DOCSLIB.ORG

A Brief History of the Politics of Supreme Court Appointments Calvin R

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Brief History of the Politics of Supreme Court Appointments Calvin R University of California, Hastings College of the Law UC Hastings Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship 1991 Getting There: A Brief History of the Politics of Supreme Court Appointments Calvin R. Massey UC Hastings College of the Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Courts Commons Recommended Citation Calvin R. Massey, Getting There: A Brief History of the Politics of Supreme Court Appointments, 19 Hastings Const. L.Q. 1 (1991). Available at: http://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship/492 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Faculty Publications UC Hastings College of the Law Library Author: Calvin R. Massey Source: Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly Citation: 19 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. 1 (1991). Title: Getting There: A Brief History of the Politics of Supreme Court Appointments Originally published in HASTINGS CONSTITUTIONAL LAW QUARTERLY. This article is reprinted with permission from HASTINGS CONSTITUTIONAL LAW QUARTERLY and University of California, Hastings College of the Law. COMMENTARY Getting There: A Brief History of the Politics of Supreme Court Appointments by CALVIN R. MASSEY* The history of Supreme Court nominations is replete with contro- versy, acrimony, and partisan politics. Approximately one of every five nominees has failed. Twelve of the 29 failed nominations were rejected outright by the Senate. The remaining nominees either withdrew or their nominations were postponed by Senate parliamentary maneuvers until a new President assumed office. I will review this history by dividing it into the following four relevant categories: (1) failed nominations; (2) controversial but successful nominations; (3) instances in which-the Pres- ident nominated the Senate's choice; and (4) instances in which the Presi- dent has let the Court (or an individual Justice) dictate the choice. The historical account which follows is not exhaustive;1 rather, it is a some- what impressionistic account designed to place the current battles over nominations to the Court in perspective. Vendors of history are often asked to justify their wares in terms of their contemporary significance or utility. I have anticipated that de- mand by providing, in my conclusion, some thoughts about the lessons that may be drawn from this history and by proposing that nominations to the Court be confirmed only upon the approval of two-thirds of the Senators present and voting. * Professor of Constitutional Law, University of California, Hastings College of the Law. 1. For a thorough account, see HENRY J. ABRAHAM, JUSTICES AND PRESIDENTS: A POLITICAL HISTORY OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE SUPREME COURT (2d ed. 1985). For an- other useful summary, containing a valuable tabular record of nominations to the Court and their disposition, see LAURENCE H. TRIBE, GOD SAVE THIS HONORABLE COURT (1985). HeinOnline -- 19 Hastings Const. L.Q. 1 1991-1992 HASTINGS CONSTITUTIONAL LAW QUARTERLY [Vol. 19:1 I. Failed Nominations Nominees have failed for a variety of reasons, but the following have been the most common: opposition to the President, not necessarily the nominee; opposition to the nominee's political views; and doubts about the ability or integrity of the nominee. A. Opposition to the President Candidates for the Court are rejected based on general opposition to the President when the President is politically vulnerable for reasons un- related to the nomination process. A few examples will illustrate this point. The election of 1824 produced no clear victor. Although Andrew Jackson received the most electoral votes, he failed to obtain a majority. As a consequence, the election was determined by a vote of the House of Representatives, which selected John Quincy Adams to be President by a very slim margin. The election was the product of a bargain struck be- tween Adams and Kentucky's Whig Senator Henry Clay. Clay delivered the critical votes to elect Adams as President, and Adams made Clay his Secretary of State. As a result, Adams was politically wounded from the beginning of his Presidency. Thus, although Adams nominated Ken- tucky's former Whig Senator John Crittenden to the Court in December 1828, it was predictable that loyal Democrats in the Senate would want to reserve the appointment for the incoming Andrew Jackson, elected the month before. The Senate did nothing until February 1829, when by a