DOCSLIB.ORG

Working Draft of Josh's Thesis .Pages

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Working Draft of Josh's Thesis .Pages The Brandeis Model: An Examination of Presidential Relationships with Supreme Court Justices from Washington and Jay to Obama and Garland An Honors Thesis Submitted to the Department of Politics in partial fulfillment of the Honors Program by Joshua I. Luger April 21, 2016 Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction 1 I. Theory and Literature Chapter 2. Constitution and Federalist Papers 5 Chapter 3. Going Public 8 Chapter 4 The Politics President’s Make 10 II. Presidents Chapter 5. George Washington 11 Chapter 6. Abraham Lincoln 21 Chapter 7. Lyndon B. Johnson 25 Chapter 8. Richard Nixon 37 III. Justices Chapter 9. William Howard Taft 46 Chapter 10. Charles Evans Hughes 54 Chapter 11. Louis Brandeis 63 Chapter 12. Felix Frankfurter 68 Chapter 13. Earl Warren 73 IV. Conclusion Chapter 14. Final Thoughts 84 Chapter 15. Conclusion 87 Chapter 16. Merrick Garland 96 Bibliography 100 Chapter 1 Introduction The U.S. Supreme Court has reshaped American society and politics.1 This Court which is the least democratic institution in the American Democracy, is widely misunderstood, few people can properly identify all of the justices, let alone explain how they got there.2 Today, the Court is composed of nine justices appointed to their posts by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.3 After the President makes his selection, the Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearings to determine the qualifications of this person. Once the nominee passes this committee, the full Senate has the opportunity to vote to confirm or deny this nominee. Traditionally, the nominee would not even appear before the committee during these hearings. Today, the nominee is subjected to intensely politicized hearings as senators scrutinize everything they have ever written or said. Similarly, today in the press and online many interest groups weigh in on the nominees credentials beyond the formal testimony. The confirmation process for all judges in the federal judiciary, not just the Supreme Court Justices, appoints the judge for life to a position that is very difficult to remove someone from. Once confirmed, today’s justices generally disconnect from the world of politics. However, just as the twenty-four hour news cycle is a modern development so is the hermit like lives of justices. But, this has not 1 Cases such as, Marbury v. Madison, Dred Scott v. Sanford, Brown vs. Board of Education, Gideon v. Wainwright, Miranda v. Arizona, Roe v. Wade, and Bush v. Gore. 2 28% of Americans think that a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court is sent to Congress for the final decision. Only 32% of college educated Americans could identify the Court as one of the three branches of the federal government. According to polling done by Annenberg Public Policy Center, and the Constitution center, http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/02/surveys-many-americans-know-little- about-the-supreme-court/ 3 The modern Supreme Court usually has nine Justices, eight Associate Justices and one Chief Justice. During the writing of this paper, and at the time of the final draft due to the unexpected death of Justice Scalia, there are only eight sitting justices. The number of justices has varied over time based on legislation from Congress. !1 always been the case. Justices like Chief Justice John Jay and Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes played very public political roles which made them well known and respected beyond the Court. Today, for example it seems impossible that a former President could be appointed to this “non political” branch, but President Warren G. Harding appointed ex-President William Howard Taft in 1921. This branch of government sits in a unique, insulated position without elections or campaigning. The Judicial branch, while reviewing the actions of the other two branches, is thought to need minimal contact with the other branches. This is also a shift as those selected to be justices has also shifted from notable political elites to mostly esteemed judges and legal scholars. The American constitutional system requires a precise mix of checks and balances in addition to cross branch cooperation in order to function. Overtime, personal relationships between Supreme Court Justices and Presidents have changed, as have popular views of the propriety of such friendships. While some relationships such as those between President George Washington and Chief Justice Jay or President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Justice Felix Frankfurter have appeared to fit a cooperative model of the Constitution, others such as President Lyndon B. Johnson and Justice Abe Fortas, have appeared somewhat corrupt. This research seeks to understand the unexplored history of these extremely important personal relationships. The types of people nominated has also changed, from senators, former presidents, and key administration officials to proven judges and legal scholars, often with clear political leanings. Is there a type of relationship between Presidents and Supreme Court Justices that either enhances or hinders their work? How do such relationships fit into existing theories of presidential leadership? This research will focus on relationships between presidents and Supreme Court !2 nominees and justices, anecdotally and normatively. In a world where the Supreme Court has become increasingly relevant and present in the political arena, it is important to understand this