Today in Supreme Court History: March 15, 1933

3/15/1933: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's birthday.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Bakery Sales Drivers Local Union No. 33 v. Wagshal, 333 U.S. 437 (decided March 15, 1948): A deli changed bakeries because its drivers would deliver only at noon. (This seems odd to me. I grew up in a deli, and later delivered to delis, and this is a b-a-d time for deliveries, with the lunch crowd waiting for their sandwiches. Bakery goods, such as rolls and bagels, are usually delivered in early morning, for obvious reasons.) Anyway -- the bakery drivers' union refused to let any of its members service the deli and picketed; the deli sued in District Court under the Norris-LaGuardia Act and got an injunction stopping any interference with the deli's business. Here, the Court notes that this was not a "labor dispute" such as allows review of the injunction under the Act. (Faced with the injunction, the union lifted the boycott and reason prevailed.)

Eccles v. People's Bank of Lakewood Village, Cal., 333 U.S. 426 (decided March 15, 1948): bank not entitled to declaratory judgment as to lack of conflict of interest after Federal Reserve had already approved admission after investigation of possible improper stock buy-up cleared it

The Antelope, 25 U.S. 546 (decided March 15, 1827): Spaniards entitled to reclaim Africans which already belonged to them despite seizure of vessel under Slave Trade Act

Radio and Television Broadcast Technicians Local 1264 v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255 (decided March 15, 1965): NLRB preempts state court intervention of picket of radio station having less than statutory minimum $100,000 in gross receipts, where it was part of larger radio network

Alabama v. Texas, 347 U.S. 272 (decided March 15, 1954): Congress has plenary power to give land to some states and not others (such as under Submerged Lands Act of 1953) and states cannot question it

United States v. Evans, 333 U.S. 483 (decided March 15, 1948): dismissing indictment for harboring illegal aliens because the statute is so unclear as to what penalty applies ("The choice is not simply between no penalty, at the one extreme, and, at the other, fine plus imprisonment up to the specified maxima for each alien concealed or harbored. The problem is rather one of multiple choice, presenting at least three, and perhaps four, possible yet inconsistent answers on the statute's wording")

Woods v. Stone, 318 U.S. 442 (decided March 15, 1943): one-year statute of limitations for government to recoup excess rent (in violation of wartime price controls), where due to owner's failure to register property excess rent escaped the attention of authorities, began to run from the date of order of recoupment, not from the date when excess rents were collected

Walters v. City of St. Louis, Mo., 347 U.S. 231 (decided March 15, 1954): not denial of Equal Protection to treat self-employment income differently from wage income for tax purposes

Federal Power Commission v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 347 U.S. 239 (decided March 15, 1954): hydroelectric provider could set off rent paid to owners of upstream water rights from surplus earnings for the purposes of amortization reserve

Phelps v. Oaks, 117 U.S. 236 (decided March 15, 1886): for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, federal courts are not bound by state law as to who is real party in interest

[John F. Carr]

Under the law current in Phelps v. Oaks a plaintiff suing under state law had to sue in state court then petition to have his case removed to federal court. There was no right to directly invoke diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff from Pennsylvania sued defendant from Missouri. After removal, another Pennsylvania resident intervened as a defendant. In modern terminology, does intervention by a non-diverse defendant require the federal court to remand the case to state court? The Supreme Court allowed the case to remain in federal court despite such intervention.

[Dan Schiavetta]

If it’s an “indispensable party” who has to be joined, and it destroys diversity, then remand. FRCP 19.

Another thing that’s changed is a remand order is not appealable, with some narrow exceptions.

[SRG]

My guess is Walter is what states and Feds rely on to explain why, although fictitious persons have a much more generous tax regime than natural persons, it's not unconstitutional.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yeah Ruthie. Vain and super egotistical. Thanks for all you did for the unborn.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and thanks to Ruth Sent Us her effect is still being felt.

[wolfefan]

She led the legal fight to stop government-forced abortions for women in the military. Many of the unborn would offer her their thanks.

[Bob from Ohio]

"government-forced abortions "

Or discharge

"Many of the unborn would offer her their thanks."

Now, yes, after Dobbs. But in 1970 there were only 41,479 women on active duty. How many got pregnant and choose an abortion [mainly illegal] over discharge?

Sure, the 10 babies born instead of being aborted should be pleased.

Then Ruthie helped kill millions. So, much thanks.

[Krychek_2]

Calling a fetus the unborn or the pre-born makes no more sense than calling a living person the pre-dead.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I am having a baby" is the common way of referring to a fetus before it's birth. Unborn is perfectly fine.

You want to call it a clinical term to sooth your conscience.

[Krychek_2]

She’s having a baby once it’s a baby.

Bob, you are entitled to your religious beliefs. But at the end of the day, they are your religious beliefs and no one else is required to accept them.

[Bob from Ohio]

"religious beliefs"

Its science, not religion.

A "fetus" is a unborn but alive human. Its not a racoon in there.

[grb]

A newly fertilized egg is not an “alive person”. No matter how much religion ties up your thoughts in knots, words still have meaning. Unlike Humpty Dumpty, you can’t pretend them away.

[Krayt]

I support abortion rights.

But you are using dehumanizing rhetoric for the purpose of supporting that. This is intellectually dishonest.

The woman has a right to abort her baby.

Having pissed off both sides with reality, I shall take my leave.

[Krychek_2]

All right, what's the difference between calling a fetus pre-born and calling a living person the pre-dead? In both cases, they will become something they currently are not after they have crossed a certain line.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I have my RBG paraphenalia: the T-shirt, the earrings, the socks, the purse, the wineglass, the coaster, the keychain, the action figure, and the totebag.* I’m ready for the birthday celebration!

*All available through Amazon.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"A deli changed bakeries because its drivers would deliver only at noon. (This seems odd to me. I grew up in a deli, and later deli to delis, and this is a b-a-d time for deliveries, with the lunch crowd waiting for their sandwiches. Bakery goods, such as rolls and bagels, are usually delivered in early morning, for obvious reasons.)"

I once drove for what is now Fedex Ground and there was a KMart that inevitably was where I would be at noon, and wouldn't accept deliveries between 12&1. So their stuff bounced around on the truck and they got a delivery once every other friday afternoon. Just before a thunderstorm if I could arrange it. (open dock.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Does this post have anything to do with the warning “beware the Ides of March?”

[bevis the lumberjack]

I know this makes me an apostate, but for all that some consider to be her positives RBG was arguably the worst justice in modern history as to property rights. She crossed over and joined the conservative justices to be the swing vote giving us civil asset forfeiture in a 5-4 vote and stayed true to her tribe to approve Kelo by 5-4. The swing vote in two decisions that are now considered to be appallingly bad.

She seemed to want the government to have all the property.

[Life of Brian]

Perhaps the quiet-part-out-loud corollary to the mindset that Washington has a claim on all income, but graciously allows us to retain some of it.

[bernard11]

The SCOTUS vote in Kelo notwithstanding, I don't think the bulk of "her tribe" supported the decision. I certainly don't like it.

In fact, doesn't the decision help big real estate developers - hardly a strong Democratic constituency?

I think both support and opposition cross party lines.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I meant her tribe as to the court. The left leaning judges.

I think you’re right that Kelo was unpopular across the spectrum.

I should have spent a couple more words to make the meaning clearer.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Supreme Court building may be named for former justice Ginsburg one day.

And, because she was so fond of former justice Scalia, a part of the building could be named for him.

A no-gender restroom would be a fitting selection.