedly demonstrated that a relationship exists between political party identification and political attitude structure.' Furthermore, Stuart Nagel has shown that there is a correlation between the political party identification of judges and their voting behavior in certain classes of cases.4 Thus, in spite of Theodore Roosevelt's disparagement of 1o,,ino11al politics and his assertion that "real politics are all importarit," it seems that nominal and real politics coincide often ellough so that political party affiliation is an important consideration in a study of the socio-economic backgrounds of judges. During the period under consideration in this study, twenty- eiglht persons served on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Of thiese, eighteen -were Republicans and ten were Dlemocrats.6 Re- publican judges held a majority of the seats on the Court from the opening of this period until November 9, 1958, when Curtis 'See, for example, Angus Campbell, et at., The Amierican Votcr (New Ytork: John Wiley and Sons, 1960), pp. 120-145. ""Political Party Affiliation and Judges' Decisions," .Inicrican 'olitical Science Reviezw, LV (1961), 843-850. IQuoted in Henry J. Abraham, The Judicial Process (New York: Oxford University Press, 1962), 1). 71. 'The Republicans were John C. Arnold, John C. Bell, Jr., Thomas McIK. hidsey, James B. Drew, Robert S. Frazer. Howard W. Hulghes, Benjamin Ix. Jones, John W. Kenhart, William B. Linn, George W. Maxey, Henry X. .'Brien, Willian M. Parker, Marion Patterson, Samuel J. Roberts, William 1Sclaffer, Alexander Simpson, Jr., Allen M. Stearne, and Horace Stern. hle Democrats were Anle X. Alpern, H. Edgar Barnes, Curtis Bok, Her- t~ert B. Cohen, Michael J. Eagen, Charles Alvin Jones, Earl S. Keim, rover C. Ladner, Thomas D. McBride, and Michael A. Musmnanno. 246, PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY Bok took his place as the fourth Democrat on the Court. Demo- cratic justices were then in the majority until the period under consideration ended with the ascension to the Court of Samuel J. Roberts (Republican) on January 6, 1963. The political party affiliation of the justices of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is a reflection of the general political com- plexion of the Commonlwealth. From the Civil War to the New Deal, Pennsylvania was a Republican state. Even the Democratic successes of the New Deal era seemed for a time to have been temporary. Beginning about 1950, however, the Democrats made fresh advances that began to take on an air of permanence. Ac- cording to Edward F. Cooke and G. Edward Janosik, "Pennsyl- vania is slowly evolving into a marginal or doubtful state, one which may swing to either party depending upon the candidates and the issues."- But scholars do not agree entirely on the degree of competition present in Pennsylvania politics. Austin Ranney and Willmoore Kendall have classified the Keystone State as a modified one-party states while V. 0. Key, Jr., using other criteria for classification, puts it in the category of competitive states. It is clear, however, that Pennsylvania is a more competitive and unpredictable state than it once was, and that as the state has become more competitive, more Democrats have been elected to the Supreme Court. Assuming that Pennsylvania politics continues to be characterized by competitiveness, it is reasonable to believe that one party will no longer control the Supreme Court as was the case before 1950. LENGTH OF SERVICE As previously indicated, Pennsylvania Supreme Court judges are elected for terms of twenty-one years. Since, as will be shown shortly, judges typically reach the Court between the ages of fifty and sixty, they are frequently unable to complete their terms. In fact, of the twenty-one jurists who left the Court during the period under consideration only three completed full twenty- TGuide to Pennsylvania Politics (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1957), p. 15. "'The American Party Systems," Aitmerican Political Science Review, XLVIII (1954), 483. 'American Staoe Politics: An Introdluction (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1956), p. 99. PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT JUSTICES 247 one year terms. 0 In addition, five judges completed appointive terms of short duration but were not elected to full terms on the Court.`" Nine justices died in officel2-more than left the Court for any other reason-and four resigned before the expiration of their terms.11 The mean length of service for all judges was approximately 11.5 years. Eleven justices served terms shorter than the mean; ten served longer than average terms. Thus the chances that a judge will complete a full elective term are slim-just over one chance in ten. Table 1 shows the number of justices who completed terms of varying lengths. TABLE 1 JUSTICES OF TI E PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT, 1933-1963: LENGTH OF SERVICE l ength of Scrvice, Number of in Years Justices Less than 5 7 5 to 10 3 10 to 15 2 15 to 20 4 More than 20 3 Total 21 AGE A Supreme Court judgeship is the highest judicial office to vlhich a lawyer can aspire on the state level, and it is generally regarded as the capstone of a judicial career.

Load more