DOCSLIB.ORG

Ex-Justice Campbell: the Case of the Creative Advocate

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

three rime~ ~1 YCll Inc, with "ffices institution"i Prrrrllltn1 Racc; The JSSllt.' Electronic Access IJ,J:'str;1Ct InForJ11,1l!on Foe inFormation on full-text Back Issues ,11''' a""ilebk from dw MA 021 485020. the OJ III wntln\! from the holder. Authonz,lt"ln holder for iibI;lries Olld othcr COfl[aCr rhe AC3dernic ,1nd Scitncc, 350 Nhn M;1iden, MA 02I48, and of this ABC-Clio, Aca- demic Search Premier: America.' and Abs/racls Science Abstracts; CatchWord, EBSCO Academic Search Premier, EBSCO Abs/raets, [ndex 10 Periodicals and Books; Inler­ national Political Science Ahstracts, .!STOR, Cenler Artic/eFirsl: Online Cenler Index 10 Ahstracts. SUPREME COURT HISTORI CAL SOCIETY HONORARY CHAIRMAN William H. Rehnquist CHAIRMAN EMERITUS Dwight D. Opperman CHAIRMAN Leon Silverman PRESIDENT Frank C. Jones VICE PRESIDENTS Vincent C. Burke, Jr. Dorothy Tapper Goldman E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr. SECRETARY Virginia Warren Daly TREASURER Sheldon S. Cohen TRUSTEES George R. Adams Robert A. Gwinn Leon Polsky J. Bruce Alverson Benjamin H ei neman Harry M. Reasone r Peter G. Angelos AE. Dick Howard Bernard Reese Viccor Battaglia Robb M. Jones Charles B. Renfrew Herman Belz Randall Kennedy William Bradford Reynolds Barbara A Black Peter A. Knowles Sally Rider Hugo L. Black, Jr. Philip Allen Lacova ra H arvey Ri sh ikof Frank Boardman Gene W Lafitte Jonathan C. Rose Nancy Brennan Ral ph 1. Lancaster, Jr. Teresa Wynn Roseboro ugh Vera Brown LaSalle Le ffa II Jay Sekulow Wade Burger Jerome B. Li bin Jero ld S. Solovy Vincent C. Burke III Warren Lightfoot Kenneth Starr Edmund N. Carpenter 11 Maureen E. Maho ney Cathleen Douglas Scone Andrew M. Coats Mrs. Thurgood Marshall Larry Thompson Charles J. Cooper Thurgood Marshall, Jr. Seth P. Waxman Michael A Cooper Stephen R. McAllister Agnes N. WilJiams Waltet Dellinger Vincent L. McKusick Lively Wilson George Didden III Gregory Michael W. fo ster Wollen Jam es C. Duff Joseph R. Moderow Donald Wright William Edlund Michael Mone James D. Ellis Lucas Morel Robert E. Juceam Miguel A Es trada Charles Morgan General Cownsel Charles O. Galvin James W Morris, III David T. Pride frank B. Gilbert John M. Nannes ExeCU live Dimlor James L. Goldman James B. O'Hara Katl1leen Shurtleff John D. Gordan, III Deva l Patrick Assislanl Direclor Fra nk Gundlach Carter G. Phillips JOURNAL OF UP EME o R HIS ORY 20 5 vol. 30 no. 1 PUBLICATIONS COMMIHEE E. Barretr Chairman Donald B. LoUls R. Cohen Charles J. Lucas Morel Luther T Munford Demd O'Brien Carter Teresa Michael Russ D. Grier Jr. BOARD OF EDITORS Melvin L Chamnan Herman Bdz J. Bodenhamer Kermit Hall LllJra Kalman David Michael Parrish EDI10RIAl STAFF Clare Cushman, Edllor PatnCla R. Evans, Rmarcf;er P-;;.blij;hini!> !}os!on, "t.'·'."o·'"n Ox!(xd, UK GENERAL STATEMENT ,s dedicated to the collection and of the of Columbia ,(1 )974, it was founded by chairman. educationa I programs, historical electronic rmetria!s, and by the awareness of the Court's contribut!ons well own eciuotlonal websltc t(dehers "bout ,mportant which appears In promote the formative decade between 1789 "!ld 1800 because records from Or The seven out of the Generat and rettred Milestones to Equality Court Cases for and About School Students ,md Black White and B"own: The Landmark School co tax deductible Internal Revenue Code. JOURNAl OF Su REM COU T HISTO y 05, v 1, 30, n , ! INTRODUCTION Melvill L ARTICLES Court i\dvocacv In Early Nineteenth David C Frederick The Case of the Creative Advocate Louis D. Brandeis: Advocate Before and On the Melvin L 31 \Vomen as Court 1879-1979 L Clark 47 Oral oEa Court Bar G 68 CONTRIBUTORS PHOTO CREDITS 83 2005, br Hiscorical 1059-4329 Introduction Melvin I. Urofsky Each year the Court Historical thored on the famous lprnm'/sp Cases. sponsors lecture series at the Court. The audience also witnessed a marvelous The are, of course, students of the that since the man who Court and its history, and the Society is pleased introduced Professor Lurie had been a class­ and honored that the Justices in these mate of his at Harvard-Justice David Souter. the lecturers and their While no one would claim that the lectures topics. As someone who has participated in in the series a portraitofad­ more than one of these I can assure vocacy before the nation's highest court, you that it is a and an audience un­ of lawyers or of like any other. An added bonus is that the at a certain time. Journal then publishes these talks, provid­ David Frederick's lecture took