DOCSLIB.ORG

President Roosevelt and the Supreme Court Bill of 1937

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
President Roosevelt and the Supreme Court Bill of 1937 President Roosevelt and the Supreme Court bill of 1937 Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Hoffman, Ralph Nicholas, 1930- Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 26/09/2021 09:02:55 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/319079 PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT AND THE SUPREME COURT BILL OF 1937 by Ralph Nicholas Hoffman, Jr. A Thesis submitted to the faculty of the Department of History and Political Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in the Graduate College, University of Arizona 1954 This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the Library to be made avail­ able to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without spec­ ial permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the dean of the Graduate College when in their judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other in­ stances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. SIGNED: TABLE.' OF.GOWTENTS Chapter / . Page Ic PHEYIOUS CHALLENGES TO THE JODlClMXo , V . 1 IT. THE COURT BILL, '■ :e;• e X L »'L . L = a . 39 Ille THE COIBT CONTROY1ESY THROUGH MARCH, 1937 = 6l ; I?, CONTROVERSY TO COMPROMISE, JUNE 3? 1937 ® » 103 . "Vo DEATH OF THE COURT BILL „ L , „ 0 „ » = 6 .-131 VIo ■ CONCLUSIONS FACTORS: AND. FORCES THAT . ' DEFEATED THE COURT BILL L a . .. :. X .X 0 ; o • 0 167 ' BIBLIOGRAPHYo /o: s „ o . o . , » . o-,x> . 187 ' PBESBSEC; BOOSlVSLT AND THE S'WEEMl COURT BIDL vOE 1937 GES.PTER :%■. V • . PSEV10US CHil,LBBGBS :$0 THE JHDICITEY - i ' On November 3? 1936 9 Franklin Do Roosevelt received .an undeniable mandate from the. people of the United States to go ahead with his' New Deal program,. President Roosevelt in­ terpreted this overwhelming approval of the people to mean not only to continue with his New Deal, but also to eliml- : ; : - , .. ' ■ ■ 3 - : r 2 " • - ; ■' ■ nate anything that obstructed its course« In his annual State of the Union message to Congress on January 6 9 1937? the President declared § The Judicial branch also is asked by the people to do its part in making democracy suc­ cessful «> We do not ask the Courts to call non­ existent powers into being? but we have a right to expect that conceded powers or those legiti­ mately implied shall be made effective instru- ments for the common goode - ... ■ . The power of our democracy must not be im­ periled by the denial of essential, powers of free governmento . Your task and mine is not ending with the end of the depression= The people of the United • States have made it clear that they expect us to - 2 ■ . ;• - ■" * * . ■ v - .: World Almanac and- Book of Facts for 1917 (New Yorks: New York: World Telegram?- 1937)7 907, Raymond Moleyv After Seven Years (NeW Yorks Harper and Brothers 9 Publishers ,1939), p »' 3^6. continue otir active efforts in behalf of their. ' peacefifl •advancement o: 3 . - ‘ '' v - Although the people approved: 9 the United: States Supreme Court had disapproved throughout Booseveit's first adminis­ tration?' and by January? 1937> the Court had declared seven . out of nine major.New.Deal laws unconstitutionalo Only the TVA and the abrogation of gold clauses had escaped nullifi­ cation by that' eminent tribunal*t According to some authori­ ties 9 this disagreement was the-result of a struggle for power; that is ? which should be - the supreme legislature 9 the - Congress or the Supreme Court? :: ;The root of the problem has been said to be the wide gap. in sovereignty between the pop­ ularly elected branches and the; Snpreme Court<, ■ Other author­ ities hold that the Court's nullification of New Deal legis- :lation stemmed from its advocating a government under the : Constitution as opposed to a government above the Constitution ' . ■; . New York Times., January 7 „ 19375 P» 2 = ; - . : ^ V. f. U=So Congress9 Senate9 Reorganization of 'the Federal judiciary. Hearings before the Committee on the. Judiciary, UoSo Senate9 :77th Cong. r 1st Sess«? on S 0 bill 1392.? Parts 1-4 (Washlhgtonsv Government Printing; Office ? 