DOCSLIB.ORG

C:\Documents and Settings\Ditslear\My Documents\Diss12-1-02A.Wpd

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL PARTICIPATION BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT: INFLUENCES ON THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Corey A. Ditslear, B.A., J.D., M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 2003 Dissertation Committee: Approved by: Professor Lawrence Baum, Adviser Professor Gregory A. Caldeira _____________________________ Adviser Professor Richard Timpone Department of Political Science Copyright by Corey Alan Ditslear 2003 ABSTRACT My dissertation is a study of the influence exerted by the Office of the Solicitor General on the decision-making of the United States Supreme Court. Current models of Supreme Court decision-making place a high or exclusive reliance on ideology as the indicator of how the justices vote. However, research has also shown that the Office of the Solicitor General, the chief attorneys on behalf of the United States government, is significantly more successful before the Court than the average attorney. This success may require modification of the current understanding of the decision-making of the Supreme Court to include an element of influence outside the justices’ ideological preferences. Previous research has focused on the success of the Office of the Solicitor General without delving into whether that success was a result of case selection by the Office of the Solicitor General, congruence of ideologies between the Office of the Solicitor General and the members of the Supreme Court, or some influence by the Office of the Solicitor General. This dissertation explores whether the Office of the Solicitor General’s success is the result of influence on the justices by controlling for the justices’ ideologies and the other potential influences on the justices’ decisions such as public opinion, Congress, state governments, petitioner bias, and the experience of the attorneys for the period of 1953-1999. I find that the Office of the Solicitor General does exert an independent influence on the decisions of the justices that is robust across a ii variety of different subcategories of the data as well as for the entire dataset. The influence of the Office of the Solicitor General is on a par with the impact of the justices’ own ideologies. Thus the influence of the Office of the Solicitor General can completely counter-balance the ideologies of the justices or when added to the impact of the ideologies, can make it virtually impossible for the position espoused by the government to lose. Because of this finding, I have used the subcategories of data to begin to explore the sources of the Office of the Solicitor General’s influence. The subcategories reveal that the sources of the Office of the Solicitor General’s influence include a general bias in favor of the government, variance in issue areas, and case selection by the Office of the Solicitor General. This research suggests that any attempt to model the decisions of the United States Supreme Court must include a component recognizing the influence of the executive branch as represented by the Office of the Solicitor General. iii Dedicated to my wife, Samantha K. Stalnaker, and my sons, Khyrien and Bryce iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank my adviser, Larry Baum, for his guidance, prodding, and encouragement throughout this project, without which I may have spent another 12 years in school. I thank Greg Caldeira for his always skeptical, yet always helpful thoughts on the dissertation. I thank Rich Timpone for his devotion to making me understand the methods I employ better than I thought ever would. I am grateful for the comments and critiques provided by those who attended the Research in American Politics colloquia for which I presented early stages of this material. I am also indebted to Kevin Scott, Scott Menke, Jason Mycoff, Kim Conger, Margie Williams and Ed Hasecke for their camaraderie during graduate school, the almost constant discussion of research ideas and methods, and the cohort support group that I hope will continue long into the future. I am grateful to Jim Brudney for helping me make the transition from lawyer to political science academic. Finally, I pay special thanks to my wife Samantha for allowing me to switch careers in mid-stream and supporting me through some trying times. v VITA October 15, 1969....................................... Born - Tiffin, Ohio 1992.......................................................... B.A. English, The Ohio State University 1995.......................................................... J.D. Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University 2000.......................................................... M.A. Political Science, The Ohio State University 1997 - 2003............................................... Graduate Teaching and Research Assistant The Ohio State University PUBLICATIONS 1. Ditslear, Corey A., Engel v. Vitale, in Carl Singleton, ed., The Sixties in America (Pasadena: Salem Press, 1999). 2. Ditslear, Corey A. and Lawrence Baum. 2001.“Pipelines and Polarization: Selection of Law Clerks and Ideological Behavior”, 63 Journal of Politics 3:869-885. 3. Brudney, James J. and Corey A. Ditslear. 2001. “Designated Diffidence: District Court Judges on the Courts of Appeals.” 35 Law and Society Review 3:565-606. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Political Science vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract................................................................................................................ ii Dedication............................................................................................................ iv Acknowledgments................................................................................................ v Vita....................................................................................................................... vi List of Figures...................................................................................................... ix Chapters: 1. Introduction............................................................................................... 1 2. History and Background of the Office of the Solicitor General............... 13 3. Integrating Theories of Success and Influence with Models of Supreme Court Decision-Making............................................................................ 37 A. Success..................................................................................... 39 B. Influence................................................................................... 52 C. Supreme Court Decision-Making............................................. 60 D. Models and Methods................................................................ 65 1. Dependent Variables..................................................... 68 2. Independent Variables.................................................. 71 4. Finding Success and Influence: Macro-Level Analyses........................... 89 A. Data.......................................................................................... 90 B. Re-analyzing McGuire............................................................. 97 C. Influence Models...................................................................... 103 5. Influence Under a Variety of Circumstances............................................ 120 A. Court Variance Models............................................................ 121 B. Political Variance Models........................................................ 150 C. Case Variance Models.............................................................. 171 D. Office of the Solicitor General Cases...................................... 187 E. Conclusions.............................................................................. 199 vii 6. Conclusions and Future Research............................................................. 201 Appendix A: Alternate Measures of Supreme Court Preferences........................ 211 Appendix B: Modeling Experience Advantage.................................................... 212 Bibliography......................................................................................................... 215 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Solicitors General of the United States (1870-2002)............................... 21 2 United States Government Participation Before the Supreme Court: All Cases, Merits Decisions, and Argued Cases, 1950-1998................... 28 3 Summary of the Success of the Office of the Solicitor General as Petitioner/Appellant Compared to Non-Governmental Petitioners/ Appellants before the Supreme Court on Jurisdictional Questions, 1950-1998................................................................................................. 32 4 Summary of the Success Rate of the Office of the Solicitor General as Petitioner and Respondent in Orally Argued Cases Compared to Other Participants, 1953-1999............................................................................ 34 5 Success Rate of the United States and Federal Agencies as Parties to a Case in Orally Argued Cases Before the Supreme Court, 1953-1994..... 35 6 Hypotheses Posited to Explain the Success of the Office of the Solicitor General before the United States Supreme Court...................... 55 7 Dependent Variables Employed in Chapter 4 and 5 Models.................... 70 8 List of all Variables Used in Models in Chapters 4 and 5 Including Indication of Model, Hypothesis,
Recommended publications
  • Theodore Olson, Conservative Stalwart, to Represent 'Dreamers' In