us back to a time access to a wider audience of men and when the Court imposed no time limits on oral women, and lay persons, teachers and arguments; men, and women, would students, who are interested in the Court's crowd into the old courtroom in the basement of the when orators such as Daniel This past year's was before Webster a case. In modern the Court, and as you can see. I was among the it was the hottest ticket in town. people fortunate to be invited to deliver a talk. Starting in 1879, women in the audience As some ofyou may know, 1am now also to see women at the bar. Mary writing a new ofLouis D. Clark's piece on women before the so the lecture was doubly welcome; in it I was Court for the ensuing century not only shows able to some of the newer ideas I have some of the that took but also had since the research. role in American My friend Jonathan Lurie's paper de­ and in the legal profession rived from a book that he coau­ 10 v vi JOURNAL OF SUPREME COURT HISTORY Finally, no effort is made to often take their cases up to the MarbJe Palace coordinate the annual lecture with the se­ on this year it worked out that way. Judge Although we have a more unified theme John Roberts about the art of oral ad­ than is usual in our there is still that vocacy, and how the art has enemized the great variety that marks the articles we publish, Court bar, those who reg­ a diversity that truly reflects the very history uiarly in the federal courts and who of the Court itself. Supreme Court Advocacy in the Early Nineteenth Century DAVID FREDERICK* The early nineteenth was transformative of the Court's Yet understanding those fundamental changes some appreciation of practice before the Court in the late and the developments in the nineteenth century produced that are still felt In this first half-century or so of the Court's and occurred in oral argument practice than in any other Those are best understood ref­ ted to oral argument and to rest erence to three basic themes. One is the ef­ on written arguments in briefs. Those develop­ fect of the Court in adopting the of ments launched the modern trend of the Court the King's Bench in one of its earliest sets of on written briefs with more limited oral rules. That decision started the Court down arguments. the path of extended oral arguments. A sec­ ond theme is the retrenchment from that prac­ late Eighteenth-Century Practice tice, and the evolution toward the use of written briefs to present arguments in the In the first year and a half of the case. This trend toward the end of the the rules of led to Marshall Court era, which witnessed some of ,much among The the most celebrated advocates and oral argu­ Constitution had created the Court, but the ments in the Court's history, In oral Framers had left vague the contours ofits prac- argument in that The vations may be made about the be­ tween political rhetoric and oral argument style tion with the Court asking for clarification as 111 Finally, in the to which procedural rules attorneys should fol­ the Court institutionalized low. On 8, I the Court rpo,v",n several important rules to limit the time allot- by an order that "this court 2 JOURNAL OF SUPREME COURT HISTORY the practice of the courts of king's succinct. A "declaration" contain bench, and in as afford- a few sentences about the of the case and outlines for the practice of this court; and the basic issue presented in the appeal.9 that they wilt, from time to make such al­ For the modern American terations therein as circumstances may render schooled in the traditions of voluminous writ­ necessary.,,3 ten briefs, such a practice would seem highly In a way, this was a curious choice. Ini­ inefficient and impracticable, The rationale for the Court had shown a to sort practice in has been that the entire out procedural details through litigation. But judicial process is completely open to public that proved the varieties the learns about of procedural that arose in the case is in open court, which more than outpaced the Court's ability to re­ thus diminishes the possibility ofout-of-court fine the rules of practice through common-law influence, But in an era of limited communi­ methods. In adopting rules at the Bench that of as a model, the Court a de­ To With, access to parture from what had been the apparent aim reported decisions was ditficult. The second of the Judiciary Act of 1789 to place a more volume of Dallas's reports of the Court's native stamp on legal in the earliest Term did not appear until I the new ;-..Jation.
Recommended publications
  • NAACP Strategy in the Covenant Cases Clement E

