Today in Supreme Court History: May 19, 1921

5/19/1921: Chief Justice Edward Douglass White dies.

Chief Justice Edward Douglass White

 

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

In re Whittington, 391 U.S. 341 (decided May 19, 1968): judge’s determination of juvenile as “delinquent” and therefore commitable to institution vacated and remanded to state court for redetermination with Fourteenth Amendment protections (privilege against self-incrimination, etc.)

Andrews v. United States, 373 U.S. 334 (decided May 20, 1963): a criminal defendant must be allowed to make a statement before being sentenced

Petrella v. MGM, 572 U.S. 663 (decided May 19, 2014): widow of co-writer of “Raging Bull” entitled to damages for copyright violation despite passage of 18 years since first alleged violation but entitled to only the past three years’ damages which is the statute of limitations for the statute allowing damages

Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (decided May 19, 1969): Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 (Timothy Leary was the accused) unconstitutional because it required persons not allowed to possess marijuana to declare it upon entering the country for tax purposes therefore requiring self-incrimination in violation of the Fifth Amendment (Act was repeated in 1970)

Barker Painting Co. v. Local No. 734, 281 U.S. 462 (decided May 19, 1930): Holmes refuses to rule on minimum wage law dispute because case got otherwise disposed of: “Both sides desired that the Court should go farther afield. But a Court does all that its duty compels when it confines itself to the controversy before it. It cannot be required to go into general propositions or prophetic statements of how it is likely to act upon other possible or even probable issues that have not yet arisen.”

Grubb v. Public Utilities Comm’n, 281 U.S. 470 (decided May 19, 1930): wrongful denial of application for proposed interstate bus line could be litigated in state court because federal court did not have exclusive jurisdiction over interstate commerce

Anderson v. Carkins, 135 U.S. 483 (decided May 19, 1890): Homestead Act violated by contract to sell land when seller (who had obtained the land from the government under the Act) lied about it being for his own use as required by the Act

Emsheimer v. New Orleans, 186 U.S. 33 (decided May 19, 1902): diversity jurisdiction is measured by residence at the time suit is filed, and is not voided by subsequent move (dispute over promissory note)

Fillippon v. Albion Vein Slate Co., 250 U.S. 76 (decided May 19, 1919): reversible error for judge to give instruction to jury without parties and their counsel being present (suit was for workplace injury)

Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of Bishop Community, 538 U.S. 701 (decided May 19, 2003): tribe could not sue under 42 U.S. §1983 because it protected only private persons and not sovereigns (issue was whether tribe had to comply with search warrant for records of employee accused of welfare fraud)

[John F. Carr]

In Leary's case (or one of his cases if there was more than one) the law in question had an old fashioned commerce clause jurisdictional requirement. The substance had to have traveled in foreign commerce to be contraband. There was an unconstitutional presumption that it had. The defendant was allowed to prove otherwise. The 1970s drug laws declared all drug activity to be interstate commerce, a policy upheld in Gonzales v. Raich. It was no longer possible to get off by proving you had not affected interstate or foreign commerce.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks!

[John F. Carr]

How does the Court decide which rights to incorporate against juveniles? They have no right to a jury trial in juvenile court.

[Dan Schiavetta]

There must be a body of case law on that.

[Martinned]

Not to wish ill on Chief Justice Roberts, but there's still time to have a former president as Chief for the second time...

[Dan Schiavetta]

The last two Democratic Presidents taught Con Law at the most prestigious law schools in their home states. They would be good (though Clinton is too old by now).

On the other hand, the last two Republican Presidents, George W. Bush and (giggle, eye-roll) Donald Trump . . .

[Mr. Bumble]

You, also need to cut out the late night drinking.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It's the only way I can get to sleep, things being so miserable. But it's 8 a.m. and I've been sober since I woke up.

[Mr. Bumble]

Instead of drinking, try counting illegals jumping over an imaginary border wall.