    Theodore Olson, Conservative Stalwart, to Represent 'Dreamers' In

    Theodore Olson, Conservative Stalwart, to Represent ‘Dreamers’ in Supreme Court By Adam Liptak • Sept. 26, 2019 o WASHINGTON — The young immigrants known as “Dreamers” have gained an unlikely ally in the Supreme Court. Theodore B. Olson, who argued for robust executive power in senior Justice Department posts under Republican presidents, will face off against lawyers from President Trump’s Justice Department in a case over Mr. Trump’s efforts to shut down a program that shields some 700,000 young undocumented immigrants from deportation and allows them to work. In an interview in his office, Mr. Olson said he had generally taken a broad view of presidential authority, particularly in the realm of immigration. “Executive power is important, and we respect it,” he said. “But it has to be done the right way. It has to be done in an orderly fashion so that citizens can understand what is being done and people whose lives have depended on a governmental policy aren’t swept away arbitrarily and capriciously. And that’s what’s happened here.” Mr. Olson has argued 63 cases in the Supreme Court, many of them as solicitor general under President George W. Bush. In private practice, he argued for the winning sides in Bush v. Gore, which handed the presidency to Mr. Bush, and Citizens United, which amplified the role of money in politics. But Mr. Olson disappointed some of his usual allies when he joined David Boies, his adversary in Bush v. Gore, to challenge California’s ban on same-sex marriage. That case reached the Supreme Court and helped pave the way for the court’s 2015 decision establishing a constitutional right to such unions.
  • Conflicts of Interest in Bush V. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally? Richard K

