The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Today in Supreme Court History: August 6, 1792
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
In other supreme(ly important) court news, Rebekah Jones the HTML jockey is embarrassing herself. Along with all the people who repeated her claims. Again.
https://weartv.com/news/local/judge-disqualifies-rebekah-jones-from-running-for-florida-district-1-seat
It's amazing how much crazy she fits into a five-pound bag.
Today in Supreme Court History, August 6, 2022.
100% the fault of the pro-criminal scumbag lawyer profession keeping criminals alive.
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/virtual-kidnappings-wealthy-elite-entertainment-1392918/
In re Equitable Office Bldg. Corp., 72 S.Ct. 1086 (decided August 6, 1946): bankruptcy trustee's plan of reorganization had been accepted by the Bankruptcy Court. Application to Justice Reed to stay consummation of the plan by two previously unobjecting stockholders who had found a refinancer with better terms. Reed holds that the lower court's refusal to modify the plan was not discretionary and, citing Bankruptcy Code provisions as to appealability, grants stay. (Business was refinanced in 1947, though it later sold the building which, built in 1915, still stands, at 120 Broadway, downtown Manhattan. Full of law firms. I've been there many times. Big, old, echo-ey bathrooms. Some big, old, echo-ey lawyers too.)
During his brief tenure on the Court, Johnson was simultaneously serving as a commissioner of the three-member Board of Commissioners of the Federal City which governed the nation's capital in those days.
The concept of a separation between the executive and judiciary was slow to develop in the Early Republic. President George Washington sent Chief Justice John Jay to England to negotiate issues unresolved by the 1783 Paris peace treaty between the U.S. and Britain, resulting in the unpopular "Jay's Treaty". Upon his return to the United States, Jay learned that he had, in abstentia, been elected governor of New York, so he resigned from the Court to serve in that office.
President John Adams sent Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth to Paris to negotiate an end to the Quasi-War between the U.S. and France. While in Paris, Ellsworth became gravely ill, forcing him to resign from the Court. Adam's Secretary of State, John Marshall, would succeed Ellsworth as Chief Justice, but would simultaneously continue to serve as Secretary of State during the last month of the Adams administration. It was Marshall, in his capacity as Secretary of State, who failed in his responsibility to deliver William Marbury his commission as a justice of the peace. When Marbury sued Marshall's successor, James Madison, demanding delivery of his commission, it was, of course, Marshall, in a gross conflict of interest, who would decide the dispute between Marbury and Madison.
That was the first case in our Property textbook. It confused us. Law professors like to play “cute”. It’s an ego trip for them.
Quoting from that landmark case: "Conquest gives a title which the Courts of the conqueror cannot deny".
Democrat sues Democrat over simple ballot qualification issue, and to you it's "ultra-Inside Baseball of right-wing media scandal".
You are the most sad. Always.
What a wonderful lesson to inculcate into law students their first day of class!
Also he had male privilege, it's right there in his name.
Some aspirational words follow. "Humanity, however, acting on public opinion, has established, as a general rule, that the conquered shall not be wantonly oppressed, and that their condition shall remain as eligible as is compatible with the objects of the conquest." However, the general rule was not suitable for the "fierce savages" of America. Is the Bluebook style going to require a parenthetical trigger warning for this case?