    NAACP Strategy in the Covenant Cases Clement E

    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 6 | Issue 2 1955 NAACP Strategy in the Covenant Cases Clement E. Vose Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Clement E. Vose, NAACP Strategy in the Covenant Cases, 6 W. Res. L. Rev. 101 (1955) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol6/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 1955) NAACP Strategy in the Covenant Cases Clement E. Vose ON MAY 3, 1948, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that neither federal nor state courts may issue injunctions to enforce racial re- strictive covenants.1 This decision reversed thirty years of history during which privately-drawn housing restrictions against Negroes had been en- forced by the courts of nineteen states and the District of Columbia. Be- cause precedent and the Restatement of Property,2 issued by the American Law Institute in 1944, favored judicial sanction of racial covenants, the Supreme Coures decision gave a surprising turn to legal development. On the other hand, when the Negroes' political power THE AuTHOR (AD., 1947, University of and legal skill is taken into Maine; M.A., 1949, PhD., 1952, University of account their victory in the Wisconsin) is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Western Reserve University.
  • Alan S. Rosenthal, Esquire

    Alan S. Rosenthal, Esquire

    ALAN S. ROSENTHAL, ESQUIRE Oral History Project The Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit Oral History Project United States Courts The Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit District of Columbia Circuit ALAN S. ROSENTHAL, ESQUIRE Interviews conducted by: Judith S. Feigin, Esquire In 2011: March 3, March 21, April 20, May 9, May 23, June 6, June 20 July 18 and July 25 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface .. i Oral History Agreements Alan S. Rosenthal, Esquire. iii Judith S. Feigin, Esquire. v Oral History Transcript of Interviews: Interview No. 1, March 3, 2011. 1 Interview No. 2, March 21, 2011. 29 Interview No. 3, April 20, 2011.. 63 Interview No. 4, May 9, 2011. 93 Interview No. 5, May 23, 2011. 122 Interview No. 6, June 6, 2011. 151 Interview No. 7, June 20, 2011. 177 Interview No. 8, July 18, 2011.. 206 Interview No. 9, July 25, 2011.. 236 Epitaph by Mr. Rosenthal, May 2012. A-1 Index. B-1 Table of Cases. C-1 Biographical Sketches Alan S. Rosenthal, Esquire. D-1 Judith S. Feigin, Esquire. D-3 NOTE The following pages record interviews conducted on the dates indicated. The interviews were recorded digitally or on cassette tape, and the interviewee and the interviewer have been afforded an opportunity to review and edit the transcript. The contents hereof and all literary rights pertaining hereto are governed by, and are subject to, the Oral History Agreements included herewith. © 2012 Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit. All rights reserved. PREFACE The goal of the Oral History Project of the Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit is to preserve the recollections of the judges of the Courts of the District of Columbia Circuit and lawyers, court staff, and others who played important roles in the history of the Circuit.
  • The Viability of Multi-Party Litigation As a Tool for Social Engineering Six Decades After the Restrictive Covenant Cases