    Conflicts of Interest in Bush V. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally? Richard K

    Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship Spring 2003 Conflicts of Interest in Bush v. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally? Richard K. Neumann Jr. Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship Recommended Citation Richard K. Neumann Jr., Conflicts of Interest in Bush v. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally?, 16 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 375 (2003) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship/153 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES Conflicts of Interest in Bush v. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally? RICHARD K. NEUMANN, JR.* On December 9, 2000, the United States Supreme Court stayed the presidential election litigation in the Florida courts and set oral argument for December 11.1 On the morning of December 12-one day after oral argument and half a day before the Supreme Court announced its decision in Bush v. Gore2-the Wall Street Journalpublished a front-page story that included the following: Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 76 years old, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 70, both lifelong Republicans, have at times privately talked about retiring and would prefer that a Republican appoint their successors.... Justice O'Connor, a cancer survivor, has privately let it be known that, after 20 years on the high court,'she wants to retire to her home state of Arizona ...
  • Bibliography on World Conflict and Peace

    Bibliography on World Conflict and Peace

    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 097 246 SO 007 806 AUTHOR Boulding, Elise; Passions, J. Robert TITLE Bibliography on World Conflict and Peace. INSTITUTION American Sociological Association, Washington, D.C.; Consortium on Peace Research, Education, and Development, Boulder, Colo. PUB DATE Aug 74 NOT? 82p. AVAILABLE FROMBibliography Project, c/o Dorothy Carson, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80302 ($2.50; make checks payable to Boulding Projects Fund) EDRS PRICE MF-$0.75 BC Not Available from !DRS. PLUS POSTAGE DESCRIPTORS Bibliographies; *Conflict Resolution; Development; Disarmament; Environment; *Futures (of Society); *Global Approach; Instructional Materials; International Education; international Law; International Organizations; *Peace; Political Science; Social Action; Systems Approach; *World Affairs IDENTIFIERS *Nonviolence ABSTRACT This bibliography is compiled primarily in response to the needs of teachers and students in the new field of conflict and peace studies, defined as the analysis of the characteristics of the total world social system which make peace more probable. The introduction includes some suggestions on how to use the bibliography, sources of literature on war/peace studies, and a request to users for criticisms and suggestions. Books, monographs, research reports, journal articles, or educational materials were included when they were:(1) related to conflict management at every social level,(2) relevant to nonviolence, and (3) classic statements in an academic specialization, such as foreign policy studies when of particular significance for conflict studies. A subject guide to the main categories of the bibliography lists 18 major topics with various numbered subdivisions. Th%. main body of the bibliography lists citations by author and keys this to the topic subdivisions.
  • Teaching About Big Money in Elections: to Amend Or Not to Amend the U.S

    Teaching About Big Money in Elections: to Amend Or Not to Amend the U.S

    Social Education 76(5), pp 236–241 ©2012 National Council for the Social Studies Teaching about Big Money in Elections: To Amend or Not to Amend the U.S. Constitution? James M. M. Hartwick and Brett L. M. Levy “Politics has become so expensive that it takes a lot of money even to be defeated.” — Will Rogers (1879–1935) Last summer, California and Massachusetts became the sixth and seventh states— activity is independent of the candidates’ along with Hawaii, New Mexico, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Maryland—to send a campaigns. These cases led to the rise resolution to the U.S. Congress calling for a constitutional amendment to (1) end the of “superPACs.” As long as they do not court’s extension of personhood rights to corporations, and (2) enable the government coordinate with campaigns and do not to definitively regulate campaign finances. This fall, with the bipartisan support of contribute directly to the candidates, its Democratic governor and Republican lieutenant governor, Montana is asking superPACs can raise unlimited funds voters to consider a referendum advising Montana’s congressional delegation to sup- from corporations, non-profits, unions, port such a constitutional amendment. Meanwhile, the current Congress has already and individuals and may spend those considered more than a dozen resolutions to amend the Constitution to strengthen funds to promote their favored political Congress’s ability to limit corporate funding of election activities, and 20 states have candidate or cause. In addition, non-prof- introduced similar resolutions.1 its, like “social welfare” groups (501 [c][4] s), may engage in unlimited non-coordi- Political support is growing.
  • Hamdan V. Rumsfeld: Establishing a Constitutional Process