strictly partisan vote of 23 to 17 it postponed consideration of Crit- tenden's nomination. A month later Andrew Jackson assumed the Presi- dency and Crittenden's candidacy was ended. In all of this Crittenden was almost irrelevant; the contestants were Jacksonian Democrats and a lame duck President. In 1840 the Whigs achieved presidential success with the election of the fusion ticket of Whig stalwart General William Henry Harrison as President and the former Democratic Senator from Virginia, John Tyler, who had broken with Andrew Jackson and the Democrats over the nulli- fication crisis and the Force Bill, as Vice President. Barely a month into his term, Harrison died and Tyler assumed the Presidency. Tyler lacked a personal political base and was suspected by congressional Whigs, led by Senator Henry Clay, of being more of a Democrat than a true Whig. These suspicions were quickly fueled when Tyler twice vetoed a favorite HeinOnline -- 19 Hastings Const. L.Q. 2 1991-1992 Fall 1991] HISTORY OF SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENTS 3 Whig project, revival of the Bank of the United States.2 When two vacancies on the Court developed, and Tyler was con- fronted with a Whig majority in the Senate, the result was predictable. Tyler's first nominee, John Spencer, was a veteran Whig who had held two cabinet posts under Tyler, but who had incurred the implacable en- mity of Henry Clay. Thus, "it was with more ease than the rejection vote of 21:26 indicates that the Clay faction succeeded in blocking Spencer." 3 Tyler then sent up Reuben Walworth, a sitting New York judge who was opposed by both the Senate Whigs and the two Democratic Senators from New York.4 The Senate voted to postpone Walworth's nomination and the also pending nomination of Judge Edward King, "a distin- guished Philadelphia lawyer and legal scholar."5 It was mid-summer and the Whigs scented electoral victory in No- vember. It would be far better for these seats to be filled by the grand old man of Whiggery, a newly inaugurated President Henry Clay, than by the pseudo-Whig John Tyler. Tyler would not quit easily, however. The Whig strategy had backfired in November, for Democrat James Polk had defeated Clay and the vacant Court seats were sure to be filled by a Dem- ocratic President. Reasoning that he ought to be the President filling the vacancies, Tyler renominated King in December but the Senate simply ignored the nomination. Tyler tried twice more, sending up the distinguished and eminent Samuel Nelson, Chief Justice of the highest court of appeal in New York, and John Meredith Read, a former United States Attorney from Phila- delphia with supporters in both the Whig and Democratic camps. The Senate quickly confirmed Nelson, probably on the basis of his profes- sional stature, but adjourned without ever acting on Read's nomination. Tyler thus acquired the dubious record of making six nominations with only one success. His failures are attributable to his low political for- tunes - as an apparent Democrat and accidental successor to a Whig President confronting a powerful Whig adversary in the form of Henry Clay - rather than to evident deficiencies in his nominees. Lame duck Presidents, for obvious reasons, have fared poorly with Court nominations. In 1852 and early 1853, a Democratic Senate re- fused to consider Whig Millard Fillmore's nomination of Senator George Badger and two others in order to preserve the seats for the incoming 2. ROBERT V. REMINI, ANDREW JACKSON AND THE COURSE OF AMERICAN DEMOC- RACY, 1833-1845, at 475-76 (1984). 3. ABRAHAM, supra note 1, at 105. 4. Id. at 28, 105. 5. Id. at 105. HeinOnline -- 19 Hastings Const. L.Q. 3 1991-1992 HASTINGS CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OUARTERLY [Vol. 19:1 Democratic President, Franklin Pierce. Badger's case was particularly touchy, for it required the Senate to spurn one of its own members, which the Senate did by a one vote margin.6 After Lincoln's election, in December 1860 James Buchanan nominated his Attorney General, Jer- emiah Black, and watched the Senate reject him by a single vote7 because Republican Senators wanted to keep the seat for Lincoln. Andrew Johnson found himself in a political situation akin to that of John Tyler - an accidental successor to a President from a different party - but with both passions and political stakes greatly enlarged by the end of the Civil War. Unless Johnson had administered the Presi- dency as dictated by the Radical Republicans in the Congress it is hard to imagine how he could have had success with any nomination to the Court. Johnson nominated his able Attorney General, Henry Stanbery, but Radical Republicans in the Senate not only blocked the nomination but abolished the seat and, for good measure, provided that the next va- cancy would be abolished as well. "[I]t is doubtful that the Senate would have approved God himself had he been nominated by Andrew Johnson." 