    The Viability of Multi-Party Litigation As a Tool for Social Engineering Six Decades After the Restrictive Covenant Cases

    University of Baltimore Law ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law All Faculty Scholarship Faculty Scholarship 2011 The iV ability of Multi-Party Litigation as a Tool for Social Engineering Six Decades after the Restrictive Covenant Cases José F. Anderson University of Baltimore School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/all_fac Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, and the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation The iV ability of Multi-Party Litigation as a Tool for Social Engineering Six Decades after the Restrictive Covenant Cases, 42 McGeorge L. Rev. 765 (2011) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Viability of Multi-Party Litigation as a Tool for Social Engineering Six Decades After the Restrictive Covenant Cases Jose Felipe Anderson ISSUE 4 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1945914 The Viability of Multi-Party Litigation as a Tool for Social Engineering Six Decades After the Restrictive Covenant Cases Jos6 Felip6 Anderson* TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................... ..... 766 H. THE McGHEE V. SIPES BRIEF ................................... 774 A. McGhee Argument Against Judicial Enforcement of Restrictive Covenants .............................................. 776 B. History of Restrictive Covenants ............................. 777 C. Policy Arguments ......................................... 782 D. Deference to the UN Charter .......................................786 III. THE SHELLEY V. KRAEMER DECISION .............................. 787 IV. ANALYSIS .................................................. 789 V.
  • The Petrie Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics Annual Report of Activities 2010-2011

    The Petrie Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics Annual Report of Activities 2010-2011

    The Petrie Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics Annual Report of Activities 2010-2011 Executive Summary 2010-2011 has been another successful year for the Center, as we further advanced our position as the preeminent academic institution examining how law intersects with health care, bioethics, and biotechnology. That success was, however, tinged with sadness by the news of Joe Flom’s passing. The Center is the realization of the vision that Joe and the Petrie Foundation set out for the Law School, and we remain grateful for his foresight and generosity. We are proud to carry forward the mantle of his name. Our academic fellowship program, offering two years of support and mentorship for post- graduates, continues its remarkable record as a pipeline to top academic positions in health law. After turning down several other offers, our outgoing fellows ultimately accepted professor appointments at the law schools at Cornell and the University of Illinois, adding to the Center’s prior placements at Harvard, UC Berkeley, UCLA, Boston University, and the University of Arizona. Our current academic fellows are working on papers in topics such as rethinking conflicts of interest policies in academic medicine and reforming human subjects protection, and we are excited to welcome in two additional fellows beginning this summer. Our fellows and faculty published or have forthcoming award-winning work not only in the leading law reviews, but also in medicine (The New England Journal of Medicine), science (Nature, Cell), economics (The American Economic Review), and bioethics (The American Journal of Bioethics, The Hastings Center Report).
  • Success on Tap Alisa Bowens-Mercado Is a Brewing Pioneer