    Hamdan V. Rumsfeld: Establishing a Constitutional Process

    S. HRG. 109–1056 HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD: ESTABLISHING A CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JULY 11, 2006 Serial No. J–109–95 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 43–111 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Nov 24 2008 11:01 Apr 27, 2009 Jkt 043111 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\43111.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware MIKE DEWINE, Ohio HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JOHN CORNYN, Texas CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois TOM COBURN, Oklahoma MICHAEL O’NEILL, Chief Counsel and Staff Director BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director (II) VerDate Nov 24 2008 11:01 Apr 27, 2009 Jkt 043111 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\43111.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC C O N T E N T S STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin, pre- pared statement ..................................................................................................
  • 60459NCJRS.Pdf

    60459NCJRS.Pdf

    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov.1 1 ------------------------ 51st Edition 1 ,.' Register . ' '-"978 1 of the U.S. 1 Department 1 of Justice 1 and the 1 Federal 1 Courts 1 1 1 1 1 ...... 1 1 1 1 ~~: .~ 1 1 1 1 1 ~'(.:,.:: ........=w,~; ." ..........~ ...... ~ ,.... ........w .. ~=,~~~~~~~;;;;;;::;:;::::~~~~ ........... ·... w.,... ....... ........ .:::" "'~':~:':::::"::'«::"~'"""">X"10_'.. \" 1 1 1 .... 1 .:.: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .:~.:.:. .'.,------ Register ~JLst~ition of the U.S. JL978 Department of Justice and the Federal Courts NCJRS AUG 2 1979 ACQlJ1SfTIOI\fS Issued by the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 'U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1978 51st Edition For sale by the Superintendent 01 Documents, U.S, Government Printing Office WBShlngton, D.C. 20402 Stock Number 027-ootl-00631Hl Contents Par' Page 1. PRINCIPAL OFFICERFI OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1 II. ADMINISTRATIV.1ll OFFICE Ul"ITED STATES COURTS; FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 19 III. THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY; UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS AND MARSHALS. • • • • • • • 23 IV. FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS 107 V. ApPENDIX • • • • • • • • • • • • • 113 Administrative Office of the United States Courts 21 Antitrust Division . 4 Associate Attorney General, Office of the 3 Attorney General, Office of the. 3 Bureau of Prisons . 17 Civil Division . 5 Civil Rights Division . 6 Community Relations Service 9 Courts of Appeals . 26 Court of Claims . '.' 33 Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 33 Criminal Division . 7 Customs Court. 33 Deputy Attorney General, Offico of. the 3 Distriot Courts, United States Attorneys and Marshals, by districts 34 Drug Enforcement Administration 10 Federal Bureau of Investigation 12 Federal Correctional Institutions 107 Federal Judicial Center • .
  • Rex E. Lee Conference on the Office of the Solicitor General of the United States

    Rex E. Lee Conference on the Office of the Solicitor General of the United States

    BYU Law Review Volume 2003 | Issue 1 Article 1 3-1-2003 Rex E. Lee Conference on the Office of the Solicitor General of the United States Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview Part of the Law and Politics Commons, and the Legal Profession Commons Recommended Citation Rex E. Lee Conference on the Office ofh t e Solicitor General of the United States, 2003 BYU L. Rev. 1 (2003). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview/vol2003/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Brigham Young University Law Review at BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in BYU Law Review by an authorized editor of BYU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PANEL-FULL-FIN 2/15/2003 4:02 PM IN MEMORY OF REX E. LEE (1937–1996) Not long after former Solicitor General Rex E. Lee died, the Committee of the National Association of Attorneys General held its annual meeting in Washington, D.C. All fifty state attorneys general attended the meeting, which was held at the Supreme Court. During a question and answer period, Justice David Souter was asked how advocacy before the high court had changed in recent times. Justice Souter paused for a moment and answered, “Well, I can tell you that the biggest change by far is that Rex Lee is gone. Rex Lee was the best Solicitor General this nation has ever had, and he is the best lawyer this Justice ever heard plead a case in this Court.
  • Litigation Department of the Year Competition