8 When Grover Cleveland reassumed the Presidency after Benjamin Harrison's interregnum, he attempted to fill the vacancy created by the death of New York's Samuel Blatchford with another New Yorker, Wl- liam Homblower, a 42 year old corporate lawyer. Cleveland failed to anticipate the reaction of New York's powerful Democratic Senator David Hill.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reminiscences of the United States Supreme Court
    YALE LAW JO URNAL. REMINISCENCES OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. On motion of Reverdy Johnson, at one time Attorney-General and afterward Senator in Congress from Maryland, I was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court in 1865. Salmon P. Chase was then Chief Justice, and the associates were James M. Wayne, Robert C. Grier, Noah H. Swayne, David Davis, Samuel Nelson, Nathan Clifford, Samuel F. Miller and Stephen J. Field. All of these, ex- cepting Justice Field,* are now dead. I was in Washington at the inauguration of Franklin Pierce in 1853 and attended some of the sessions of the Supreme Court at that time. That court then con- sisted of Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice; John McLean, James M. Wayne, John Catron, Peter V. Daniel, Samuel Nelson, Robert C. Grier, Benjamin R. Curtis and John A. Campbell, associates, none of whom are now living. I never saw Taney, Catron or Daniel afterward, and have no very distinct impressions as to Catron or Daniel, but Chief Justice Taney was a noticeable man and his ap- pearance is still daguerreotyped upon my memory. He was a tall, angular and exceedingly slim man. Apparently there was little or no flesh upon his bones and his face was deeply furrowed by the ravages of time. His eyes surmounted by shaggy eyebrows were deeply set under a remarkably low forehead. There was a rough and rugged distinctness about all his features. He was appointed Chief Justice in 1836 and died in office when he was 88 years old. He was 8o years of age when he delivered the opinion of the court in the celebrated Dred Scott case.
    [Show full text]
  • Ross E. Davies, Professor, George Mason University School of Law 10
    A CRANK ON THE COURT: THE PASSION OF JUSTICE WILLIAM R. DAY Ross E. Davies, Professor, George Mason University School of Law The Baseball Research Journal, Vol. 38, No. 2, Fall 2009, pp. 94-107 (BRJ is a publication of SABR, the Society for American Baseball Research) George Mason University Law and Economics Research Paper Series 10-10 This paper can be downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Network at http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=1555017 **SABR_BRJ-38.2_final-v2:Layout 1 12/15/09 2:00 PM Page 94 BASEBALL AND LAW A Crank on the Court The Passion of Justice William R. Day Ross E. Davies here is an understandable tendency to date the Not surprisingly, there were plenty of other baseball Supreme Court’s involvement with baseball fans on the Court during, and even before, the period Tfrom 1922, when the Court decided Federal covered by McKenna’s (1898–1925), Day’s (1903–22), Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Pro- and Taft’s (1921–30) service. 13 Chief Justice Edward D. fessional Base Ball Clubs —the original baseball White (1894–1921) 14 and Justices John Marshall Har - antitrust-exemption case. 1 And there is a correspon - lan (1877–1911), 15 Horace H. Lurton (1910–14), 16 and ding tendency to dwell on William Howard Taft—he Mahlon Pitney (1912–22), 17 for example. And no doubt was chief justice when Federal Baseball was decided 2— a thorough search would turn up many more. 18 There is, when discussing early baseball fandom on the Court.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidents Worksheet 43 Secretaries of State (#1-24)
