DOCSLIB.ORG

Harlan Fiske Stone Papers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Harlan Fiske Stone Papers A Finding Aid to the Collection in the Library of Congress Manuscript Division, Library of Congress Washington, D.C. 2010 Contact information: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/mss.contact Additional search options available at: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/eadmss.ms010270 LC Online Catalog record: http://lccn.loc.gov/mm75041574 Prepared by Anita Nolen and Joseph McKeever Collection Summary Title: Harlan Fiske Stone Papers Span Dates: 1889-1950 Bulk Dates: (bulk 1925-1946) ID No.: MSS41574 Creator: Stone, Harlan Fiske, 1872-1946 Extent: 26,500 items ; 87 containers ; 36.3 linear feet Language: Collection material in English Location: Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. Summary: Attorney general, associate and chief justice of the Supreme Court, and educator. Professional and family correspondence, writings, reports, legal case files, biographical information, and other material relating primarily to Stone's service on the Supreme Court. Selected Search Terms The following terms have been used to index the description of this collection in the Library's online catalog. They are grouped by name of person or organization, by subject or location, and by occupation and listed alphabetically therein. People Brant, Irving, 1885-1976. Burlingham, Charles C. (Charles Culp), 1858-1959--Correspondence. Butler, Nicholas Murray, 1862-1947--Correspondence. Carr, Sterling, 1876- --Correspondence. Douglas, William O. (William Orville), 1898-1980--Correspondence. Dulles, John Foster, 1888-1959--Correspondence. Frankfurter, Felix, 1882-1965--Correspondence. Hand, Learned, 1872-1961--Correspondence. Hoover, Herbert, 1874-1964--Correspondence. Hughes, Charles Evans, 1862-1948--Correspondence. Mason, Alpheus Thomas, 1899-1989--Correspondence. Moore, John Bassett, 1860-1947--Correspondence. Roberts, Owen J. (Owen Josephus), 1875-1955--Correspondence. Smith, Luther Ely, 1873-1951--Correspondence. Smith, Young B. (Young Berryman), 1889-1960--Correspondence. Stone, Harlan Fiske, 1872-1946. Stone, Lauson Harvey, 1904-1999--Correspondence. Stone, Lauson, 1883-1948--Correspondence. Stone, Marshall H. (Marshall Harvey), 1903-1989--Correspondence. Sutherland, George, 1862-1942--Correspondence. Willard, Helen Luthera Stone, 1886- --Correspondence. Willebrandt, Mabel Walker, 1889-1963. Organizations Amherst College. Columbia University. School of Law. Folger Shakespeare Library. National Gallery of Art (U.S.) Smithsonian Institution. United States. Department of Justice. Office of the Attorney General. United States. Supreme Court. Subjects Art museums--Washington (D.C.) Constitutional law--United States. Harlan Fiske Stone Papers 2 Law schools--New York (State)--New York. Law--United States. Libraries--Washington (D.C.) Museums--Washington (D.C.) Universities and colleges--Massachusetts--Amherst. Occupations Cabinet officers. Educators. Jurists. Lawyers. Administrative Information Provenance The papers of Harlan Fiske Stone, attorney general, associate and chief justice of the Supreme Court, and educator, were given to the Library of Congress in 1949 by his wife, Agnes H. Stone. Processing History The papers of Harlan Fiske Stone were processed in 1975. In 1977 the Library published Harlan Fiske Stone, A Register of His Papers in the Library of Congress. The finding aid was revised in 2010. Related Material Related collections in the Manuscript Division include the papers of Hugo Lafayette Black, Harold H. Burton, William O. Douglas, Felix Frankfurter, Charles Evans Hughes, and John Bassett Moore. Copyright Status Copyright in the unpublished writings of Harlan Fiske Stone in these papers and in other collections of papers in the custody of the Library of Congress has been dedicated to the public. Access and Restrictions The Stone Papers are open to research. Researchers are advised to contact the Manuscript Reading Room prior to visiting. Many collections are stored off-site and advance notice is needed to retrieve these items for research use. Preferred Citation Researchers wishing to cite this collection should include the following information: Container or reel number, Harlan Fiske Stone Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. Biographical Note Date Event 1872, Oct. 11 Born, Chesterfield, N.H. 1888-1890 Student, Massachusetts Agricultural College 1894 B.S., Amherst College, Amherst, Mass. 1894-1895 Teacher, Newburyport high school, Newburyport, Mass. 1895-1896 Part-time teacher, Adelphi Academy, New York, N.Y. Harlan Fiske Stone Papers 3 1898 LL.B., Columbia University, New York, N.Y. Admitted to the bar 1898-1899 Clerk, Sullivan and Cromwell 1898-1903 Lecturer, Columbia Law School, Columbia University, New York, N.Y. 1899 Married Agnes Harvey 1899-1905 Associated