evolving history.4 This paper will start by discussing the creation of the Court and its role through the Constitution and Federalist Papers. It will then discuss theories of presidential power. The next section will cover Presidents Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon and their relationships with both specific justices and the Court as a whole. These presidents represent transformative political periods and exemplary relationships with the Court. Each of these Presidents also help to illuminate the connections between relationships and Stephen Skowronek’s theory of presidential leadership, highlighted by different political eras and dynasties. The next section focuses on justices that stand out for their notable relationships or particular tenures on the Court. The section on justices will focus on the justice’s relationship with multiple presidents throughout their career. The conclusion will discuss overall successes and failures of president-justice relationships and analyze general trends, as well as provide anecdotes and examples of these trends not explicitly covered in the previous chapters. Finally, I will seek to explain the ideal model of presidential relationships with the Supreme Court accounting for American constitutional theory and theories of presidential power. In addition to the constitution and Federalist Papers, the research that follows relies heavily on primary sources, most notably presidential and judicial memoirs, personal papers, phone conversations, public speeches, and other first hand resources found in archives of Presidential libraries and the National Archives. Secondary sources including books and articles 4 This research’s importance is only amplified by the current Supreme Court vacancy. !3 that lay out theories of presidential power and judicial selections will also be present throughout this paper. This research will try to determine the role Presidential relationships with Justices play in the grand scheme of the American constitutional system. Overall showing that relationships between justices and presidents play a significant role in the selection process of justices and when kept relatively independent are not a violation of separation of powers. President justice relationships can be split into two categories a Washington model and a post Johnson Model. In the Washington model, the justice is chosen for political purposes, their close proximity to the president, and their notoriety. In this model the politics behind choosing a justice come down to politics in its purest form, their selections furthered the president’s power and ideals and satisfied politic needs of the president. Their close proximity to the president whether directly or through similar social circles plays a role in their appointment and also their time on the Court is marked by further pursuing relationships. Justices in this category are also chosen for their notoriety and more often than not have very public careers in politics before joining the Court. The other model, the post Johnson model, the president justice relationship is often not a factor in their selection. While the careers of these justices are also notable it is almost entirely contained within the legal community and when nominated they are not already household names. The only similarity is that they may be chosen to satisfy political needs of the president and as a representation of the presidents political philosophy. The ideal justice from both models and that embodies in many ways the best of the Washington model is Justice Louis Brandeis. !4 I. Theory and Literature Chapter 2 Constitution and Federalist Papers To understand the intentions behind the Constitution and the design of the American system, the Federalist Papers, contain the reasoning, arguments, and dreams of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, and to some degree the will of the members of the Constitutional Congress. To contextualize the relationships in question and their role within this system, certain essays stand out. especially those that deal with the Judiciary as well as those that examine both separation of powers and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Nixon Appointments to the United
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 1-1-1975 The iN xon appointments to the United States Courts of Appeals : the impact of the law and order issue on the rights of the accused. Jon Spencer Gottschall University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1 Recommended Citation Gottschall, Jon Spencer, "The iN xon appointments to the United States Courts of Appeals : the impact of the law and order issue on the rights of the accused." (1975). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 1852. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/1852 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE NIXON APPOINTMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS: THE IMPACT OF THE LAW AND ORDER ISSUE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED A Dissertation Presented By Jon Spencer Gottschall Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY August, 1975 Political Science (c) Jon Spencer Gottschall, 1976 All Rights Reserved THE NIXON APPOINTMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS: THE IMP:.CT OF THE LAVJ AND ORDER ISSUE ON THr; RIGHTS OF THE iiCCUSED A Dissertation By Jon Spencer Gottschall Approved as to style and content by: Uarvey Kline, Chairman 7-iugust, 19 75 The Nixon Appointees to the United States Courts of Appeals: The Impact of the Law and Order Issue on the Rights of the Accused (August 1975) Jon S.