    PRESIDENTS WORKSHEET 43 NAME SOLUTION KEY SECRETARIES OF STATE (#1-24) Write the number of each president who matches each Secretary of State on the left. Some entries in each column will match more than one in the other column. Each president will be matched at least once. 9,10,13 Daniel Webster 1 George Washington 2 John Adams 14 William Marcy 3 Thomas Jefferson 18 Hamilton Fish 4 James Madison 5 James Monroe 5 John Quincy Adams 6 John Quincy Adams 12,13 John Clayton 7 Andrew Jackson 8 Martin Van Buren 7 Martin Van Buren 9 William Henry Harrison 21 Frederick Frelinghuysen 10 John Tyler 11 James Polk 6 Henry Clay (pictured) 12 Zachary Taylor 15 Lewis Cass 13 Millard Fillmore 14 Franklin Pierce 1 John Jay 15 James Buchanan 19 William Evarts 16 Abraham Lincoln 17 Andrew Johnson 7, 8 John Forsyth 18 Ulysses S. Grant 11 James Buchanan 19 Rutherford B. Hayes 20 James Garfield 3 James Madison 21 Chester Arthur 22/24 Grover Cleveland 20,21,23James Blaine 23 Benjamin Harrison 10 John Calhoun 18 Elihu Washburne 1 Thomas Jefferson 22/24 Thomas Bayard 4 James Monroe 23 John Foster 2 John Marshall 16,17 William Seward PRESIDENTS WORKSHEET 44 NAME SOLUTION KEY SECRETARIES OF STATE (#25-43) Write the number of each president who matches each Secretary of State on the left. Some entries in each column will match more than one in the other column. Each president will be matched at least once. 32 Cordell Hull 25 William McKinley 28 William Jennings Bryan 26 Theodore Roosevelt 40 Alexander Haig 27 William Howard Taft 30 Frank Kellogg 28 Woodrow Wilson 29 Warren Harding 34 John Foster Dulles 30 Calvin Coolidge 42 Madeleine Albright 31 Herbert Hoover 25 John Sherman 32 Franklin D.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare Books & Special Collections Tarlton Law Library University Of
    Rare Books & Special Collections Tarlton Law Library University of Texas at Austin 727 E. 26th St., Austin, Texas 78705-3224 512/471-7263 SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS RESEARCH FILES, 1823-1955, Bulk 1860-1939 Inventory Date printed: SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS RESEARCH FILES Inventory Extent: 1.25 linear ft. (3 boxes). Frank, John P., 1917-2002- John P. Frank, a noted attorney and constitutional scholar, was born in 1917. He received his LL.B. at the University of Wisconsin, and his J.S.D. from Yale University. He was law clerk to Justice Hugo L. Black at the October, 1942 term, among other prominent positions. He taught law from 1946 to 1954 at Indiana and Yale Universities. He has authored 12 books on the Supreme Court, the Constitution and constitutional law. A senior partner with the Phoenix firm of Lewis and Roca, which he joined in 1954, Frank was lead counsel on the ground-breaking Miranda v. Arizona case, and served as counsel to Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. While serving on the Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure, Frank led a group that worked on drafting revisions to Rule 11 attorney sanctions. Frank also served from 1960 to 1970 on the Advisory Committee of Civil Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States. Scope and Content: The collection consists of research into U.S. Supreme Court nominations of the 19th and 20th centuries, and includes 8 inches of printed materials and 7 microfilm reels (35mm), 1823-1939 (bulk 1860-1939), collected by Frank, for a research project concerning Supreme Court nominations.
    [Show full text]
  • 2007-2008 Annual Review
    School for Advanced Research on the Human Experience A GALAXY OF THOUGHT Annual Review 2007–2008 SCHOOL FOR ADVANCED RESEARCH ON THE HUMAN EXPERIENCE SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO ANNUAL REVIEW 2008 In Memory of Richard Canon 1940–2008 The School for Advanced Research gratefully acknowledges the very generous support of the Paloheimo Foundation for publication of this report. The Foundation’s grant honors the late Leonora Paloheimo and her mother, Leonora Curtin, who served on the Board of Managers of the School from 1933 to 1972. CONTENTS President’s Message: A Galaxy of Thought 4 Poet-in-Residence: Malena Mörling 34 A Constellation of Programs 6 The Poetics of the Human Experience 34 REFLECTION IMAGINATION Resident Scholar: Silvia Tomášková 8 Short Seminar: Women’s Empowerment for Health 36 SAR Press: The Chaco Experience 9 SAR Press: New Landscapes of Inequality 37 Visiting Research Associate: Monica L. Smith 10 SAR Press: The Gender of Globalization 38 Visiting Research Associate: James E. Snead 10 Advanced Seminar: Archaeology and Public Policy 39 SAR Press: The Hohokam Millennium 11 SAR Press: Opening Archaeology 40 Resident Scholar: Tiya Miles 12 Short Seminar: Archaeology and Sustainability 41 SAR Press: Small Worlds 13 Visiting Research Associate: Tutu Alicante: 41 The Pecos Conference 14 Michael S. Currier Environmental Service Short Seminar: Modernity and the Voice 14 Award Ceremony 42 SAR Press: Kenneth Chapman’s Santa Fe 15 Santa Fe Science Writers’ Workshop 42 SAR Press: Santa Fe: A History 16 SITE Santa Fe Biennial at SAR 43 SAR Prize Session in Dublin 17 Short Seminar: Indians and Energy 44 New Mexico Heritage Preservation Alliance Conference 17 PUBLIC OUTREACH AND EDUCATION ATTENTION Public Lectures: Humans in a Changing Landscape 46 J.