1937) ? P° 49. - This does not include all of: the :New Deal Acts.: or parts of acts reviewed or d.eclaped unconstitutional by the Supreme C our t= " '' ' - : / j-;4 f::'. • '...:i;C : Robert Ho Jackson, The Struggle' for Judicial Suprema- . c.y (New Torkf Alfred A,' Nnopf ; %94l) s' pp. viii-Xo .: ;: . : r 6 : a -- lerlo jo. Pussey? The Supreme Court Crisis (New Yorks The.Macmillan Coo 9 1937), pp4 88-105o h The membership of the^ Supreme Court was unaltered dur­ ing Roosevelt's first term9 , The memhers of this Court'have been classified 5 by com­ parison to each- other in the following ways the four conserve tives? Associate Justices? Willis Tan Bevanter, James Co Me Reynolds? George.Sutherland? and Pierce Butler; the two mid- dle-of-the-foadars. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and Associate Justice;Owen Jo Roberts; and the three liberals, Associate Justices, Bouis Do. Brandeis,' Harlan Fo Stone, and .Benjamin No Cardbzoo Hughes and Roberts, either one or both, more often than not voted with the four conservatives? .there­ fore, a majority of the msj or New Deal legislation held, void was by either a five to four or six to three decision. The four conservatives believed strongly in 1alsset faire, un- disturbed property rights, and the sanctity of contracts, The public's reaction to the President’s 11 horse and buggy11 . V ■. ■- • - ' ; i . ' ; ' 9 ' ' press conference of May 31; 193% may have given further in- centive to the Court to continue nullifying New Beal vv.vv ■■■ ■ 7 ' ' - . - • - - - . 1 . ’ n,- , ■ . - . Carl Brent Swisher, American Constitutional Develop­ ment (Boston: .Houghton. Mifflin. Co-,-, 19^3-1 P° 920* 8 . ' ■ v - ; ^ ■ ■■. - - : ■■■ -. - - Alfred Haihes Cope and Fred Krinsky (eds,), Franklin D , Roosevelt and The-Supreme Court (Boston: D, C, Heath and Com- pany, 1992), p, vih 9 " " . ...1 - . _ ■ ' t ' -■ ' :- - New York Times, June 1, 1935s p,71= 'measureso Here was a President? backed by probably tiie largest 1; ' :"- l : /' '' 11' ' : popular mandate ; in Imerican history^ but at- the same time . cbnfronted with a judiciary 3 which threatened:. to ;blqck the • -greater: part of his legislative program'. 'Something::was':^ , • : bound to 'happen, and it dido On February '5<) 1937? Presi­ dent Roosevelt proposed to ;Oo^^eas.a'|feiil:^to-';.r^rganize''":.:. the Judicial branch of the government. With regard to the Supreme Oburt of the United States,, the, bill would allow the /President; to appoint one new justice — not to exceed a total . of fifteeh—=for.each member;oh the Court, who would not re­ tire with full salary within six months after reaching the - .V ''v:' ' ;ii2 fy': d'"'' ' age of seventy years B The problem.of this thesis is to ana­ lyze the. tactics, pressures^ and problems connected with this attempt of President Booseveit: to challenge the judi- cial branch nf the gayernmente; n . - The President’s challenge to the Supreme'Court was ; i , 10 ; ; y ' ' : . p - 'y 'p :„"1; i'-'".' ' ' : - ' ' " ' : . ' > . ' ' Joseph -Alsop and Turner Catledge 9 The 166 Days (Gar- den City: Doubleday, Doran and Coo, Inc6, 1938), ppT"h=7<> -;; .Sears^Family World .Atlas (Chicago § Sears , Boebuck and - . Company, ^ 1953) ? PP° A-29-A=31i y : ^ ■ ;':':'. y v i : .IJ^S o: -Congr 6S s Senate, Congressional Be cor d^ 75 th Cong- - ress,, 1st •Session, LXjIXI ? Part I (Washington:' Government Pfimting Cffiee, a937) 9 880^ i nothing new, and to understand its significance a brief ex­ amination of the origin of judicial;review andpast eontro- .versies, between the judiciary and the two popularly elected branches of goverhnient Is in bhder»; '/ (d / The United States Constituion declares in Article I'll, Section I s . Uy ’; 'v: . ■ '"j' ■■ ' ': ":v u'd. The judicial •power of the UnitediStatesU' • - shall be vested in one Supreme Cbuft, and. inT: \ : such inferidr Courts as_ the Congress may from • . time to time ordain and establish^ 13 .