with Wilmer and Canfield 1903-1905 Adjunct professor of law, Columbia University, New York, N.Y. 1905-1910 Lawyer, Wilmer and Canfield 1910-1923 Professor of law and dean of the law faculty, Columbia University, New York, N.Y. 1923-1924 Head of litigation department, Sullivan and Cromwell 1924-1925 Attorney general of the United States 1925-1941 Associate justice, U.S. Supreme Court 1941-1946 Chief justice of the United States 1946, Apr. 22 Died, Washington, D.C. Scope and Content Note The papers of Harlan Fiske Stone (1872-1946) span the period 1889-1953, but most of the papers are dated 1925-1946 when Stone served on the Supreme Court of the United States. The collection consists of Family Correspondence, General Correspondence, Special Correspondence, Subject File, Supreme Court File, and Miscellany series. Stone's Family Correspondence consists chiefly of letters exchanged between Stone and his brother Lauson, sister Helen, and sons Marshall and Lauson. Very few letters in the collection are between Stone and his wife, Agnes. Although Stone occasionally mentioned the Supreme Court or other issues of the day, the letters in this series are mainly concerned with personal and family matters. The General Correspondence covers a broader range. It contains letters of recommendation supporting friends for various positions, Stone's comments on the large number of addresses and articles sent him by others in the legal profession, and discussions of court matters, the judicial process, legal education, and related subjects. His correspondence with Felix Frankfurter and John Bassett Moore is voluminous and relates mainly to legal affairs. Other correspondents in this series include Charles C. Burlingham, Nicholas Murray Butler, Sterling Carr, John Foster Dulles, Learned Hand, Herbert Hoover, Luther Ely Smith, Young Berryman Smith, and George Sutherland. The earliest letters in the collection are from Stone's high school teachers, Jessamine Dixon and Edith Field, in 1889-1892, and concern the course of his future education after being dismissed from Massachusetts Agricultural College. In the Special Correspondence series are congratulatory messages that Stone received on his appointments as attorney general, associate justice, and chief justice, as well as the condolences received by the family after his death. In addition to the telegrams and rather perfunctory messages, there are communications commending Stone for his conduct in the various public offices he held, especially for his statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1925 concerning his involvement in the prosecution of Senator Burton K. Wheeler of Montana. Harlan Fiske Stone Papers 4 Stone's varied interests and activities are reflected in the Subject File. His long service as a trustee of Amherst College and as a chairman of its committee on the Folger Shakespeare Library, and his abiding interest in these situations, are well documented. He also served as chairman of the board of trustees of the National Gallery of Art and as chancellor of the Smithsonian Institution; files on these institutions are also in this series. The Columbia University Law School material, which dates from 1899 to 1923, reflects Stone's connection with that institution, first as a teacher and later as dean. His interest in legal education is also reflected in the files on the American Law Institute and various bar associations. Other significant files in this series include those relating to Stone's efforts in appointing new U.S. attorneys during his tenure as attorney general. The Supreme Court File, which contains correspondence, near-print and printed matter, and clippings, is divided into three subseries: Case Files, Correspondence, and General Office Files. The Case files, which make up the largest part of the Supreme Court File, constitute a record of Stone's written opinions, concurrences, and dissents for his years on the court from the 1924 through 1945 terms. The cases are arranged chronologically by term and alphabetically therein by case name. The first folder of the case files contains a memorandum prepared by Stone's secretary explaining the color codes on the folder labels. Contained in the case files are printed drafts of opinions, memoranda on individual cases, and notes exchanged by the justices on the cases. The printed drafts of Stone's opinions that he circulated among the other justices (known as “returns”) often contain their comments on the back. The Correspondence in the Supreme Court File is organized in two parts: correspondence with other justices and correspondence with attorneys and petitioners. The correspondence with other justices covers the years they served on the court with Stone; correspondence prior to this is located in the General Correspondence
Recommended publications
  • Abington School District V. Schempp 1 Ableman V. Booth 1 Abortion 2