    Litigation Department of the Year Competition

    americanlawyer.com JANUARY 2010 SPECIAL ISSUE THIS IS Our FIFTH BIEnnIAL Litigation Department of the Year competition. It has be- come a cliché to note that we’ve never had a tougher time picking finalists and winners from the scores of submissions. Nevertheless, it’s true. The last two years have been a time of unprec- edented upheaval for American businesses—and for the lawyers who serve them. To quote a part- ner from one of our finalist firms, the economic meltdown resulted not just in litigation, but in conflagration. The firms we chose in the overall contest and in the three practice area competi- tions—product liability, labor and employment, and intellectual property—didn’t just survive this trial by fire. They were forged into stronger, faster, smarter litigation departments. As before, we invited every firm in The Am Law 200 to report on litigation activities in a 19- month period, this time January 1, 2008–July 31, 2009. Every submission was read by at least three American Lawyer journalists. We vetted the strongest entries with calls to clients and op- posing counsel. Panels of reporters and editors picked finalists in each category and invited those firms to our offices in New York to plead their cases. At the end, we arrived at the results that follow: four winners, 12 runners-up, and 24 honorable mentions. Congratulations to all of them. —ALISON FRANKEL GIBSON DUNN Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Game Changers When other firms and conventional strategies come up short, By David Bario clients in deep trouble turn to Gibson Dunn for fresh, aggressive thinking and innovative rescues.
  • Office of Solicitor General

    Office of Solicitor General

    THE JOURNAL OF APPELLATE PRACTICE AND PROCESS THE OFFICE OF SOLICITOR GENERAL PREFACE If any legal position warrants the appellation, "the appellate lawyer's lawyer," it is that of Solicitor General. Seth Waxman, himself a former Solicitor General, has pointed out that "the office of the Solicitor General of the United States is a wonderful and unique creation,"' noting that only the holder of that office, among all the officers of the federal government, is required by statute to be "learned in the law." 2 President after president has complied with that instruction: The list of Solicitors General that follows this preface includes the names of some of this country's most distinguished lawyers. There may even be those who think of the Solicitors General as a corps of immortals, for as Waxman discovered, "[s]ome 60 years ago, a letter found its way into the United States mail addressed simply 'The Celestial General, Washington, D.C." 3 The inadequacy of the address notwithstanding, the Post Office "apparently had no trouble discerning to whom it should be delivered. It went to Robert H. 1. Seth P. Waxman, Speech, Presenting the Case of the United States As It Should Be: The Solicitor General in Historical Context (address to the Supreme Court Historical Society, Washington, June 1, 1998) at I (available at <http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/about osg/sgarticle.html>). 2. Id. 3. Id. THE JOURNAL OF APPELLATE PRACTICE AND PROCESS Vol. 3, No. 2 (Fall 2001) THE JOURNAL OF APPELLATE PRACTICE AND PROCESS Jackson, then Solicitor General of the United States." 4 Waxman is quick to point out that neither he nor any of his predecessors had "pretensions of other-worldliness," but he does acknowledge that they "have all been fortunate to have been able to serve in what Thurgood Marshall called 'the best job I've ever had." We in the law can see that it is indeed a special job, for the Solicitor General is the only lawyer who, as Francis Biddle put it, "has no master to serve except his country." 6 The responsibilities of the job are great, but so are the rewards.
  • 1 the Problematic Legacy Of