    [Show full text]
  • Does Eliminating Life Tenure for Article Iii Judges Require a Constitutional Amendment?
    DOW & MEHTA_03_15_21 (DO NOT DELETE) 3/17/2021 6:41 PM DOES ELIMINATING LIFE TENURE FOR ARTICLE III JUDGES REQUIRE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT? DAVID R. DOW & SANAT MEHTA* ABSTRACT Beginning in the early 2000s, a number of legal academicians from across the political spectrum proposed eliminating life tenure for some or all Article III judges and replacing it with a term of years (or a set of renewable terms). These scholars were largely in agreement such a change could be accomplished only by a formal constitutional amendment of Article III. In this Article, Dow and Mehta agree with the desirability of doing away with life tenure but argue such a change can be accomplished by ordinary legislation, without the need for formal amendment. Drawing on both originalism and formalism, Dow and Mehta begin by observing that the constitutional text does not expressly provide for lifetime tenure; rather, it states that judges shall hold their office during good behavior. The good behavior criterion, however, was not intended to create judicial sinecures for 20 or 30 years, but instead aimed at safeguarding judicial independence from the political branches. By measuring both the length of judicial tenure among Supreme Court justices, as well as voting behavior on the Supreme Court, Dow and Mehta conclude that, in fact, life tenure has proven inconsistent with judicial independence. They maintain that the Framers’ objective of insuring judicial independence is best achieved by term limits for Supreme Court justices. Copyright © 2021 David R. Dow & Sanat Mehta. * David Dow is the Cullen Professor at the University of Houston Law Center; Sanat Mehta, who graduated magna cum laude from Rice University in 2020 with a degree in computer science and a minor in Politics, Law, and Social Thought, is a data analyst at American Airlines.
    [Show full text]
  • “Mcconnell Majorities” in Supreme Court Decision-Making
    PRESIDENT-SHOPPING FOR A NEW SCALIA: THE ILLEGITIMACY OF “MCCONNELL MAJORITIES” IN SUPREME COURT DECISION-MAKING J. Stephen Clark* WASHINGTON, June 29—By the slimmest of margins, the Supreme Court today ended its decades of protecting abortion rights and overruled Roe v. Wade,1 the 1973 decision that established abortion as a constitutional right.2 The breaking news one day in June 2019 is the demise of Roe v. Wade. By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court has overruled the precedent and left the protection of abortion rights to the sole discretion of lawmakers. There had been no majority for such a decision until President Trump had the chance to make two appointments to the Court. One of those appointees wrote the majority opinion. Perhaps fittingly, the author of the opinion was the successor to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who strove for this goal more vigorously than any member of the Court since 1973. Of course, every supporter of abortion rights realizes that the Trump appointee now sits on the High Court only because President Obama’s nominee for the same seat was ignored by the Senate for eleven months. The overruling of Roe is directly traceable to that stonewalling and its mastermind—the majority leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Why should supporters of abortion rights accept the legitimacy of a Court decision handed down by a bare majority that owes its fifth vote to Mitch McConnell’s Supreme Court Justice? The answer is that they would not, nor should they. Contrary to McConnell’s repeated claims, his posture of determined inaction * Professor of Law, Albany Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • Abington School District V. Schempp 1 Ableman V. Booth 1 Abortion 2
    TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 Bill of Rights 66 Birth Control and Contraception 71 Abington School District v. Schempp 1 Hugo L. Black 73 Ableman v. Booth 1 Harry A. Blackmun 75 Abortion 2 John Blair, Jr. 77 Adamson v. California 8 Samuel Blatchford 78 Adarand Constructors v. Peña 8 Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell 79 Adkins v. Children’s Hospital 10 Bob Jones University v. United States 80 Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl 13 Boerne v. Flores 81 Advisory Opinions 15 Bolling v. Sharpe 81 Affirmative Action 15 Bond v. United States 82 Afroyim v. Rusk 21 Boumediene v. Bush 83 Age Discrimination 22 Bowers v. Hardwick 84 Samuel A. Alito, Jr. 24 Boyd v. United States 86 Allgeyer v. Louisiana 26 Boy Scouts of America v. Dale 86 Americans with Disabilities Act 27 Joseph P. Bradley 87 Antitrust Law 29 Bradwell v. Illinois 89 Appellate Jurisdiction 33 Louis D. Brandeis 90 Argersinger v. Hamlin 36 Brandenburg v. Ohio 92 Arizona v. United States 36 William J. Brennan, Jr. 92 Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing David J. Brewer 96 Development Corporation 37 Stephen G. Breyer 97 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition 38 Briefs 99 Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority 38 Bronson v. Kinzie 101 Assembly and Association, Freedom of 39 Henry B. Brown 101 Arizona v. Gant 42 Brown v. Board of Education 102 Atkins v. Virginia 43 Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association 104 Automobile Searches 45 Brown v. Maryland 106 Brown v. Mississippi 106 Bad Tendency Test 46 Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company 107 Bail 47 Buchanan v.