    [Show full text]
  • In Defence of the Court's Integrity
    In Defence of the Court’s Integrity 17 In Defence of the Court’s Integrity: The Role of Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes in the Defeat of the Court-Packing Plan of 1937 Ryan Coates Honours, Durham University ‘No greater mistake can be made than to think that our institutions are fixed or may not be changed for the worse. We are a young nation and nothing can be taken for granted. If our institutions are maintained in their integrity, and if change shall mean improvement, it will be because the intelligent and the worthy constantly generate the motive power which, distributed over a thousand lines of communication, develops that appreciation of the standards of decency and justice which we have delighted to call the common sense of the American people.’ Hughes in 1909 ‘Our institutions were not designed to bring about uniformity of opinion; if they had been, we might well abandon hope.’ Hughes in 1925 ‘While what I am about to say would ordinarily be held in confidence, I feel that I am justified in revealing it in defence of the Court’s integrity.’ Hughes in the 1940s In early 1927, ten years before his intervention against the court-packing plan, Charles Evans Hughes, former Governor of New York, former Republican presidential candidate, former Secretary of State, and most significantly, former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, delivered a series 18 history in the making vol. 3 no. 2 of lectures at his alma mater, Columbia University, on the subject of the Supreme Court.1 These lectures were published the following year as The Supreme Court: Its Foundation, Methods and Achievements (New York: Columbia University Press, 1928).
    [Show full text]
  • The Meaning of the Federalist Papers
    English-Language Arts: Operational Lesson Title: The Meaning of the Federalist Papers Enduring Understanding: Equality is necessary for democracy to thrive. Essential Question: How did the constitutional system described in The Federalist Papers contribute to our national ideas about equality? Lesson Overview This two-part lesson explores the Federalist Papers. First, students engage in a discussion about how they get information about current issues. Next, they read a short history of the Federalist Papers and work in small groups to closely examine the text. Then, student pairs analyze primary source manuscripts concerning the Federalist Papers and relate these documents to what they have already learned. In an optional interactive activity, students now work in small groups to research a Federalist or Anti-Federalist and role-play this person in a classroom debate on the adoption of the Constitution. Extended writing and primary source activities follow that allow students to use their understanding of the history and significance of the Federalist Papers. Lesson Objectives Students will be able to: • Explain arguments for the necessity of a Constitution and a bill of rights. • Define democracy and republic and explain James Madison’s use of these terms. • Describe the political philosophy underpinning the Constitution as specified in the Federalist Papers using primary source examples. • Discuss and defend the ideas of the leading Federalists and Anti-Federalists on several issues in a classroom role-play debate. (Optional Activity) • Develop critical thinking, writing skills, and facility with textual evidence by examining the strengths of either Federalism or Anti-Federalism. (Optional/Extended Activities) • Use both research skills and creative writing techniques to draft a dialogue between two contemporary figures that reflects differences in Federalist and Anti-Federalist philosophies.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander Hamilton to John Jay on African-American Soldiers (March, 14, 1779)
    Alexander Hamilton to John Jay on African-American Soldiers (March, 14, 1779) On March 14, 1779, Alexander Hamilton wrote this letter to John Jay regarding the recruitment of black soldiers. Hamilton expressed his opinion that former slaves might prove even better soldiers than the whites. Unlike many of his contemporaries, he rejected prejudices about the natural abilities of African-Americans and attributed any of their deficiencies to their social condition as slaves. As you read the letter, consider why Hamilton advocated giving the slaves "their freedom with their muskets" and what effect he thought this would have on slaves throughout the South. How did he propose to overcome the objections of slaveowners? Why was his plan rejected by congress? Col Laurens, who will have the honor of delivering you this letter, is on his way to South Carolina, on a project, which I think, in the present situation of affairs there, is a very good one and deserves every kind of support and encouragement. This is to raise two three or four batalions of negroes; with the assistance of the government of that state, by contributions from the owners in proportion to the number they possess. If you should think proper to enter upon the subject with him, he will give you a detail of his plan. He wishes to have it recommended by Congress to the state; and, as an inducement, that they would engage to take those batalions into Continental pay. It appears to me, that an expedient of this kind, in the present state of Southern affairs, is the most rational, that can be adopted, and promises very important advantages.