    Abington School District V. Schempp 1 Ableman V. Booth 1 Abortion 2

    TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 Bill of Rights 66 Birth Control and Contraception 71 Abington School District v. Schempp 1 Hugo L. Black 73 Ableman v. Booth 1 Harry A. Blackmun 75 Abortion 2 John Blair, Jr. 77 Adamson v. California 8 Samuel Blatchford 78 Adarand Constructors v. Peña 8 Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell 79 Adkins v. Children’s Hospital 10 Bob Jones University v. United States 80 Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl 13 Boerne v. Flores 81 Advisory Opinions 15 Bolling v. Sharpe 81 Affirmative Action 15 Bond v. United States 82 Afroyim v. Rusk 21 Boumediene v. Bush 83 Age Discrimination 22 Bowers v. Hardwick 84 Samuel A. Alito, Jr. 24 Boyd v. United States 86 Allgeyer v. Louisiana 26 Boy Scouts of America v. Dale 86 Americans with Disabilities Act 27 Joseph P. Bradley 87 Antitrust Law 29 Bradwell v. Illinois 89 Appellate Jurisdiction 33 Louis D. Brandeis 90 Argersinger v. Hamlin 36 Brandenburg v. Ohio 92 Arizona v. United States 36 William J. Brennan, Jr. 92 Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing David J. Brewer 96 Development Corporation 37 Stephen G. Breyer 97 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition 38 Briefs 99 Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority 38 Bronson v. Kinzie 101 Assembly and Association, Freedom of 39 Henry B. Brown 101 Arizona v. Gant 42 Brown v. Board of Education 102 Atkins v. Virginia 43 Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association 104 Automobile Searches 45 Brown v. Maryland 106 Brown v. Mississippi 106 Bad Tendency Test 46 Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company 107 Bail 47 Buchanan v.
  • Supreme Court of the United States Washington, D.C

    Supreme Court of the United States Washington, D.C

    Supreme Court of the United States Washington, D.C. Pointe-au-Pic, Canada, July 25, 1928. My dear George: I have your letter of July 3d, and am delighted to read it and to follow you and Mrs. Sutherland in your delightful journey through Italy. My wife’s sister, Miss Maria Herron, has done a great deal of traveling in Italy and elsewhere, and she says that you have marked out for yourselves one of the most delightful trips in the World. I have been through part of it myself, and therefore know enough to congratulate you. I sincerely hope that you find Cadenabbia just as good now as it was when you wrote the letter, and that you find that your rest is accomplishing the result that your doctor had in mind. Of course we are most anxious about the election of Hoover, and I am bound to say that I think the Republicans feel that the chances are strongly in favor of Hoover’s election, but I don’t know how wisely they judge. There are so many cross currents in the election that it is hard to calculate what their effect will be, but as the campaign opens, it is fairly clear that the farm question is entirely out of the picture. Even old Norris says that they can not have another party, and the consequence is that if Smith is going to win, he has got to do it with New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts, and by a retention of all the southern States.
  • 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 Appointment of Hugo L. Black