    Success on Tap Alisa Bowens-Mercado Is a Brewing Pioneer

    SEASONS of AUTUMN 2020 SEASONS OF NEW HAVEN SEASONS NEW HAVEN SUCCESS ON TAP ALISA BOWENS-MERCADO IS A BREWING PIONEER FUR-EVER FRIENDS LOVE CONQUERS ALL WHAT TO KNOW BEFORE WEDDINGS IN THE AGE AUTUMN 2020 AUTUMN ADOPTING A PET OF COVID Where customer focus meets community focus. Serving you and the community. Today and tomorrow. On Your Terms. We offer personal and business banking, great lending rates, and online and mobile banking. We help you look to the future with retirement savings and other services to help you thrive. Many things have changed over the past few months, but Seabury’s commitment to community We volunteer over 14,000 hours annually. The Liberty Bank Foundation is remains stronger than ever. We are ready for any situation, both on campus and off. While many all about giving back with grants, scholarships and funding for education. new protocols present unique challenges, our staff, residents and members have come together to keep everyone safe, healthy and connected. We’d love to meet you! We’re still welcoming new neighbors on campus and new members to our At Home program. Visit liberty-bank.com to learn more about us or call us to make an We’re observing social distancing with outdoor meetings, model homes designed exclusively for safe tours and promoting virtual tours. Most importantly, no one is going through this alone. As appointment at any of our branches across Connecticut. a Seabury resident or Seabury At Home member, you not only secure your future healthcare, you also become part of a community that bands together at times when it’s most needed.
  • Griswold V. Connecticut (1965) [1]

    Griswold V. Connecticut (1965) [1]

    Published on The Embryo Project Encyclopedia (https://embryo.asu.edu) Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) [1] By: Seward, Sheraden Keywords: Reproductive rights [2] Abortion [3] Contraception [4] US Supreme Court [5] The landmark Supreme Court case, Griswold v. Connecticut [6] (1965), gave women more control over their reproductive rights [7] while also bringing reproductive and birth control [8] issues into the public realm and more importantly, into the courts. Bringing these issues into the public eye allowed additional questions about the reproductive rights [7] of women, such as access to abortion [9], to be asked. This court case laid the groundwork for later cases such as Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) and Roe v. Wade [10] (1973). Estelle Griswold [11], the executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut (PPLC), and Dr. C. Lee Buxton [12], the director of Yale University’s infertility [13] clinic, were charged and convicted in 1962 of violating the 1879 Connecticut anti-contraception [14] law. This anti-contraception [14] law made it illegal for any person to use contraceptives or help another person obtain contraceptives. Any person found guilty of violating this law could be fined and/or imprisoned. The law itself was the primary issue being contested in the Griswold v. Connecticut [6] case. On 29 March 1965 the oral argument of the case began with Fowler V. Harper, Tom Emerson, and Catherine Roraback as the attorneys for Griswold and Buxton and Joseph Clark as the attorney for the state of Connecticut. Emerson argued that the right to privacy was implicit in the US Constitution in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments.
  • Winter 2018 Reproductive Health Care

    Winter 2018 Reproductive Health Care

    FOCUS Winter 2018 REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE. It’S WHAT WE DO. Delivering Comprehensive Sex Ed in a #MeToo World Your support of sex education is shifting cultural norms The #MeToo movement has lifted the curtain on the horrible Sadly, it is not surprising that sexual assault and harassment reality that sexual harassment and assault are extremely are so pervasive in our culture given the lack of information prevalent in our society. Social media pages started flooding and education on sex and sexuality. For many young people, with the hashtag in late 2017 as many have bravely chosen these topics can be confusing and scary, especially when to share the painful details of the assault and harassment children grow up hearing that sexuality is something to hide they have endured. Even if someone didn’t share #MeToo on rather than discuss. PPSNE educators and trainers see this their page, the fact remains that one in four women and one reality in schools and communities every day. in six men will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime. #MeToo has become a teachable moment for discussing and communicating about harassment and sexual assault. At PPSNE, we are shifting cultural norms by providing opportunities for young people to learn about all aspects of human sexuality. PPSNE educators teach young people how to distinguish between healthy and unhealthy relationships. They provide skill-building opportunities using proven strategies to teach young people how to effectively communicate with friends and partners. For starters this means talking about consent and defining how sexual assault and harassment can show up in our lives.
  • The Petrie Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics

