The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Today in Supreme Court History: November 23, 1804
11/23/1804: President Franklin Pierce's birthday. He would appoint Justice John Archibald Campbell to the Supreme Court.

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
Arnold Tours v. Camp, 400 U.S. 45 (decided November 23, 1970): travel agencies had standing to contest Comptroller of Currency’s authority to issue rule allowing national banks to get into the travel agency business (travel agencies won, 472 F.2d 427)
Bohlen v. Arthurs, 115 U.S. 482 (decided November 23, 1885): tenant could not cut timber and sell it without consent of co-tenant; co-tenant was allowed to seize timber (diversity action)
Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (decided November 23, 1964): police could not arrest man with a history of gambling convictions without a more specific showing of probable cause or warrant (upon searching his person they found “clearing house strips” indicating he was running a numbers racket, possession of which was illegal under Ohio statute)
Re: Arnold
The key word is ‘national’ in that national banks were authorized to do banking stuff and travel agency isn’t part of banking stuff.
It shall have power * * * 7th, to exercise * * * all such incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry on the business of banking."
thanks!
If I can interject this piece of Thanksgiving commentary - don't mention the war! (I think I mentioned it once, but I got away with it.)
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/17/opinions/israel-gaza-palestine-holiday-meal-thanksgiving-lester/index.html
There is no prouder nationality than Jewish, but I'm glad I'm not. It's not because of antisemitism -- for a lawyer in New York being Jewish is actually a plus -- or because of relatives having been exterminated 80 years ago. It's because of Israel, and being sucked into that interminable conflict in the other hemisphere. It seems that no matter what you say about it, you get pilloried by other Jews. Even if you say nothing, you get pilloried for saying nothing.
To my family, the conflict is distant and secondary. We're too numbed by years of news of violence to take sides. We just wish they would just stop fighting. While realizing they can't just do that. And thankful today that our family is not touched by that scene, and can eat in peace.
I think "ethnic identification" rather than "nationality".
No, I think nationality is the right word. It's because there is no "nation" they can say they were from. I have an (attenuated) Polish ethnic identity, because my great-grandparents came from Poland. But Jews are from a diaspora.
The diaspora which drove them out of Judea?
Not expressing myself well, but I think you know what I mean.
I am inclined to agree on the former, but would love to read your elaboration on the latter (no, what do you mean?).
Exactly what part of "kill the Jews" do American Jews not understand?
My family feels the same about Afro-Amuricans, and it's not because of race-ism, applying to medical or law school being Afro-Amurican is a plus- or because of relatives sold into slavery 300 years ago. No matter what you say about Afro-Amuricans you get pilloried by other Afro-Amuricans, even if you say nothing you get pilloried for saying nothing.
To my family their problems are distant and secondary. We're to numbed by years of news of their violence to take sides. We just wish they would stop killing each other (not really, if they're going to kill peoples, might as well be each other). Thankful today our family is not touched by that scene and can eat in peace.
Frank
I'd love to see a breakdown of how many of today's Afro-Americans have ancestors that were slaves -- and how many like Barack Obama *don't*....
My choice for worst president appointing possibly our worst Supreme Court Justice. This is the one who resigned his seat to join the Confederacy. I note though that he actually tried to mediate before Fort Sumter and was one of the three Confederates who met with Lincoln in the Hampton Roads Conference (depicted in the movie “Lincoln”.)
But he got a car named after himself - the Pierce Arrow...
Franklin PIerce had such a horrible tragic life that I'm surprised he could even get out of bed in the morning.
Whatever one might think of Campbell’s joining the Confederate government, it was a more honorable move than staying on the Court and sabotaging Union efforts would have been. The Prize Cases (1863), in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Union blockade of Confederate ports, were 5-4 decisions. Had Campbell, rather than his successor, Lincoln appointee David Davis, been on the Court, the outcome probably would have been different. Lincoln would have been in a difficult position, very possibly feeling he had no choice but to ignore the Court, which, of course, would have had its own consequences.
One of my professors told me that Roger Taney wrote in his diary that he expected Lincoln to have him thrown in jail — and my guess is that Lincoln wouldn’t have let the prize cases get to an actual ruling if he thought he would lose.
I suspect that he would either have prevented the court from meeting (easy enough to do) and/or thrown members of SCOTUS in jail. Lincoln did throw a good chunk of the Maryland State Legislature in jail, and I think that Roger Taney’s fears were realistic.
When we think of the Civil War, we think of big-but-remote battlefields like Gettysburg & Antietam. In the summer of 1864, they were shooting it out *inside* DC itself — the Battle of Fort Stevens and there is a cemetery on Georgia Avenue near where Walter Reed used to be. https://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/national_cemeteries/district_of_columbia/Battleground_National_Cemetery.html
This is where Lincoln was told to “get down you damn fool” lest a Confederate sniper shoot him — he is the only US President to come under enemy fire as President. It definitely gives one a different perspective on Lincoln’s extra-legal actions….
All the executive needs to do is simply ignore judgements - something that is unlawful to do if they are valid but required if they are extrajurisdictional. Lincoln made the argument that Taney lacked jurisdiction, since he had suspended habeas.
Like all good men, Northerners weren't about to have a dictator, so Lincoln would have gotten himself in a lot of trouble had he thrown Taney in jail. He might have been impeached and we'd have president Hamlin.
You've obviously got "Jimmuh Cartuh Amnesia Syndrome"
Or maybe you're just being diplomatic, because he's had terminal cancer for the last 20 years.
Jimmuh had such bad luck he didn't even get to pick a Surpreme ("45" got 3) brought back the draft (registration anyway, what a waste of machinery) sent Delta Farce into Ear-Ron, but he's a good guy because he pounds a few nails and hands out de-worming meds in Haiti.
Frank
Ollie North makes an interesting point -- as a percentage increase, Carter increased the DOD budget more than Reagan did. The Reagan buildup actually started in 1980 (maybe 1979) under Carter in response to Soviet expansionism, including their going into Afghanistan.
Yes Carter's foreign policy sucked - creating the Iranian mess, giving away the Panama Canal, etc -- but Biden is far wore. Obama was worse -- and it was Clinton that gave the Chinese the missile technology that they are now using to target nukes at us -- Clinton did it for funds for the 1996 election.
Carter's domestic policy also sucked, but he wasn't starting from the glory days of Trump's economy. A lot of the messes that Carter inherited dated back to Lyndon Johnson funding both Vietnam and Great Society on borrowed money. Biden is worse.
"Ediot" understand it damn well, and that it includes Christians too, they only are going to kill the Jews first.
That is why "Ediot" believes that Israel's negations for the hostages ought to be along the lines of "we won't nuke Gaza, and intentionally kill all 2.1 million of you if you let our people go" -- not the bullshyte 1:2 "deal" they appear to have agreed to.
Not that Joe Bite Me didn't help Hamas in this regard.
Yes, Dr. Ed 2 understands about as much as Dunning-Kruger predicts. Gaza delenda est.
Sadly, and I genuinely mean sadly, Gaza delenda est is probably the only real solution.