Today in Supreme Court History: March 9, 1937

3/9/1937: President Roosevelt delivers a fireside chat on his Court-packing plan.

Comments

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

Here it is a nutshell and illustrated by the magnificent stupidity of Gov Newsom. He boasted of a great new day of better wages and upward mobility but right after that , as Economics would show is an ironclad law that can't be violated

Pizza Hut Fires Over 1,200 Drivers In California Before New $20 Minimum Wage Comes Into Effect

I've been in business world for decades THERE IS NO WAY YOU CAN RECOUP $20 /hour for pizza delivery.
So they lost their jobs thanks to the Governor

The decision we are commemorating was a move in the right direction. The job you lose that pays well is a tragedy. Hi, I just got fired from the job that fed my family but the good news is it would have paid $20/hour.

[SRG2]

It's Economics would show is an ironclad law that can’t be violated

Wrong. It's not an ironclad law - at least, not since modern economics superseded classical/equilibrium-based economics - and you're guilty of what I have termed the monotonic fallacy (another instance being, "if you cut taxes you increase revenues").

The effect of wage increases is non-linear - there are feedback effects on the economy - and hence it is possible that an increase in the minimum wage can result in a stronger economy all-round. The EU found exactly this many years ago.

There is a point however - this not being a monotonic function - where the amount of increase in the minimum wage will begin to have an adverse effect and it's clear that Newsom's increase took the economy beyond that point (just as there's a point beyond which cutting taxes will reduce revenues.)

FWIW Ford had an inkling of this when he increased Ford workers' wages - and he was sued in the famous case of Dodge v Ford, which was not a film about competing race cars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks for directing us to the Dodge v Ford case.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

You are trying to sneak minimum wage laws into a discussion of wages in general. If you don't know the difference, or want to know about minimum wage laws in particular, you can educate yourself here:

https://cafehayek.com/?s=minimum+wage

Henry Ford's wage increases had nothing to do with minimum wage laws.

[SRG2]

The point was to show that a so-called iron law is nothing of the sort.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

The hell that was your point. You threw in this nonsense:

it is possible that an increase in the minimum wage can result in a stronger economy all-round.

People don't generally throw in nonsense like that when they are trying to make some other point.

[SRG2]

On rereading what I wrote, I was less than clear later, but the early part of my post was the important part. It's not an iron law.

Do you think it is?

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Nice. Change the subject.

[David Nieporent]

The notion that Ford raised wages out of some desire for public benefit would which ultimately benefit Ford is long discredited. Ford raised wages to increase employee retention, because turnover is costly.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually, turnover isn’t — until you get to the point where you exhaust the pool of available employees. LL Bean ran into this and had to move to more operations from Freeport to Portland and elsewhere because of this. Amazon is going to run into this soon.

The problem is that those who quit or are fired aren’t coming back, nor are you going to get persons they know. At a certain point, if your churn is high enough, you run out of “new” employees.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Turnover matters very much when you have to train new workers, who then quit to work for somebody else, especially a competitor. That is why Henry Ford raised his pay, to reduce turnover.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How much training was involved in an assembly line worker?

How much training is involved in running a cash register that is automated and identical to almost all the other cash registers?

Etc.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

You ask

How much training was involved in an assembly line worker?

Enough that Henry Ford thought it cheaper to raise wages to keep the trained workers than train replacements.

Who you gonna trust, Henry Ford managing his own money, or you with imperfect hindsight 110 years later?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Henry Ford didn't have a MBA, what did he know? 🙂

[bernard11]

Actually, turnover isn’t [costly]

Actually, it is.

You lose some job-specific skills. Then, you have to find replacements and get them up to speed, and some of them won't work out. Production suffers, expenses rise.

And then you have "efficient wage theory," which argues that paying above-market wages gives employees an incentive to be diligent, since they know that if they lose their jobs they will not be able to find others at the same wage.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The way it was explained to me is that for a single job, you hire three people, with the intention that one will be gone in three weeks, the second in three months, and the third in three years. Apparently people in far higher pay grades feel that it is cheaper to deal with the lost productivity of replacements.

As to "efficient wage theory", that might have been the case in an earlier age, but now most companies consider their employees fungible and the employees (not unsurprisingly) return the value. Look at the fight over getting people physically present in the office.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Oh, I know this one!

