Today in Supreme Court History

Today in Supreme Court History: July 18, 1942

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

7/18/1942: Justice George Sutherland dies.

Justice George Sutherland

Advertisement

NEXT: Capitalism Trumps Hate

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. He had been retired for four years. This is not a part of Supreme Court history.

    July 18, 2016: Obama Administration petitions the 4-4 deadlocked Supreme Court for rehearing on its attempt to put into executive order an immigration reform which Republicans had formulated and supported but then rejected when it was time for a vote. The petition pointed out the necessity of decision on this festering issue and asked for rehearing as soon as a ninth justice is seated. This was four months after Merrick Garland was nominated. As often, Obama was assuming that Republicans would be responsible adults. Or maybe he knew the petition was doomed and was creating a paper trail for posterity.

    He taught Con Law at the most prestigious law school in his home state, so I assume he knew more about the issue than some people here.

    1. Funny how such a distinguished constitutional lawyer got beat back several times, unanimously, by the Supreme Court, for violations of the Constitution.

      1. I figure Republicans have nominated approximately three-quarters of the most recent 15 or 20 Supreme Court justices. A strong dose of superstition-laced backwardness and old-timey intolerance is to be expected.

        I sense that trend may begin to change next year.

      2. Which cases besides Noel Canning are you talking about? Republicans say this a lot, and when you look at their examples, again other than Noel Canning, it’s all cases that have little do with his policies or decisions personally and would have probably been argued the same by a Republican President. They involve criminal cases that would never ever be argued differently by a Republican admin, or things involving independent agencies or regulatory programs and actions that existed long before Obama took action. I mean they’ll cite Jones v United States (2012) for this idea as if that was somehow something the government would have argued differently under a Republican President. Hint: it’s absolutely not. Or Bond v. United States, as if it’s Obama making charging decisions in the Eastern District of PA (and on the main constitutional question, he won: the Court didn’t overrule Holland v. Missouri.) Or be like Sackett means Obama is particularly lawless…for defending that Bush EPA decision! Same with Hosana-Tabor and the EEOC issue that had existed since before 2008.

        It’s a ridiculous talking point.

        1. Less ridiculous than calling Obama a constitutional scholar or professor.

            1. No. Mainly because I’m not allowed to use cases since 1996.

          1. Well he did teach Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago. And because he wasn’t in a tenure track position doing research full-time I’ll concede he’s not really a “scholar.” If you want to make the pedantic and Blackman-esque distinction between a “professor” and “lecturer/instructor” you can, but I don’t see using them interchangeably as a colloquial matter as ridiculous. I never addressed any non-tenure track faculty as “lecturer” “instructor” or “adjunct professor.” I just said “professor.” I mean would you ever really correct someone saying “so and so is my favorite professor” with “ACKSHUALLY THEY’RE A NON TENURE TRACK SENIOR INSTRUCTOR NOT A PROFESSOR!!!”

            1. Neither you nor I said “professor”.

              Whatever he was, Obama taught at that law school for 12 years.

              1. Apparently his students got ripped off. Did he preach incorrectly, or did he not practice what he preached?

                12 years, 1 year, a lifetime — the Supreme Court told him he didn’t know the Constitution very well.

                1. Why would you denigrate an objectively impressive resume?
                  1. Because he’s black
                  2. Can’t think of another reason.

                  1. This guy is a disaffected, downscale, right-wing bigot, captcrisis. There is no point to searching for anything else to explain this.

                2. Lol. No they didn’t. I already destroyed that lame claim earlier.

  2. It’s always interesting to read such articles. I wonder if you know how to setup parental controls on windows 10. Ask me anything about it if you want.

Please to post comments