^ffer having listed in Article III, Section II, the types of cases to which the judicial power of the United States shall extendpthe Constitution/states: . : . : In all Cases affecting Ambas s ador s., "other' . public Ministers and/ Consuls, and those in which 1/ , a State shall be a Party, the supreme CoUrt shall have original durisdi-etiono In all other Cases : , before mentioned the supreme Court shall have ■ ap­ pellate Jurisdiction^ both as ,to Law and Fact, , v .with Such Exceptions , and under such Regulations ; • as thevCongre.Ss:shall makc.i iM-. - /■. In Article VI,, the .Constitution affirms §- . ■ t;./ : . ' This Constitution, and the laws of the United /States which shall be ■ made: in 'Pursuance thereof , and all Treaties made9 or which shall be made, / . under the Authority: of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land| and the Judges in .. : every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in /■ ■- The Cbhstltutlon of the United States (Washington: The Haskin,Service, / [Uodoj ) , p, 23« • 14 . • ibid o : ^ : r --.' . : 6 the C?onstitution df-Laws of any State to the . oohtnary.notwithstandinge .15 No clause .canbe found. intheConstituion.which specifical­ ly grants to the Supreme Court the power of judicial re- : ■ - riewc- v " ; V : -X':' -: ' : 6".: Many differences e>f; opinion exist as to the constitu­ tional legality in the origin of judicial, review« .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wheeler and the Montana Press
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1954 The court plan B. K. Wheeler and the Montana press Catherine Clara Doherty The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Doherty, Catherine Clara, "The court plan B. K. Wheeler and the Montana press" (1954). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 8582. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/8582 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TfflS OOCTBT PLAN, B. K. WHEELER AND THE MONTANA PRESS by CATHERINE C. DOHERTY B. A. , Montana State University, 1953 Presented In partial fulfillment ef the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY 1954 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: EP39383 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI OisMftaebn Ajbliehing UMI EP39383 Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
    [Show full text]
  • University Microfilms. Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan the UNIVERSITY of OKLAHOMA
    This dissertation has been 65-12,998 microfilmed exactly as received MATHENY, David Leon, 1931- A COMPAEISON OF SELECTED FOREIGN POLICY SPEECHES OF SENATOR TOM CONNALLY. The University of Oklahoma, Ph.D., 1965 ^eech-Theater University Microfilms. Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE A COMPARISON OP SELECTED FOREIGN POLICY SPEECHES OF SENATOR TOM CONNALLY A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY DAVID LEON MATHENY Norman, Oklahoma 1965 A COMPARISON OP SELECTED FOREXON POLICY SPEECHES OP SENATOR TOM CONNALLY APPROVED BY L-'iJi'Ui (^ A -o ç.J^\AjLôLe- DISSERTATION COMMITTEE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express thanks to Professor Wayne E. Brockriede and members of the University of Oklahoma Speech Faculty for guidance during the preparation of this dissertation. A special word of thanks should go to Profes­ sor George T. Tade and the Administration of Texas Christian University for encouragement during the latter stages of the study and to the three M's — Mary, Melissa and Melanie — for great understanding throughout the entire project. TABLE OP CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS..................................... Ill Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ......................... 1 Purpose of the S t u d y ..................... 6 Previous Research......................... 8 Sources of Material....................... 9 Method of Organization ................... 10 II. CONNALLY, THE SPEAKER....................... 12 Connally's Non-Congresslonal Speaking Career.......... 12 General Attributes of Connally's Speaking............................... 17 Conclusion . ........................... 31 III. THE NEUTRALITY ACT DEBATE, 1939............. 32 Connally's Audience for the Neutrality Act Debate.............. 32 The Quest for Neutrality ............ 44 The Senate, Connally and Neutrality.