    The Petrie Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics

    The Petrie Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics Annual Report of Activities 2008-2009 Executive Summary The 2008-2009 academic year marked the third year of the Petrie-Flom Center. Under the leadership of Visiting Faculty Director, Anup Malani, the Center’s curricular and public events programming brought together a highly diverse group of students, scholars and practitioners in the fields of health law, health policy, bioethics and biotechnology to further the Center’s mission of generating quality research in these rapidly changing fields. Given the potentially dramatic changes to these fields with the 2008 presidential elections, this year’s programming addressed a wide array of pressing health care topics. The Center’s public events tackled issues ranging from the role of dignity in medical decision making, to the competing healthcare reform proposals of the 2008 presidential candidates. The year culminated with a conference on the legal and economic challenges to research and development in the pharmaceutical industry. All of the Center’s events featured participation from nationally-recognized scholars and prominent industry practitioners, as well as enthusiastic participation from members of the Law School and greater Harvard University community. The centerpieces of the Center’s curricular activities were the Health Law Policy Workshop and the first annual Colloquium of Student Research in Health Law. Responding to increasing interest from faculty and students across the University, Prof. Malani convened the Health Law Policy Workshop weekly for two semesters (rather than just one). Researchers from a wide variety of disciplines were invited to present their findings to an audience of peers and students from across Harvard University.
  • The Maryland Board of Public Works

    The Maryland Board of Public Works

    The Maryland Board of Public Works The Maryland Board of Public Works A History Alan M. Wilner Hall of Records Commission, Department of General Services, Annapolis, MD 21404 Contents FOREWORD Vll PREFACE ix CHAPTER 1. An Overview of Early Policies: To 1825 CHAPTER 2. The First Board of Public Works and the Mania 1 for Internal Improvements, 1825-1850 CHAPTER 3. The Constitutional Convention of 1850-1851 11 CHAPTER 4. The Reign of the Commissioners: 1851-1864 25 CHAPTER 5. The Constitutional Convention of 1864 35 CHAPTER 6. The New Board: 1864-1920 51 CHAPTER 7. The Modern Board: 1920-1960 59 CHAPTER 8. The Overburdened Board: 1960-1983 79 CHAPTER 9. Epilogue 99 APPENDIX A. Commissioners of Public Works and Members of 123 the Board of Public Works, 1851-1983 125 APPENDIX B. Guide to the Records of the Board of Public Works, 1851-1983 127 BIBLIOGRAPHY 185 INDEX 189 The Maryland Board of Public Works, A History, is available from the Maryland Hall of Records, P.O. Box 828, Annapolis, MD 21404. Copyright © 1984 by Alan M. Wilner. Foreword Alan M. Wilner's authorship of the history of the Board of Public Works continues a fine Maryland tradition of jurist-historians that includes Judge Carroll Bond's His- tory of the Court of Appeals and Judge Edward Delaplaine's biography of Governor Thomas Johnson. When I first read Judge Wilner's manuscript in the summer of 1981, it was im- mediately clear that it would provide an excellent introduction to the significant col- lection of archival materials at the Hall of Records relating to the history and work of the Board.
  • The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Contracts and Commerce, 1836-1864

    The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Contracts and Commerce, 1836-1864

