Today in Supreme Court History: September 29, 2005

9/29/2005: Chief Justice Roberts takes oath.

Chief Justice John Roberts

 

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Smith v. Richey, 89 S.Ct. 54 (decided September 29, 1968): Another soldier challenging callup to active duty as violating the Ready Reserve Act, for which Douglas notes there are “substantial and unresolved questions”. Smith was going to be shipped out the next day “to the Asian theater” and Douglas “hesitates to act” but since the Ninth Circuit had denied a stay, Douglas grants it, keeping the soldier at Hamilton Air Force Base. (No information on what happened to this case, but the Ready Reserve Act, a/k/a the Military Selective Service Act, 50 U.S.C. §451 et seq., amended in 1967 to narrow the conscientious objector exception, has always passed Constitutional muster.)

Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. Legal Aid Society of Alamada County, 423 U.S. 1309 (decided September 29, 1975): The last decision by the stroke-felled Douglas, who embarrassed himself at oral argument of an application two weeks previously by being “out of it” but apparently was on the ball for this one. Here he refuses to stay a protective order, noting that disclosure of demographic information on federal contractors collected by the EEOC is prohibited by statute and cannot be disclosed by another agency that ended up with the information.

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (decided September 29, 1958): full Court refuses to stay Little Rock desegregation order; Governor and state legislature are bound by decisions of District Court

[SRG2]

Surely in Cooper v Aaron it was the decision of the appellate court that bound Arkansas, as the district court let them extend the time to integrate.

[apedad]

"The district court granted the school board's request, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed."

Unanimous for Aaron: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1957/1_misc

[Dan Schiavetta]

Warren’s opinion begins, “This case raises questions of the highest importance to the maintenance of our federal system of government. It necessarily involves a claim by the Governor and Legislature of a State that there is no duty on state officials to obey federal court orders resting on this Court’s considered interpretation of the United States Constitution.” The point he is making is that states have to follow even District Court orders. Specifically, the orders implementing Brown, and at p. 7 he discusses the various remedies a District Court might fashion (which might result in a school district’s favor), and how the state is bound to follow them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Arkansas had a point -- if SCOTUS has original jurisdiction for a suit involving a state, why wouldn't that apply here?
Just because the state is being an A-hole doesn't rewrite the Constitution.

[not guilty]

Having original jurisdiction does not mean having exclusive original jurisdiction.

[David Nieporent]

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (decided September 29, 1958): full Court refuses to stay Little Rock desegregation order; Governor and state legislature are bound by decisions of District Court

Josh Blackman hardest hit.

[Dilan Esper]

Smith v. Richey, 89 S.Ct. 54 (decided September 29, 1968): Another soldier challenging callup to active duty as violating the Ready Reserve Act, for which Douglas notes there are “substantial and unresolved questions”. Smith was going to be shipped out the next day “to the Asian theater” and Douglas “hesitates to act” but since the Ninth Circuit had denied a stay, Douglas grants it, keeping the soldier at Hamilton Air Force Base. (No information on what happened to this case, but the Ready Reserve Act, a/k/a the Military Selective Service Act, 50 U.S.C. §451 et seq., amended in 1967 to narrow the conscientious objector exception, has always passed Constitutional muster.)

A very nice example of how the modern system of the whole court dealing with these sorts of matters is superior. Obviously Douglas was flouting his job duties-- he's supposed to approximate where the whole court is, not his own position- and also, the arrogance of a single man thinking he has the power to interfere with the United States Government's ability to draft troops to prosecute a war!

Douglas may have had political priors I agree with, but he was a very bad, very stupid man who had no business being anywhere near a Supreme Court seat.

[Dr. Ed 2]

IF the Ready Reserve Act was involved, my guess is that this was a guy who had already served and then gone into the Individual Ready Reserve and was arguing that while he could be called up under the auspices of his IRR contract, he was exempt from the draft, the same way that those in the Guard were.

Johnson made a political decision not to call up the Guard, Truman had and it became a real problem for him because those guys were WWII vets and thought that they were done with war — and were *pissed* having to go fight another one.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/12302

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks, Dr. Ed 2 (good point) and Dilan.

As for Douglas, he was good for the first few years, but became bored when it became clear he wasn't going to be nominated for President (his last chance was in 1952). Justices are in for life and move about in a world of bowing-and-scraping deference. Douglas became rude, personally horrible and professionally irresponsible. In the words of Robert Caro, "Power doesn't corrupt -- it reveals."

[Dilan Esper]

Douglas is definitely an argument against life tenure. We have a lot of them.

[not guilty]

Justice Douglas had his foibles, but he was hardly stupid.

[Dilan Esper]

He really was. His academic credentials were from an era where they don't actually reflect brilliance the way they would now.

And his work product was terribly reasoned.

[Dan Schiavetta]

“The production of weak evidence when strong is available can only lead to the conclusion that the strong would have been adverse.” Interstate Circuit, 1939. My practice never takes me near Supreme Court case law, but I cite that sentence of Douglas’s every chance I get. Give him that much, at least.

[Idihax]

Worst judge we've ever had.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Boy, are you going to hate America's future.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, you are.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

(Some) on-the-spectrum clingers agree with you, Dr. Ed.

Also, some disaffected bigots.

That's about it.

[Commenter_XY]

CJ Roberts delivered on what he said during his confirmation hearing; to seek consensus on the Court. I do not think we have seen as high a proportion of 9-0 cases than under his tenure. If memory serves, about 35% to 40% of cases end with a 9-0 vote (higher than the historical mean).

CJ Roberts sure has had a lot of unusual things thrown his way during his tenure.

[Magister]

The 90s saw a high rate of unanimous decisions. The recent high rates could be a consequence of judges from lower courts feeling freer to advance wacky ideas; justices should reverse current rulings that violate the precedent set in a case they dissented in. (The 90s saw a high rate of unanimous reversals of the 9th Circuit.)