    [Show full text]
  • Committee on Appropriations UNITED STATES SENATE 135Th Anniversary
    107th Congress, 2d Session Document No. 13 Committee on Appropriations UNITED STATES SENATE 135th Anniversary 1867–2002 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 2002 ‘‘The legislative control of the purse is the central pil- lar—the central pillar—upon which the constitutional temple of checks and balances and separation of powers rests, and if that pillar is shaken, the temple will fall. It is...central to the fundamental liberty of the Amer- ican people.’’ Senator Robert C. Byrd, Chairman Senate Appropriations Committee United States Senate Committee on Appropriations ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, TED STEVENS, Alaska, Ranking Chairman THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ANIEL NOUYE Hawaii D K. I , ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania RNEST OLLINGS South Carolina E F. H , PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ATRICK EAHY Vermont P J. L , CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri OM ARKIN Iowa T H , MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky ARBARA IKULSKI Maryland B A. M , CONRAD BURNS, Montana ARRY EID Nevada H R , RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama ERB OHL Wisconsin H K , JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire ATTY URRAY Washington P M , ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah YRON ORGAN North Dakota B L. D , BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado IANNE EINSTEIN California D F , LARRY CRAIG, Idaho ICHARD URBIN Illinois R J. D , KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas IM OHNSON South Dakota T J , MIKE DEWINE, Ohio MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JACK REED, Rhode Island TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, Staff Director CHARLES KIEFFER, Deputy Staff Director STEVEN J. CORTESE, Minority Staff Director V Subcommittee Membership, One Hundred Seventh Congress Senator Byrd, as chairman of the Committee, and Senator Stevens, as ranking minority member of the Committee, are ex officio members of all subcommit- tees of which they are not regular members.
    [Show full text]
  • Edward Douglas White: Frame for a Portrait Paul R
    Louisiana Law Review Volume 43 | Number 4 Symposium: Maritime Personal Injury March 1983 Edward Douglas White: Frame for a Portrait Paul R. Baier Louisiana State University Law Center Repository Citation Paul R. Baier, Edward Douglas White: Frame for a Portrait, 43 La. L. Rev. (1983) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol43/iss4/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. V ( TI DEDICATION OF PORTRAIT EDWARD DOUGLASS WHITE: FRAME FOR A PORTRAIT* Oration at the unveiling of the Rosenthal portrait of E. D. White, before the Louisiana Supreme Court, October 29, 1982. Paul R. Baier** Royal Street fluttered with flags, we are told, when they unveiled the statue of Edward Douglass White, in the heart of old New Orleans, in 1926. Confederate Veterans, still wearing the gray of '61, stood about the scaffolding. Above them rose Mr. Baker's great bronze statue of E. D. White, heroic in size, draped in the national flag. Somewhere in the crowd a band played old Southern airs, soft and sweet in the April sunshine. It was an impressive occasion, reported The Times-Picayune1 notable because so many venerable men and women had gathered to pay tribute to a man whose career brings honor to Louisiana and to the nation. Fifty years separate us from that occasion, sixty from White's death.