    Pue aiu vurnal VOLUME 1983 JUNE NUMBER 3 THE CONSTITUTION IN THE SUPREME COURT: CONTRACTS AND COMMERCE, 1836-1864 DAVID P. CURRIE* Continuing a study of thefirst hundredyears of constitutionalliti- gation, Professor Currie explores the decisions of the Taneyperiod re- specting the Contract and Commerce Clauses. Though early decisions ofthe Taney Courtseemed to portenda departurefromthe nationalism of its predecessor, the author argues that the impression was largely misleading. In general,for example, the Court under Taney proved rathersympathetic to contractrights. In Commerce Clause cases, after being badly split, the Court was able to agree on a longlastingformula that acknowledged an implicit limitation on statepower, and although in the Taney periodthe Court never clearly struck down a state law on Commerce Clausegrounds, itfoundother ways to protect the interest in unobstructedcommerce. The fourth installment of a critical examination of early Supreme Court constitutional decisions,' this article begins to deal with the nearly thirty-year period during which Roger B. Taney was Chief Jus- tice. Taney's appointment in 1836 marked a watershed in the member- * Harry N. Wyatt Professor of Law, University of Chicago. My thanks to the Duke University School of Law, where this paper was delivered as the Brainerd Currie Memorial Lecture; to my colleagues Frank Easterbrook, Dennis Hutchinson, and Rayman Solomon for their helpful criticism; and to Mark Holmes and Roy Underhill for valuable research assistance. 1. See Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court, 1789-1801, 48 U. CHI. L. REv. 819 (1981) [hereinafter cited as Currie, Supreme Court, 1789-1801]; Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Powers of the Federal Courts, 1801-1835, 49 U.
  • Viewed This Immense Burden

    Viewed This Immense Burden

    Florida State University Libraries Honors Theses The Division of Undergraduate Studies 2015 The Importance of Geographical Background of Supreme Court Appointments in the Period of 1830-1920 Shawna M. Abbatiello Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES THE IMPORTANCE OF GEOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND OF SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENTS IN THE PERIOD OF 1830-1920 By SHAWNA MARIE ABBATIELLO A Thesis submitted to the Department of History in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with Honors in the Major Degree Awarded: Spring 2015 The members of the Defense Committee approve the thesis of Shawna Abbatiello defended on April 20, 2015. Dr. Katherine Mooney Thesis Director Professor Garrick Pursley Outside Committee Member Dr. Edward Gray Committee Member 2 I. Problem Statement Among the 112 Supreme Court justices1 and twenty-nine failed appointments stands one lone Floridian with ties to the state as questionable as his ideology.2 After losing in an election to the Georgia state legislature, G. Harrold Carswell moved to Tallahassee, Florida in 1948, where he would later become one of the nation’s youngest federal judges. President Richard Nixon appointed the Georgia native to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1970 in an attempt to fill the position left by Abe Fortas with a Southerner. Preceded by the failed appointment of Clement F. Haynsworth, Carswell’s confirmation hearings revolved around his controversial racial ideology and high rate of overturned cases, resulting in a 51-48 rejection.3 Although President Nixon did not ostensibly make geographical background of candidates a major role in his nomination process, he did articulate on multiple occasions that he wanted to select a Southern strict-constructionist.4 This marks the last President in history to give geographical background recognition publicly or consciously.
  • The Appointment of Supreme Court Justices: Prestige, Principles and Politics John P

    The Appointment of Supreme Court Justices: Prestige, Principles and Politics John P

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Indiana University Bloomington Maurer School of Law Maurer School of Law: Indiana University Digital Repository @ Maurer Law Articles by Maurer Faculty Faculty Scholarship 1941 The Appointment of Supreme Court Justices: Prestige, Principles and Politics John P. Frank Indiana University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub Part of the Courts Commons, and the Judges Commons Recommended Citation Frank, John P., "The Appointment of Supreme Court Justices: Prestige, Principles and Politics" (1941). Articles by Maurer Faculty. Paper 1856. http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/1856 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by Maurer Faculty by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE APPOINTMENT OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICES: PRESTIGE, PRINCIPLES AND POLITICS* JOHN P. FRANK Hidden in musty obscurity behind the forbidding covers of three hundred and more volumes of court reports, the Justices of the United States Supreme Court seldom emerge into public view. Deaths and retirements, new appointments, and occasional opinions attract fleeting attention; all else is unnoticed. But to the political scientist, to the historian, and, above all, to the lawyer, the Supreme Court is an object of vital concern. To the political scientist, the Court matters because it is the chief juggler in maintaining the Balance of Powers. To the historian, the Court matters because of its tre- mendous influence on the policies of federal and state governments.