    [Show full text]
  • Mr. Justice Stanton by James W
    At Sidebar Mr. Justice Stanton by James W. Satola I love U.S. Supreme Court history. Sometimes, the more arcane the better. So, for my At Sidebar con- tribution, I want to share a little bit of what I love.1 Perhaps calling to mind the well-known story behind Marbury v. Madison, here is a lesser-known story of a presidential commission not delivered on time (though in this case, it was not anyone’s fault). The story of Mr. Justice Edwin M. Stanton.2 James W. Satola is an As one walks through the Grand Concourse of attorney in Cleveland, Ohio. From 2010 to the Ohio Supreme Court building in Columbus, Ohio 2016, he served as (officially, the Thomas J. Moyer Ohio Judicial Center, an FBA Circuit Vice which had a first life as the “Ohio Departments Build- President for the Sixth ing,” opening in 1933, then restored and reopened as Circuit, and from 2002 the home of the Ohio Supreme Court in 2004), one’s to 2003, he was Presi- dent of the FBA Northern eye is drawn to nine large bronze plaques mounted District of Ohio Chapter. on the East Wall, each showcasing one of the U.S. © 2017 James W. Satola. Supreme Court justices named from Ohio.3 This story All rights reserved. is about the fourth plaque in that series, under which reads in brass type on the marble wall, “Edwin Mc- Masters Stanton, Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1869-1869.” Justice Stanton? One finds no mention of “Justice Stanton” among the lists of the 113 men and women who have served on the Supreme Court of the United States.
    [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]
  • THE POLITICAL CAREER of JAMES A. FARLEY by .Eaplene Swind^Man a Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT of HISTORY In
    The political career of James A. Farley Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Swindeman, Earlene, 1941- 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 01/10/2021 10:23:49 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/317993 THE POLITICAL CAREER OF JAMES A. FARLEY by .Eaplene Swind^man A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS . In The Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfill­ ment of requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknow­ ledgment 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 his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the inter­ ests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, per­ mission must be obtained from the author. SIGNED APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR This thesis has been approved on the date shown below: y Herman Bateman V Dkte Professor of History ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author expresses foremost appreciation to her advisors Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Catholic Conscience and the Defense of Dr. Mudd by Lorle Porter (Concluded, from Vol
    Vol. XXXVI, No. 12 December, 2011 The Catholic Conscience and the Defense of Dr. Mudd By Lorle Porter (Concluded, from Vol. XXXVI, No. 11) And his adopted brother William T. Sherman was being puffed as a presidential candidate–the last thing either man needed was association with the political “hot potato” of the day. Prosecutors such as the posturing and violent Ohioan John Bingham, were prepared to use their roles in the trial as political launching pads. Defense attorneys could look forward to nothing but vilification. Attempting to explain Ewing’s decision to join the defense, a 1980 television docudrama The Ordeal of Dr. Mudd, would depict a sequence in which General Ewing, walking down a Georgetown street, overheard a frantic Frances Mudd pleading with an attorney to defend her husband. The following scene showed Mrs. Mudd praying in a non- denominational church, only to be approached by General Ewing with an offer to help. Queried as to why a Union officer would undertake the case, Ewing Dr. Samuel Mudd merely quoted his grandfather’s admonition to follow (Libraryof Congress) an honorable path in life. The scene is fictional, if not In what would become the final month of totally implausible, given Ewing’s “lofty ideals.” the war, March, 1865, Tom Ewing went to However, if placed in a Catholic church, the scene Washington to submit his military resignation to would have been credible, especially in a symbolic Abraham Lincoln, a personal friend. His brother sense. At heart, Ewing undertook the case to defend Bub (Hugh Boyle) was back at Geisborough helping a man of his community.
    [Show full text]