    [Show full text]
  • CDIR-2018-10-29-VA.Pdf
    276 Congressional Directory VIRGINIA VIRGINIA (Population 2010, 8,001,024) SENATORS MARK R. WARNER, Democrat, of Alexandria, VA; born in Indianapolis, IN, December 15, 1954; son of Robert and Marge Warner of Vernon, CT; education: B.A., political science, George Washington University, 1977; J.D., Harvard Law School, 1980; professional: Governor, Commonwealth of Virginia, 2002–06; chairman of the National Governor’s Association, 2004– 05; religion: Presbyterian; wife: Lisa Collis; children: Madison, Gillian, and Eliza; committees: Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; Budget; Finance; Rules and Administration; Select Com- mittee on Intelligence; elected to the U.S. Senate on November 4, 2008; reelected to the U.S. Senate on November 4, 2014. Office Listings http://warner.senate.gov 475 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510 .................................................. (202) 224–2023 Chief of Staff.—Mike Harney. Legislative Director.—Elizabeth Falcone. Communications Director.—Rachel Cohen. Press Secretary.—Nelly Decker. Scheduler.—Andrea Friedhoff. 8000 Towers Crescent Drive, Suite 200, Vienna, VA 22182 ................................................... (703) 442–0670 FAX: 442–0408 180 West Main Street, Abingdon, VA 24210 ............................................................................ (276) 628–8158 FAX: 628–1036 101 West Main Street, Suite 7771, Norfolk, VA 23510 ........................................................... (757) 441–3079 FAX: 441–6250 919 East Main Street, Richmond, VA 23219 ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Instrumental Role of Congressman Hatton Sumners in the Resolution of the 1937 Court-Packing Crisis, 54 UIC J
    UIC Law Review Volume 54 Issue 2 Article 1 2021 “What I Said Was ‘Here Is Where I Cash In’”: the Instrumental Role of Congressman Hatton Sumners in the Resolution of the 1937 Court-Packing Crisis, 54 UIC J. Marshall L. Rev. 379 (2021) Josiah Daniel III Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Josiah M. Daniel III, “What I Said Was ‘Here Is Where I Cash In’”: the Instrumental Role of Congressman Hatton Sumners in the Resolution of the 1937 Court-Packing Crisis, 54 UIC J. Marshall L. Rev. 379 (2021) https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview/vol54/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UIC Law Open Access Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in UIC Law Review by an authorized administrator of UIC Law Open Access Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. “WHAT I SAID WAS ‘HERE IS WHERE I CASH IN’”: THE INSTRUMENTAL ROLE OF CONGRESSMAN HATTON SUMNERS IN THE RESOLUTION OF THE 1937 COURT- PACKING CRISIS JOSIAH M. DANIEL, III* I. THE CONGRESSMAN’S “CASH IN” UTTERANCE UPON DEPARTING THE WHITE HOUSE ON FEBRUARY 5, 1937 ... 379 II. HATTON W. SUMNERS’S LIFE AND CONGRESSIONAL CAREER ......................................................................................... 384 III. THE NEW DEAL’S LITIGATION PROBLEM AND PRESIDENT FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT’S PROPOSED COURT-PACKING SOLUTION ........................................................................ 393 IV. SUMNERS’S TWO JUDICIAL BILLS AS BOOKENDS TO THE CRISIS .............................................................................. 401 a. March 1, 1937: The Retirement Act ....................... 401 b. August 24, 1937: The Intervention Act .................
    [Show full text]
  • INFORMATION to USERS This Manuscript Has Been Reproduced
    INFO RM A TIO N TO U SER S This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI film s the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be fromany type of con^uter printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependentquality upon o fthe the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and inqjroper alignment can adverse^ afreet reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note wiD indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one e3q)osure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photogr^hs included inoriginal the manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for aiy photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI direct^ to order. UMJ A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA 313.'761-4700 800/521-0600 LAWLESSNESS AND THE NEW DEAL; CONGRESS AND ANTILYNCHING LEGISLATION, 1934-1938 DISSERTATION presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Robin Bernice Balthrope, A.B., J.D., M.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Elections Have Consequences