    [Show full text]
  • Book Review: the Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection
    BOOK REVIEW THE BRANDEIS/FRANKFURTER CONNECTION; by Bruce Allen Murphy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982. 473 pp. $18.95. Reviewed by Judith Resnikt Shouldl be more serviceableto the State, ifI took an employment, where function would be wholly bounded in my person, and take up all my time, than I am by instructing everyone, as I do, andin furnishing the Republic with a great number of citizens who are capable to serve her? XENoHON'S M EMORABIL bk. 1, ch. 6, para. 15 (ed 1903), as quoted in a letter by Louis . Brandeis to Felix Frankfurter(Jan. 28, 1928).' I THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JUSTICE BRANDEIS AND PROFESSOR FRANKFURTER From the same bits of information-letters, fragmentary notes, in- dividuals' recollections, newspaper and historical accounts-several different stories can emerge, as the storyteller brings to the materials his or her own personal concerns and hypotheses. From reading some of the correspondence between Justices Brandeis and Frankfurter,2 biog- raphies of each,3 and assorted articles about them and the times in which they lived,4 I envision the following exchanges between Brandeis and Frankfurter: The year was 1914. A young law professor, Felix Frankfurter, went to t Associate Professor of Law, University of Southern California Law Center. B.A. 1972, Bryn Mawr College; J.D. 1975, New York University School of Law. I wish to thank Dennis E. Curtis, William J. Genego, and Daoud Awad for their helpful comments. 1. 5 LETTERS OF Louis D. BRANDEIS 319 (M. Urofsky & D. Levy eds. 1978) [hereinafter cited as LETTERS]. 2. E.g., 1-5 LETTERs, supra note 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Reflections
    Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Volume 49 Issue 4 Summer 2018 Article 9 2018 The United States as an Idea: Constitutional Reflections H Jefferson Powell Follow this and additional works at: https://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation H J. Powell, The United States as an Idea: Constitutional Reflections, 49 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 705 (). Available at: https://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol49/iss4/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola University Chicago Law Journal by an authorized editor of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The United States as an Idea: Constitutional Reflections H. Jefferson Powell* I’d like to begin my remarks with two completely unoriginal observations. The first is that United States is a nation that rests on ideas, in a sense that isn’t quite true of many other nations. What we mean by, say, Denmark, or my ancestral country of Wales, certainly is tied up with ideas about what it means to be Danish or Welsh. To be Welsh is, among other things, to belong to a nation of poets: the greatest cultural achievement for any Welshman or woman—leaving aside organized sports!—is to be crowned Bard (chief poet) at the National Eisteddfod. But the ideas that characterize Denmark or Wales belong to a national community that did not begin with ideas and a conscious decision. There was no convention that established Denmark, no declaration that announced Wales, and it is pointless to ask when either nation was created.1 Both emerged out of “the mists of time,” out of a particular human experience of geography, culture, language, religion, perceived physical kinship, and so on.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Patriotism and Honor: Veterans of Dutchess County, New York
    Patriotism and Honor: Veterans of Dutchess County, New York Dutchess County Historical Society 2018 Yearbook • Volume 97 Candace J. Lewis, Editor Dutchess County Historical Society The Society is a not-for-profit educational organization that collects, preserves, and interprets the history of Dutchess County, New York, from the period of the arrival of the first Native Americans until the present day. Publications Committee: Candace J. Lewis, Ph.D., Editor David Dengel, Dennis Dengel, John Desmond, Roger Donway, Eileen Hayden, Julia Hotton, Bill Jeffway, Melodye Moore, and William P. Tatum III Ph.D. Designer: Marla Neville, Main Printing, Poughkeepsie, New York mymainprinter.com Printer: Advertisers Printing, Saint Louis, Missouri Dutchess County Historical Society Yearbook 2018 