    The Appointment of Hugo L. Black

    The University of Chicago Law Review VOLUME 41 NUMBER 1FALL 1973 A Klansman Joins the Court: The Appointment of Hugo L. Black William E. Leuchtenburgj I. THE NOMINATION On August 12, 1937, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, rebounding from the worst setback of his long Presidency, took the first of a series of steps toward creating what historians would one day call "the Roose- velt Court." Galling defeat had come less than a month before when the Senate had killed his scheme to add a Justice to the Supreme Court for every member aged seventy or over who did not resign or retire. The original plan would have allowed the President to name as many as six new Justices, but after a bitter 168-day fight, the measure was buried, amid loud rejoicing from FDR's opponents. Roosevelt was not finished yet, however, for one legacy of the protracted struggle was the creation of a vacancy on the Supreme Court, and it was the President's prerogative to nominate a successor. The choice he finally made would trigger an acrimonious controversy and would have a momentous im- pact on the disposition of the Court. The vacancy resulted, at least indirectly, from Roosevelt's "Court- packing" plan. The President had advanced his bold proposal in February because he was frustrated by the performance of the Supreme Court, particularly the conservative "Four Horsemen"--Willis Van t De Witt Clinton Professor of History, Columbia University. This article is an expanded version of a paper presented as the second annual William Winslow Crosskey Lecture in Legal History at The University of Chicago Law School on February 28, 1973.
  • The Clerks of the Four Horsemen (Part II, George Sutherland and Pierce Butler), 40 J

    The Clerks of the Four Horsemen (Part II, George Sutherland and Pierce Butler), 40 J

    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Journal Articles Publications 3-1-2015 The leC rks of the Four Horsemen (Part II, George Sutherland and Pierce Butler) Barry Cushman Notre Dame Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship Part of the Legal Profession Commons Recommended Citation Barry Cushman, The Clerks of the Four Horsemen (Part II, George Sutherland and Pierce Butler), 40 J. Sup. Ct. Hist. 55 (2015). Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/1138 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Clerks of the Four Horsemen (Part II, George Sutherland and Pierce Butler) BARRY CUSHMAN This is the second part of a two-part Ontario, Widdifield moved to Michigan as a article. Please see volume 39, no. 3, pages young boy in 1880 and was naturalized in 368-424 for the Introduction and Part I, Detroit in 1896. He was admitted to practice in discussing the clerks to James C. McReynolds Michigan in 1898, and in Massachusetts and Willis Van Devanter. in 1904. Early in his career, Widdifield handled collections in the office of a Detroit lawyer and practiced with the Traverse City, Michigan firm The Sutherland Clerks of Gilbert & Widdifield. He then moved to Pittsfield, Massachusetts, where he was secre- Justice Sutherland served from 1922 to tary and law assistant to the president of the 1938, but during that time he had only four Stanley Electrical Company.2 He first came to clerks.
  • Justice Sutherland Reconsidered Samuel R

    Justice Sutherland Reconsidered Samuel R

    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 62 | Issue 2 Article 10 3-2009 Justice Sutherland Reconsidered Samuel R. Olken Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Samuel R. Olken, Justice Sutherland Reconsidered, 62 Vanderbilt Law Review 639 (2019) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol62/iss2/10 This Symposium 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 Sutherland Reconsidered Samuel R. Olken* IN TRO D U CTIO N ............................................................................... 639 I. SUTHERLAND AND THE PROBLEM OF REPUTATION .............. 642 II. THE CONSERVATIVE JUDICIAL TRADITION .......................... 653 III. THE CONSTITUTIONAL PHILOSOPHY OF G EORGE SUTHERLAND ......................................................... 660 A. Individual Liberty as the Cornerstoneof A m erican Dem ocracy ............................................... 660 B. FactionalAversion and the Equal Operation of th e L a w ................................................................ 663 C. Constitutional Conservatism and JudicialR eview ....................................................... 665 IV. ECONOMIC LIBERTY AND FACTIONAL AVERSION ................. 667 A . Liberty of Contract..................................................
  • The Clerks of the Four Horsemen, 39 J