    LIBERTYVOLUME 10 | ISSUE 1 | March 2021 WATCHPOLITICS.LIVE. BUSINESS. THINK. BELIBERTY. FREE. ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES BETTER DAYS AHEAD George Harris CENSORSHIP & THE CANCEL CULTURE Joe Morabito JUST SAY “NO” TO HARRY REID AIRPORT Chuck Muth REPORT: SISOLAK’S EMERGENCY POWERS LACK LEGAL AUTHORITY Deanna Forbush DEMOCRATS WANT A 'RETURN TO CIVILITY'; WHEN DID THEY PRACTICE IT? Larry Elder THE LEFT WANTS UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER, NOT UNITY Stephen Moore THE WORLD’S LARGEST CANNABIS SUPERSTORE COMPLEX INCLUDES RESTAURANT + MORE! Keep out of reach of children. For use only by adults 21 years of age and older. LIBERTY WATCH Magazine The Gold Standard of Conservatism. Serving Nevada for 15 years, protecting Liberty for a lifetime. LIBERTYWATCHMagazine.com PUBLISHER George E. Harris [email protected] EDITOR content Novell Richards 8 JUST THE FACTS George Harris ASSOCIATE EDITORS BETTER DAYS AHEAD Doug French [email protected] 10 FEATURE Joe Morabito Mark Warden CENSORSHIP & THE CANCEL CULTURE [email protected] 11 MILLENNIALS Ben Shapiro CARTOONIST GET READY FOR 4 YEARS Gary Varvel OF MEDIA SYCOPHANCY OFFICE MANAGER 12 MONEY MATTERS Doug French Franchesca Sanchez SILVER SQUEEZE: DESIGNERS IS THAT ALL THERE IS? Willee Wied Alejandro Sanchez 14 MUTH'S TRUTHS Chuck Muth JUST SAY “NO” TO HARRY REID AIRPORT CONTRIBUTING WRITERS John Fund 18 COVER Doug French ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES Thomas Mitchell Robert Fellner 24 COUNTERPUNCH Victor Davis Hanson Nicole Maroe Judge Andrew P. Napolitano 26 LEGAL BRIEF Deanna Forbush Ben
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Supreme Court History
    Journal of Supreme Court History THE SUPREME COURT HISTORICAL SOCIETY THURGOOD MARSHALL Associate Justice (1967-1991) Journal of Supreme Court History PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr. Chairman Donald B. Ayer Louis R. Cohen Charles Cooper Kenneth S. Geller James J. Kilpatrick Melvin I. Urofsky BOARD OF EDITORS Melvin I. Urofsky, Chairman Herman Belz Craig Joyce David O'Brien David J. Bodenhamer Laura Kalman Michael Parrish Kermit Hall Maeva Marcus Philippa Strum MANAGING EDITOR Clare Cushman CONSULTING EDITORS Kathleen Shurtleff Patricia R. Evans James J. Kilpatrick Jennifer M. Lowe David T. Pride Supreme Court Historical Society Board of Trustees Honorary Chairman William H. Rehnquist Honorary Trustees Harry A. Blackmun Lewis F. Powell, Jr. Byron R. White Chairman President DwightD.Opperman Leon Silverman Vice Presidents VincentC. Burke,Jr. Frank C. Jones E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr. Secretary Treasurer Virginia Warren Daly Sheldon S. Cohen Trustees George Adams Frank B. Gilbert Stephen W. Nealon HennanBelz Dorothy Tapper Goldman Gordon O. Pehrson Barbara A. Black John D. Gordan III Leon Polsky Hugo L. Black, J r. William T. Gossett Charles B. Renfrew Vera Brown Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. William Bradford Reynolds Wade Burger Judith Richards Hope John R. Risher, Jr. Patricia Dwinnell Butler William E. Jackson Harvey Rishikof Andrew M. Coats Rob M. Jones William P. Rogers William T. Coleman,1r. James 1. Kilpatrick Jonathan C. Rose F. Elwood Davis Peter A. Knowles Jerold S. Solovy George Didden IIJ Harvey C. Koch Kenneth Starr Charlton Dietz Jerome B. Libin Cathleen Douglas Stone John T. Dolan Maureen F. Mahoney Agnes N. Williams James Duff Howard T.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAIRMEN of SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES [Table 5-3] 1789–Present
    CHAIRMEN OF SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES [Table 5-3] 1789–present INTRODUCTION The following is a list of chairmen of all standing Senate committees, as well as the chairmen of select and joint committees that were precursors to Senate committees. (Other special and select committees of the twentieth century appear in Table 5-4.) Current standing committees are highlighted in yellow. The names of chairmen were taken from the Congressional Directory from 1816–1991. Four standing committees were founded before 1816. They were the Joint Committee on ENROLLED BILLS (established 1789), the joint Committee on the LIBRARY (established 1806), the Committee to AUDIT AND CONTROL THE CONTINGENT EXPENSES OF THE SENATE (established 1807), and the Committee on ENGROSSED BILLS (established 1810). The names of the chairmen of these committees for the years before 1816 were taken from the Annals of Congress. This list also enumerates the dates of establishment and termination of each committee. These dates were taken from Walter Stubbs, Congressional Committees, 1789–1982: A Checklist (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985). There were eleven committees for which the dates of existence listed in Congressional Committees, 1789–1982 did not match the dates the committees were listed in the Congressional Directory. The committees are: ENGROSSED BILLS, ENROLLED BILLS, EXAMINE THE SEVERAL BRANCHES OF THE CIVIL SERVICE, Joint Committee on the LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, LIBRARY, PENSIONS, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS, RETRENCHMENT, REVOLUTIONARY CLAIMS, ROADS AND CANALS, and the Select Committee to Revise the RULES of the Senate. For these committees, the dates are listed according to Congressional Committees, 1789– 1982, with a note next to the dates detailing the discrepancy.