Volume 97 • Published annually since 1915 Copyright © by Dutchess County Historical Society ISSN: 0739-8565 ISBN: 978-0-944733-13-4 Front Cover: Top: Young men of Dutchess County recently transformed into soldiers. On the steps of the Armory, Poughkeepsie, New York. 1917. Detail. Bottom: Men, women, and children walk along the railroad tracks in Poughkeepsie at lower Main Street, seeing off a contingent of soldiers as they entrain for war. 1918. Back Cover: Left: Nurses from around the country march in the parade of April 6, 1918. Detail. Middle: A “patriotic pageant,l” performed by children. April 1918. Right: Unidentified individual as he gets ready to “entrain” in the separate recruitment of African Americans. 1918, Detail. All Photographs by Reuben P. Van Vlack. Collection of the Dutchess County Historical Society. The Dutchess County Historical Society Yearbook does not assume responsibility for statements of fact or opinion made by the authors.
    [Show full text]
  • Louis Brandeis: a Man for This Season
    LOUIS BRANDEIS: A MAN FOR THIS SEASON JONATHAN SALLET* In the early years of the 20th century, Louis Brandeis was America’s most influential advocate for antitrust enforcement, but his contributions to antitrust have been much debated ever since. Given the current, prominent discussion of the future of antitrust in these economic times, this essay proposes a five-part framework to describe Brandeis’s approach, which relies heavily on institutional roles and responsibilities: (1) legislators creating antitrust laws should consider broad economic and social issues, including democratic values; (2) antitrust laws should translate those broad motivations into administrable legal standards within the scope of professional obligations familiar to antitrust enforcers and the courts; (3) legal professionals vindicate the legislature’s larger social and economic goals by relying on learnings from economics and the social sciences and applying the chosen legal standard to the facts in a determined and detailed manner, while avoiding day-to-day political considerations; (4) sectoral regulation should be used where Justified by specific industry circumstances, such as the existence of local utility monopolies or in circumstances in which normal competitive forces cannot get the Job done; and (5) competition policy, both in antitrust and sectoral regulation, is to be informed by a spirit of experimentation. * Senior Fellow, The Benton Foundation. I am very appreciative to the following for their comments on drafts of this essay: Jonathan Baker, Gerald Berk, Teddy Downey, Kenneth Ewing, Adrianne Furniss, Renata Hesse, Caroline Holland, Herbert Hovenkamp, Lina Khan, Fiona Scott Morton, Carl Shapiro, George Slover, Kevin Taglang, and Tom Wheeler as well as to Andrew Manley and Ryland Sherman for their research assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • John Marshall
    William & Mary Law Review Volume 43 (2001-2002) Issue 4 Symposium: The Legacy of Chief Article 9 Justice John Marshall March 2002 John Marshall: Remarks of October 6, 2000 William H. Rehnquist Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the Legal History Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Repository Citation William H. Rehnquist, John Marshall: Remarks of October 6, 2000, 43 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1549 (2002), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol43/iss4/9 Copyright c 2002 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr JOHN MARSHALL REMARKS OF OCTOBER 6,2000 WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST* Thank you, Dean Reveley, for the kind introduction. It is a great pleasure to be here. Next January will be the two hundredth anniversary of the appointment of John Marshall as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. I am quite convinced that Marshall deserves to be recognized along with George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson as one of the "Founding Fathers" of this country. Admittedly, he does not have the name recognition of Washington, Hamilton, or Jefferson, but a strong case can be made for the proposition that his contribution to our system of government ranks with any of theirs. I shall try to make that case this evening. Of these Founders, Washington had the experience as a military commander and the reputation for public rectitude that were essential in our first President.
