The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Today in Supreme Court History
I have now posted 366 installments of "Today in Supreme Court History," one for each day of the past year (including February 29). Finding something SCOTUS-related for every day of the calendar was complicated.
There were some easy dates to find:
- Dates on which famous Supreme Court cases were argued and decided.
- Dates on which the Justices were born, confirmed, took the oath, resigned, or died.
- Dates on which Presidents nominated a Justice to the Supreme Court.
Those dates filled up about half of the calendar. But there were huge gaps--especially over the summer, when the Court and the Senate are usually not in session.
Next, I moved to more creative Supreme Court connections: I searched the Supreme Court cases database on Westlaw for specific dates, like "September 6" or "July 9." Then I went through hundreds of entries to find specific facts in a case that referenced that date. I tried to only include cases that were well-known. Even with this approach, I still had dozens of empty date.
Next, I got even more resourceful. I looked through the chronology of the Constitutional Convention, which stretched through the summer of 1787, as well as the subsequent ratification process. I also referenced the publication date of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. I also added dates from the ratification process of the twenty-seven amendments. Admittedly, these events are more tangentially related to the Supreme Court. Yet, I still had some blanks.
Next, I looked at the dates of birth, death, and inauguration of the Presidents. Then I referenced the Justices that President would ultimately appoint to the Supreme Court.
Finally, I had about a dozen or so slots left. I simply added fun facts about American history that bear no real relationship to the Supreme Court. I welcome any suggestions of dates to add.
I have become fond of this feature, and received some favorable feedback. I will restart it tomorrow. On October 7, 1982, I.N.S. v. Chadha was argued.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Given how many dates appear to be inconsequential in Supreme Court History, perhaps you should expand the aegis, and reference "this day in law" instead of trying to find something each day that relates to the Supreme Court, and coming up empty, having to settle for something only tangentially related to the Supreme Court. You still get to have a topical post each day, and it looks less like you're looking for a reason to post something every day. Switching focus from the Supreme Court to law in general, you can pick from significant state cases, district cases, or even foreign cases and stay on-topic.
I like that = "This day in law"
That does open things up a lot.
"I simply added fun facts about American history that bear no real relationship to the Supreme Court."
Ah. OK, good to know you don't really think some of this stuff is Supreme court history.
While mentioning specific cases is probably the norm for professionals in the legal profession, who ought to know about the particulars of specific cases, it is somewhat frustrating for us lay people who have not studied the law.
A sentence or two about the principle that was decided would be helpful to those of us who might be interested in learning more.
You've been through this cycle twice. Numerous times readers have alerted you to more significant Supreme Court developments on that date (such as the death of Justice Ginsburg) instead of the irrelevant trivia you choose to post, and have not taken up on even one of them.
Also much of the time when you cite a Supreme Court decision you misstate its holding, or its importance.
And any law student would be embarrassed by the frequency of getting the dates wrong, or misspelling the names.
Prof. Blackman is clearly not worried about being embarrassed.
Georgetown and South Texas deserve better from those who appropriate their franchises.
I'd argue that the date I.N.S. v. Chadha and its companion cases was decided was the more important date, but possibly something else decided that day was more important. But this one is an (are) interesting case(s) so I'm glad its somewhere.
"received some favorable feedback."
Well played.
Perhaps the best since this one.
"I have become fond of this feature, and received some favorable feedback."
Yeah - thanks for the kind words, Mom. Feedback comes in comment form. I rarely see comments under most of these posts.
"I rarely see comments under most of these posts."
Its just one negative stalker mainly.
He didn't say it was in the the post's comments.
Maybe it comes from Canada.
Those Noble Prizes (awarded for achievement in identifying error in "Today In Supreme Court History") seem widely distributed.
Please stop posting when "NOTHING HAPPENED TODAY. (GO OUTSIDE AND PLAY)."
One of the purposes of "today in (whatever)" postings is to have a reason to post something everyday. That gets your name out there and builds the brand.