    [Show full text]
  • Master Pages
    Master Pages 15 • Be Careful With My Court Legitimacy, Public Opinion, and the Chief Justices SHAWN C. FETTIG AND SARA C. BENESH On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court announced its decision in National Federation of Independent Business et al. v. Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services et al., upholding the Affordable Care Act by a vote of 5-4. Chief Justice John Roberts read his majority opinion. Almost immediately, political scientists and pundits alike began dissecting the opinion and the reason for Chief Justice Roberts’s vote. Public approval of the Court, as noted by the media, was at its lowest levels ever as the Court prepared to hear the case.1 Many argued that the Court’s legitimacy weighed heavily on Roberts as he considered the case, with CBS News reporting that Roberts, as chief justice, “is keenly aware of his leadership role on the court, and he also is sensitive to how the court is perceived by the public.”2 “To be sure,” wrote New York Times reporter Adam Liptak, “the chief justice considers himself the custodian of the Supreme Court’s prestige, authority, and le- gitimacy, and he is often its voice in major cases.”3 He reprised the role in King v. Burwell, the 6- 3 decision announced almost exactly one year later upholding the subsidies associated with the health care exchanges.4 There, Rosen argued, the chief used the case’s reason to confer legitimacy. Judicial restraint, Rosen suggests, drove the chief’s decision, for “In a polarized age, it is important for the Supreme Court to maintain its institutional legiti- macy by deferring to the political branches.”5 We know that the Court is influenced by public opinion and the Court’s decisions are often in line with it.6 We also know that judicial legitimacy is fairly widespread and relatively stable,7 and that it is drawn from diffuse 374 Ward.indd 374 2/12/2016 2:30:33 PM Master Pages Be Careful With My Court • 375 support, a “reservoir of good will,”8 that is resilient and resistant to signifi- cant fluctuation.
    [Show full text]
  • Exten,Sions O·F Remark.S Hon. Ralph Yarborough
    February 16, 1970 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 3443 Aerographer James R. Dunlap George E. Meacham AMBASSADORS Joe E. McKinzie Morris E. Elsen Charles G. Morgan Jerome H. Holland, of Virginia, to be Am­ Clifford A. Froelich James D. Palmer bassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Photographer John W. Gebhart John W. Pounds, Jr. of the United States of America to Sweden. Kenneth R. Kimball William C. Griggs Ronald W. Robillard Robert Strausz-Hupe, of Pennsylvania, to Donald F. Sheehan Oran L. Houck Allen R. Shuff be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipo­ Joseph A. Hughes Kenneth M. St. Clair, tentiary of the United States of America to Civil Engineer Corps Paul B. Jacovelli Jr. Ceylon, and to serve concurrently and with­ Jerry G. Havner David H. Kellner Gerard R. Steiner out additional compensation as Ambassador Cecil W. Lovette, Jr. Marlene Marlitt Harold B. St. Peter Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Warrant Officer Edward G. Torres to be a *Michael T. Marsh Ronald J. Uzenoff United States of America to the Republic permanent chief warrant officer W-3 in the John A. Mattox Jerry E. Walton of Maldives. Joseph E. McClanahan Ervin B. Whitt, Jr. Navy in the classification of electrician, sub­ IN THE DIPLOMATIC AND FOREIGN SERVICE ject to the qualification therefor as provided James W. McHale William J . York Charles A. McPherronJohn A. Zetes The nominations beginning Keith E. Adam· by law. son, to be a Foreign Service information offi­ Warrant Officer Charles L. Boland, Jr., to •John A. Balikowski (civilian college gradu­ be a permanent chief warrant officer W-4 in ate) to be a permanent Lieutenant and a cer of class 1, and ending Harvey M.
    [Show full text]