    [Show full text]
  • Clippings Scrapbook II
    Clippings Scrapbook II Items without a page number were inserted between pages. Genealogy of the Wehle Family of Prague “Brandeis—The Old Story of the Prophet” Boston American 6/4/1931 p.1‐3 Remarks by C.N. Jones October 1908 p.4‐5 “Former Louisville Man Leading Fight for the People’s Rights” Louisville Herald 6/1/1908 p.6‐7 “Stories of Success” Boston American 10/4/1908 p.8 “Louis Brandeis, Kentuckian, is Famed Fighter for People’s Rights” Louisville Herald 2/8/1910 p.9‐11 “Brandeis Sherlock Holmes’ Rival; Deductive Powers Amaze Enemies” Boston Traveler 6/10/1910 p.12‐13 “Personalities” Hampton Magazine June 1910 p.14‐19 “Brandeis, Teacher of Business Economy” New York Times 12/4/1910 p.20 12/5/1910 letter to New York Times from William F. Peters p.21 “An Attorney for the People” Outlook 12/24/1910 p.22‐24 “A Great American” Philadelphia North American 2/11/1911 p. 25 “Brandeis Refused Pay for Subway Lease Work” Boston Journal 2/25/1911 p.26 “’Citizen’ Brandeis” Boston Post 2/25/1911 p.27 “Louis Brandeis” The Electrical Worker February 1911 p.28 ? The World Today February 1911 p.29‐31 “Players in the Great Game” System February 1911 P.32‐37 “Who is This Man Brandeis?” Human Life February 1911 7/28/1880 letter from (Annie Fields ?) 8(?)/2/1880 letter from Charles Smith Bradley 1/26/1882 letter from J.O. Shaw Jr. (Union Boat Club) p.38‐50 “Brandeis” American Magazine February 1911 12/14/1883 letter from illegible 5/8/1884 letter from George H.
    [Show full text]
  • Baseball-Softball Release
    WEEKLY RELEASE MARCH 26, 2007 CUNY BASEBALL Contact: David Gansell, Assistant Director • (718) 997-4273 • email:[email protected] CUNY Athletic Conference • Razran Hall @ Queens College 65-30 Kissena Blvd. • (718) 997-4270 Phone • (718) 997-4276 Fax CUNYAC BASEBALL STANDINGS WEEK 2 CONFERENCE OVERALL W L PCT. W L PCT. HOME AWAY NEUTRAL STREAK 1. JOHN JAY 3 0 1.000 5 5 .500 2-0 2-0 1-5 WON 4 MITCHELL 3 0 1.000 4 3 .571 3-0 0-0 1-3 WON 4 3 CCNY 0 0 .000 2 2 .500 0-1 0-0 2-1 LOST 1 YESHIVA 0 0 .000 1 2 .333 0-1 1-1 0-0 LOST 2 STATEN ISLAND 0 0 .000 2 4 .333 2-1 0-3 0-0 LOST 1 LEHMAN 0 3 .000 1 4 .200 1-1 0-3 0-0 LOST 4 BARUCH 0 3 .000 0 6 .000 0-1 0-2 0-3 LOST 6 LAST WEEK’S RESULTS PLAYER OF THE WEEK THIS WEEK’S SCHEDULE John Jay 7, Stevens Tech 4 JOHN DECRESCENZO, JOHN JAY Monday, March 26th Farmingdale State 10, Staten Island 3 Sr. / 1B / Telecommunications HS / Brooklyn, NY CCNY @ Yeshiva 7:00 pm Brooklyn Polytechnic 10, Yeshiva 3 *John Jay 6, Baruch 0 The Brooklyn native was unstoppable last week, going 9-for- Tuesday, March 27th *John Jay 12, Baruch 9 16 (.563) with 10 RBI’s and six runs scored in John Jay’s 4-0 Manhattanville @ John Jay 3:00 pm *John Jay 22, Baruch 2 week.
    [Show full text]