    The Clerks of the Four Horsemen, 39 J

    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Journal Articles Publications 2014 The leC rks of the Four Horsemen Barry Cushman Notre Dame Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship Part of the Courts Commons, and the Legal Commons Recommended Citation Barry Cushman, The Clerks of the Four Horsemen, 39 J. Sup. Ct. Hist. 386 (2014). Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/628 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Clerks of the Four Horsemen (Part I) BARRY CUSHMAN Recent years have witnessed a flowering Clark McReynolds, George Sutherland, and of scholarship concerning the Supreme Court Pierce Butler—thus have received little clerkship. Yet most of this literature focuses on attention. With the exception of Sutherland, the more modern Justices. And for the Justices these more “conservative” contemporaries of who served in the years between Justice Holmes and Brandeis are typically rated as Horace Gray’s appointment in 1882, when the judicial “failures.”1 The biographical litera- Supreme Court clerkship was created, and ture on each of them is not nearly as thick,2 Franklin D. Roosevelt’s appointment of Hugo and the remaining private papers are neither as Black in 1937, the literature leans heavily extensive nor as revealing.3 And only two of toward those generally thought to be “liberal”: the thirty‐five young men who clerked for Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Louis D.
  • The Hughes Court and the Beginning of the End of the Separate But

    The Hughes Court and the Beginning of the End of the Separate But

    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 1992 The uH ghes Court and the Beginning of the End of the Separate but Equal Doctrine A.Leon Higginbotham Jr. William C. Smith Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Higginbotham, A.Leon Jr. and Smith, William C., "The uH ghes Court and the Beginning of the End of the Separate but Equal Doctrine" (1992). Minnesota Law Review. 793. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/793 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]. The William B. Lockhart Lecture* The Hughes Court and the Beginning of the End of the "Separate But Equal" Doctrine A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr.**and William C. Smith***/**** A century ago, the distinguished abolitionist, statesman and former slave, Frederick Douglass, pondered whether blacks would ever be full and equal participants in the American dream. He asked: [Can] American justice, American liberty, American civilization, American law, and American Christianity ... be made to include and protect alike and forever all American citizens in the rights which have been guaranteed to them by the organic and fundamental laws of the land?1 * This Essay is an expanded and annotated version of the William B. Lockhart Lecture Judge Higginbotham delivered at the University of Minnesota Law School on November 28, 1990.
  • Justices of the Supreme Court

    Justices of the Supreme Court

    20688_Tables-Lists.qxd 8/27/07 2:36 PM Page A-14 Justices of the Supreme Court Term of Years of Life Term of Years of Life Service Service Span Service Service Span John Jay 1789–1795 5 1745–1829 Melville W. Fuller 1888–1910 21 1833–1910 John Rutledge 1789–1791 1 1739–1800 David J. Brewer 1890–1910 20 1837–1910 William Cushing 1789–1810 20 1732–1810 Henry B. Brown 1890–1906 16 1836–1913 James Wilson 1789–1798 8 1742–1798 George Shiras, Jr. 1892–1903 10 1832–1924 John Blair 1789–1796 6 1732–1800 Howell E. Jackson 1893–1895 2 1832–1895 Robert H. Harrison 1789–1790 — 1745–1790 Edward D. White 1894–1910 16 1845–1921 James Iredell 1790–1799 9 1951–1799 Rufus W. Peckham 1895–1909 14 1838–1909 Thomas Johnson 1791–1793 1 1732–1819 Joseph McKenna 1898–1925 26 1843–1926 William Paterson 1793–1806 13 1745–1806 Oliver W. Holmes 1902–1932 30 1841–1935 John Rutledge* 1795 — 1739–1800 William D. Day 1903–1922 19 1849–1923 Samuel Chase 1796–1811 15 1741–1811 William H. Moody 1906–1910 3 1853–1917 Oliver Ellsworth 1796–1800 4 1745–1807 Horace H. Lurton 1910–1914 4 1844–1914 Bushrod Washington 1798–1829 31 1762–1829 Charles E. Hughes 1910–1916 5 1862–1948 Alfred Moore 1799–1804 4 1755–1810 Willis Van Devanter 1911–1937 26 1859–1941 John Marshall 1801–1835 34 1755–1835 Joseph R. Lamar 1911–1916 5 1857–1916 William Johnson 1804–1834 30 1771–1834 Edward D.
  • The Progressiveness of the Lochner Court