(yes, I'm being snarky)

[Krychek_2]

I like snark as much as the next person, including occasionally some from the other side if it's well done, but captcrisis is dead on accurate about the relative intelligence levels and intellectual acumen of the last few Democratic presidents compared to the last few Republicans. There was a joke circulating at one time that Trump showed up to take the Mensa entrance exam; the proctor handed him the form and said, "Sign here," and he put "Gemini."

[Mr. Bumble]

I can’t think of any “recent” Presidents of either party who would make good justices, chief or otherwise ( see Margrave below re: Clinton) I think you have to go back a century to Calvin Coolidge, who I think would have made an excellent Chief or associate justice.

[Krychek_2]

Depends on what you would consider a "good" justice. If you mean a partisan who will vote the way you want him to, then any of the last several presidents would do, depending on which side of the political fence you're on. If, on the other hand, you want justices who are good at analyzing legal issues and have the intellectual prowess to write well about them, I think either Clinton or Obama (or Mrs. Clinton or Mrs. Obama) would do just fine. Carter probably would have if he'd gone to law school.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think Obama is quite intelligent. OTOH, I think he studied the Constitution the way a pest exterminator studies entomology, so I hardly think he'd be a good Justice.

Remember, one year he quite clearly explained that DACA, constitutionally, required being enacted by Congress as a statute. The next year he used Congress' refusal to enact it as a basis for imposing it by executive order. Is that really the sort of reasoning about the Constitution that belongs on the Court?

[Mr. Bumble]

@Queen:
No.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Obama was being consistent. All along he said that his executive orders could only be temporary and the law had to be changed by Congress (which, irresponsibly, it refused to do, after some Republicans backed out of a deal).

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Clinton needs the rehabilitation...going from being formally declared unfit to practice before the Supreme Court, to actually being *on* the court.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The stench of hypocrisy was unbearable. It could have happened to half the men involved in going after him. Lying about sex, in response to a question that should not have been asked, at a deposition that should not have been held, in a lawsuit that should not have been brought.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hypocrisy is the coin of the realm in politics.
Now do the Kavanaugh hearings or the Trump "rape" trial.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The Trump trial was unique in that it actually seems to have been bankrolled by a political opponent.

Otherwise the Clinton and Trump situations are diametrically opposite. The women who had sex with Clinton (or accused him of assault) were paid to talk. The women who had sex with Trump were paid to keep quiet.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Look, I’m sorry I brought it up, since it sucked up more energy at the time than any deliberation about public policy, and disgust at such disproportinate attention is an example of the discontent which the voters might channel into a third party if there was a broader menu of third parties, which of course the establishment parties don’t want.

[John F. Carr]

I remember a series of hoaxes about the IQ of presidents. Many liberals online took them seriously because the fabricated numbers made Bush look stupid. All our presidents starting from George H. W. Bush have good educational credentials. Even Trump graduated from a good school.

One of the contributors to Language Log wrote about the computed reading grade level of a Trump speech. Somebody had reported that the computer assigned it a middle school reading level. Take the same words and insert different punctuation marks and the speech becomes very erudite. The computer will say what you want to hear. It's the emotion axis where Trump is really an outlier.

Trump would be an awful justice, partly because of his confidence that the law is whatever he wants the law to be. This is a common failing. Trump has it worse than most. And because he gets too emotional.

Bush, Clinton, Obama... I would just say we could do better.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Trump would be an awful justice, partly because of his confidence that the law is whatever he wants the law to be."

See Queenies comment above.

[Mr. Bumble]

You really need to cut out the late night drinking.

[Frank Drackman]

But Jimmuh Cartuh didn't go to Law School! and he's 98 years old (and supposedly "Dying", he's had "Terminal Cancer" for the last 20 years)

[David Nieporent]

Not to wish ill on Chief Justice Roberts, but there’s still time to have a former president as Chief for the second time…

Chief Justice Carter seems a bit of a stretch.

[Mr. Bumble]

" But a Court does all that its duty compels when it confines itself to the controversy before it. It cannot be required to go into general propositions or prophetic statements of how it is likely to act upon other possible or even probable issues that have not yet arisen.”

Someone should pass this along to Justice Kavanaugh.