    1 the Problematic Legacy Of

    THE PROBLEMATIC LEGACY OF JUDGE JOHN HANDLEY: R. GRAY WILLIAMS, THE GENERAL EDUCATION BOARD, AND PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION IN WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA, 1895-1924 By Kenneth W. Rose Assistant Director Rockefeller Archive Center 15 Dayton Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York 10591-1598 [email protected] © 2008 by Kenneth W. Rose An illustrated version of this essay was published in the Winchester-Frederick County Historical Society Journal, Volume 25 (2003), which can be ordered online at http://www.winchesterhistory.org/Qstore/Qstore.cgi Editor's Note: This research report is presented here with the author’s permission but should not be cited or quoted without the author’s consent. Rockefeller Archive Center Research Reports Online is a periodic publication of the Rockefeller Archive Center. Edited by Ken Rose and Erwin Levold under the general direction of the Center's Executive Director, Darwin H. Stapleton, Research Reports Online is intended to foster the network of scholarship in the history of philanthropy and to highlight the diverse range of materials and subjects covered in the collections at the Rockefeller Archive Center. The reports are drawn from essays submitted by researchers who have visited the Archive Center, many of whom have received grants from the Archive Center to support their research. The ideas and opinions expressed in this report are those of the author and are not intended to represent the Rockefeller Archive Center. INTRODUCTION When the John Handley School opened in Winchester, Virginia in the fall of 1923, the impressive structure and its carefully landscaped grounds were the culmination of a process that began in 1895 with the death of Judge John Handley of Scranton, Pennsylvania, a man who had never lived in the city that was to benefit from his fortune.
  • Supreme Court Nomination - Letters to the President” of the Richard B

    Supreme Court Nomination - Letters to the President” of the Richard B

    The original documents are located in Box 11, folder “Supreme Court Nomination - Letters to the President” of the Richard B. Cheney Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Copyright Notice The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Digitized from Box 11 of the Richard B. Cheney Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library .§n:prtlttt <!Jomt trf tltt ,-mtt.b- .§taftg Jfu£tittghtn. Jl. <!}. 2tl~'!~ CHAMBERS OF THE CHIEF .JUSTICE November 10, 1975 GONFiDEUTI:A:f::t Dear Mr. President: Against the possibility that a vacancy may occur on the Court there are certain factors, not always present when vacancies occur, that deserve consideration and I venture to submit them to you privately for such utility as they may have. (1) Rarely have the geographical factors been as neutral as at present. As you know, the two youngest Justices are from the West (White and Rehnquist); there are three from the Midwest (Burger, Stewart, Blackmun); one from a border state, Maryland (Marshall); one from the Northeast (Brennan); and one from the South (Powell).
  • 1939 Journal

    1939 Journal

    — — I OCTOBEE TEEM, 1939 STATISTICS Original Appellate Total Number of cases on docket _ _ 15 1, 063 1, 078 Cases disposed of __ 4 942 946 Remaining on docket 11 121 132 Cases disposed of By written opinions 151 By per curiam opinions 97 By denial or dismissal of petitions for certiorari 690 By motion to dismiss or per stipulation 8 Number of written opinions 137 Number of admissions to bar 1,016 REFERENCE INDEX Page. Butler, J., death of, announced 73 Butler, J., resolutions of the Bar presented by Attorney Gen- eral Jackson 242 Murphy, J., commission read and oath taken (February 5, 1940) . 146 Eobert H. Jackson, Attorney General, presented his Commis- sion 126 Francis Biddle, Solicitor General, presented 126 Proceedings commemorating 150th Anniversary of Court (February 1, 1940) 136 Address of Attorney General Jackson 136 Address of Charles A. Beardsley, President of American Bar Association 139 Address of the Chief Justice 141 Advisory Committee requested to submit amendments to Eules of Civil Procedure 54 Administrative Office of United States Courts Henry P. Chandler appointed Director 75 Elmore Whitehurst appointed Assistant Director 54 Transfer of appropriations 54,221 Allotment of Justices 158 181208—40 98 — II Page. Disbarment, In the matter of Clyde H. Walker 34 Anna L. Cooke 34,81 David B. Getz 35,81 Walter C. Balderston 46 French B. Loveland (failure to reply to Clerk's communi- cations) 81, 109, 115 Rules of Supreme Court—Rule 41 amended 192 Regulations prescribed in reference to appeals from Court of Claims appearing in 210 U. S.