    The Progressiveness of the Lochner Court

    Denver Law Review Volume 75 Issue 2 Article 5 January 2021 The Progressiveness of the Lochner Court Michael J. Phillips Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/dlr Recommended Citation Michael J. Phillips, The Progressiveness of the Lochner Court, 75 Denv. U. L. Rev. 453 (1998). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Denver Sturm College of Law at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. THE PROGRESSIVENESS OF THE LOCHNER COURT MICHAEL J. PHILLIPS* In 1913, the legal historian Charles Warren published an article en- titled "The Progressiveness of the United States Supreme Court."' Con- trary to charges that the Court was a reactionary obstacle to social legis- lation, Warren maintained that it had actually "been steady and consis- tent in upholding all State legislation of a progressive type."2 According to Warren, the Court had rejected over ninety-five percent of the Four- teenth Amendment due process and equal protection challenges it con- sidered during the years 1887 to 191 . Of the successful challenges, furthermore, the vast majority involved "private rights of property," and very few concerned "social justice" legislation.' This record, Warren concluded, showed "the responsiveness of the Court to the changing needs of the times," and revealed it as "a bulwark to the State police power, not a destroyer." Needless to say, Warren's view of the old Court's (or Lochner Court's)6 Fourteenth Amendment decisions has not been the dominant view.
  • Justice George Sutherland and Economic Liberty: Constitutional Conservatism and the Problem of Factions

    Justice George Sutherland and Economic Liberty: Constitutional Conservatism and the Problem of Factions

    William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal Volume 6 (1997-1998) Issue 1 Article 2 December 1997 Justice George Sutherland and Economic Liberty: Constitutional Conservatism and the Problem of Factions Samuel R. Olken Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Repository Citation Samuel R. Olken, Justice George Sutherland and Economic Liberty: Constitutional Conservatism and the Problem of Factions, 6 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 1 (1997), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol6/iss1/2 Copyright c 1997 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj .WILLIAM & MARY BILL OF RIGHTS JOURNAL VOLUME 6 WINTER 1997 ISSUE 1 JUSTICE GEORGE SUTHERLAND AND ECONOMIC LIBERTY: CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATISM AND THE PROBLEM OF FACTIONS Samuel R. Olken* Most scholars have viewed Justice George Sutherland as a conserva- tive jurist who opposed government regulation because of his adherence to laissez-faire economics and Social Darwinism, or because of his devo- tion to natural rights. In this Article, Professor Olken analyzes these widely held misperceptions of Justice Sutherland's economic liberty jurisprudence, which was based not on socio-economic theory, but on historical experience and common law. Justice Sutherland, consistent with the judicial conservatism of the Lochner era, wanted to protect individual rights from the whims of polit- ical factions and changing democratic majorities. The Lochner era dif- ferentiation between government regulations enacted for the public wel- fare and those for the benefit of certain groups illuminates this underly- ing tenet of Justice Sutherland's jurisprudence.
  • Presidential Elections and Supreme Court Appointments

    Presidential Elections and Supreme Court Appointments

    Tulsa Law Review Volume 35 Issue 3 Practitioner's Guide to the 1998-1999 Supreme Court Term Spring 2000 You Can't Always Get What You Want: Presidential Elections and Supreme Court Appointments Paul Finkelman Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Paul Finkelman, You Can't Always Get What You Want: Presidential Elections and Supreme Court Appointments, 35 Tulsa L. J. 473 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol35/iss3/2 This Supreme Court Review Symposia Articles is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Finkelman: You Can't Always Get What You Want: Presidential Elections and Su YOU CAN'T ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU WANT... : PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENTS Paul Finkelmant The President elected in 2000 could have as many as four quick appointments to the Supreme Court. When the new president takes office, in January, 2001, Justice John Paul Stevens will be 80 and Chief Justice Rehnquist will be 76 years old, both well past retirement age. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg have both fought off cancer and on inauguration day they will be 71 and 67 years old, respectively. It is not unreasonable to fear that either or both might have to leave the bench for health reasons. The rest of the Court, on the other hand, is relatively young, ranging from Justice Clarence Thomas who will be 52 to Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy who will both be 64.1 On the other hand, it is also possible that no one will leave the high court in the next four years.