[Dan Schiavetta]

He probably sees himself as continuing an honorable tradition. Some great doctrines were based on dicta that later graduated to ratio decidendi. For example, the very idea of judicial review (Marbury v. Madison). Also strict scrutiny (footnote 4 of Carolene Products).

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Today in Democrat History:

Democrat veternarians started asking pet owners the pets preferred pronouns.

[apedad]

Do you use BravoCharlieDelta (military phonetic alphabet for B-C-D), because you received a Bad Conduct Discharge (or Bad Chicken Dinner as we called it in AFOSI)?

That would explain your hostility towards the VA and govt in general.

[Krayt]

Or he’s a fan of inexplicably stupid number encodings from the Flinstone era of big iron computers.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

My hostility towards the Federals is due to me being an empiricist with a deep knowledge of history and humanity.

Why do you bootlick? Because you're one of the Federals?

[Syd Henderson]

Stone was appointed as associate justice by a Republican (Coolidge) and Chief Justice by a Democrat (FDR).

[Mr. Bumble]

Since when was brilliance a requisite for anything in American politics or for that matter in politics in general?
As for Cool Cal he deserves much more credit than he has received.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Also: the last three Republican Presidents were born into wealth and never had to work a day in their lives. By contrast, Biden is the fifth straight Democratic President who grew up in modest and sometimes desperate (Biden, LBJ, Clinton) circumstances.

[Dan Schiavetta]

His "That is final!" speech was inspiring.

[Mr. Bumble]

@Queen:
Think you might want to re-read or re-think that comment.
It's not the job of the SC to make laws.

[Mr. Bumble]

...but somehow managed to become wealthy on government salaries. America, what a country.

[Krayt]

Some of the left's historical darlings of all time were born to wealth.

Here's one such vs. a working man's defender.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h9W4c2YLCg

[David Nieporent]

Also: the last three Republican Presidents were born into wealth and never had to work a day in their lives. By contrast, Biden is the fifth straight Democratic President who grew up in modest and sometimes desperate (Biden, LBJ, Clinton) circumstances.

You're kind of stacking the deck there, in multiple ways:

1) This is due to the vagaries of election results, not something unique about the parties. If Kerry or Gore had won, then this factoid would look different.

2) Also, Jimmy Carter does not fit your description.

3) Also, you've chosen to go back to 1968/5 presidents for the Dems, and 1992/3 presidents for the GOP. Is that perhaps because the pattern falls apart if you look at the 2 GOP presidents before that? (Answer: yes.)

[Bob from Ohio]

Obama was raised by his grandmother, a bank vice president. Went to a private high school.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Remarkably honestly, considering none have been indicted despite sometimes extensive investigations. Unlike people like Trump who already had a lot of $ and shamelessly does illegal things to get even more. (Remember Trump University?)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Carter’s family owned a general store in a small town. I call that “modest”.

My point was the effect these upbringings had on their policies. I was not talking about who the parties decided to nominate.

I only go back to 1963 (LBJ) but that is a long time ago. I think 60 years is enough under the belt to make some generalities.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Carter’s family owned a general store in a small town."

The owner of the general store was the second richest man in town after the local banker in those days, city boy.

His Dad also owned farmland including, famously, a peanut farm.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Duopolists' Law - a two-party system is inevitable, but just in case it's not, let's pass restrictive ballot-access laws (anyway, we don't want anyone stealing votes which rightfully belong to us).

[Dan Schiavetta]

Third parties are counter-productive. If you vote for a third party candidate, all you're doing is helping the less desirable major party candidate.

My first two votes in presidential elections were for third party candidates (Eugene McCarthy in 1976, who was an old hero of mine I wasn't old enough to vote for in 1968, and John Anderson in 1980, who said exactly the right things while Carter was moving to the right). I was throwing my vote away, in effect helping Ford and Reagan. I'll never do that again.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If you don’t like third parties, don’t vote for third parties – but don’t put up with the duopolists taking that choice away from you.

Think of it like porn – you would never watch the stuff yourself, but you wouldn’t want the prudes and theocrats to censor it, would you?