Apparently people in far higher pay grades feel that it is cheaper to deal with the lost productivity of replacements.

Whereas Henry Ford had his own money at stake, these "people in far higher pay grades" had no skin in any game except academic publishing, that's my bet.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Grocery store management, actually...

[Davy C]

It's always a matter of degree. Almost nowhere could you turn a profit if you had most of your employees quit every day. Almost nowhere could you turn a profit if you paid what it would take to have most employees stay for 40 years. Somewhere in between there's a happy medium where your employees stay long enough to be good at their job but you aren't paying so much that nobody can afford your stuff - and that sweet spot is different for every job.

[Michael Ejercito]

Very great insight!

[bernard11]

The way it was explained to me is that for a single job, you hire three people,

Whoever "explained" that to you is an idiot.

As to “efficient wage theory”, that might have been the case in an earlier age, but now most companies consider their employees fungible and the employees (not unsurprisingly) return the value.

And what do the employees return if they are not treated as fungible?

[ReaderY]

I see. Workers magically come in knowing everything about their job. Experience adds no value whatsoever. An employees who’s seen all angles of your business for years, knows your customers and suppliers, knows how to fix jams in your processes, has no more more value than somebody coming in right out of school who’s never done a lick of work.

RIGHT.

[Davy C]

There's more than one person where I work who left and came back.

[Drewski]

I didn't even realize Newsome was on the Supreme Court. I've got to keep up with the news a little better.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"...as Economics would show is an ironclad law that can’t be violated."

Hilarious!

[Dr. Ed 2]

" Hi, I just got fired from the job that fed my family"

Bullshyte...

I'm not saying delivering pizzas is worth $20/hour, but there is no way in hell you were feeding your family on what you were getting.
You had EBT and Section 8 and Medicare and ....

[Davy C]

It's literally pizzas; you could feed your family just on the canceled orders. Putting a roof over your head might be more of an issue.

[Nige]

Pizza Hut made 12 billion last year. Pizza Hut are just greedy capitalist scum.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and you are a moron.
Who held a gun to peoples heads and forced them to buy anything from Pizza Hut?

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

What does the absolute number of pizzas sold have to do with wages per pizza?

Nothing. You are an idiot spouting nonsense.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, Pizza Hut are more opportunistic marketers of cardboard. They don't compete on quality, or even price -- it's presence and name recognization. And ability to exploit subsidized labor.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

They compete in the marketplace for consumers. Pizza joints, fast food joints, frozen convenience food, Friday night party food -- there's a zillion choices. Pizza Hut is just another one, and they seem to be doing something right to survive. Your personal disgust with them is insignificant.

[Dan Schiavetta]

New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (decided March 9, 1964): The foundation of current law on freedom of speech in the media. A public figure can’t sue for libel unless “actual malice”, i.e., knowledge of falsity. Here, an ad in the New York Times from civil rights leaders protesting police brutality provoked Alabama official Sullivan (who was referred to only obliquely) to sue for libel. Court vacates $500,000 verdict.

INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (decided March 9, 1987): alien can on asylum grounds oppose deportation after overstaying visa not for “clear probability” of prosecution in her home country, but just a “well-founded fear” (applicant’s brother had been tortured in their native Nicaragua by those who knew she had escaped) (in my experience, overstaying a visa is the rational thing to do: show up in Federal Plaza in New York for an extension, or for any appointment for that matter, even a citizenship interview, and they take away your cell phone — back in the pre-cell phone era when my wife applied, there weren’t any pay phones there — and won’t let anyone accompany you, and you might find yourself put in handcuffs and flown back to Mexico on false pretenses, which is what happened to my neighbor, who had an American husband and three young children born in this country)

United States v. The Amistad, 40 U.S. 518 (decided March 9, 1841): Africans who had taken over Spanish slave ship which ended up off Long Island were freemen; kidnaped into slavery illegally and therefore Adams-Onís Treaty of 1819, which required return of slaves, did not apply, and were not “property”, so the Pinckney Treaty of 1795, requiring return of property, did not apply (case argued by John Quincy Adams — as Secretary of State, the “Adams” of the Adams-Onís Treaty — who could not have been as hammy as Anthony Hopkins in the 1997 movie, nor did he have to shout over any loud, inspiring John Williams music flooding the courtroom)

Wood v. Davis, 11 U.S. 271 (decided March 9, 1812): Marshall reverses a judgment of freedom, holding that a judgment that the mother was free does not mean that her children are free. Ah, good times . . . Francis Scott Key argued for the slaveowner. Gabriel Duvall (later on the Court) argued for those seeking freedom.

Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (decided March 9, 1987): statutorily permitted warrantless search was done in good faith and therefore evidence obtained is admissible even though this type of search was later found unconstitutional (search of autos in junkyard revealed that three were stolen; the next day, the local federal court in another case found the statute violated Due Process, 518 F. Supp. 582)

Department of Transportation v. Ass’n of American Railroads, 575 U.S. 43 ( decided March 9, 2015): Amtrak is a governmental entity and therefore has authority (along with Department of Transportation) to set national passenger railroad standards

Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. 81 (decided March 9, 2009): three-year wait did not violate Sixth Amendment “speedy trial” right; delays were due to defendant (who went through six court-appointed attorneys that he either fired or threatened to kill) (I was an intern in the Brooklyn D.A. office and, though I never heard of anything this extreme, I did notice that most defendants did not want a speedy trial, even though like this guy they were in jail the whole time; certainly their attorneys didn’t, delay gave them more time to prepare)

Kansas v. Colorado, 556 U.S. 98 (decided March 9, 2009): Original jurisdiction cases are so “sui generis” that the Court hates to make up special rules for them. Here, after a dispute over Arkansas River rights was resolved, the Court falls back on the “American rule” as to each side bearing its own attorney’s fees, and adopts the standard modest exception for attendance costs, 18 U.S.C. §1821.

Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (decided March 9, 1998): Confession of a nontestifying defendant is inadmissible if it also implicates the co-defendant (Bruton v. United States, 1968), even if a limiting instruction is given. Here the Court holds this is true even if the co-defendant’s name is redacted. (Evidence has to be adduced, as we trial lawyers say, “subject to connection”, and after the confession was read to the jury with Gray’s name redacted, the police officer testified that after getting the confession, he arrested Gray.)

Lewis v. United States, 523 U.S. 155 (decided March 9, 1998): crimes on Army bases are not subject under the “assimilation” statute (18 U.S.C. §13) to local state law where a federal law specifically applies to same conduct (here, murder of a child, first-degree murder under Louisiana statute but second-degree under parallel federal statute)

United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (decided March 9, 1953): established the “state secrets” privilege; suit brought by widows of civilians on ground killed in crash of B-29 bomber in Georgia; Air Force claimed its investigative report would reveal state secrets, so ordered not produced; remanded to District Court where case settled at a discount (years later the report was declassified and showed nothing more than that the crash was caused by a fire in an engine, so relief was sought via coram nobis, which the Court denied (sub nom In re Herring, 539 U.S. 940 (2003)) and the Court also refused to hear the appeal of the Circuit Court decision holding that there was no “fraud on the court” (cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1123 (2006)) (even though, to me, the government’s assertion that this was a secret mission was irrelevant to the cause of the crash)

[Drewski]

An ex of mine who is a Chinese national used to go to an American consulate in Mexico to renew her visa for exactly that reason.

[Dan Schiavetta]

If you’re out of country that’s the thing to do.

[SRG2]

Gray wins 5-4. Dissent - Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas (of course), but this time Kennedy, and O'Connor is in the majority.

As we know, the real reason for the dissent was that Gray was guilty.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Have Blackman and Barnett attempted to explain avoiding the selection of New York Times v. Sullivan?

Why the video-post mismatch?

How many professors at legitimate law schools have inflicted this book on students?

Carry on, clingers.

[defaultdotxbe]

As I’ve pointed out in the past, Blackman uses the argument dates, not the decision dates, for his selections. Sullivan was featured back in January.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/01/06/today-in-supreme-court-history-january-6-1964-6/

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Argument dates, not decision dates?

(My band played that one at a New Year's Eve party about 30 years ago.)

[defaultdotxbe]

My point still stands, they did not avoid Sullivan (nor Roe v. Wade as was also claimed previously when captcrisis featured the decision in his post)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Your point stands -- they did not avoid Sullivan.

My point stands -- they avoided United States v. The Amistad and Wood v. Davis.

The mismatch with the video still seems odd.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You sure about that?

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/03/06/today-in-supreme-court-history-march-6-1857-5/

[defaultdotxbe]

You try clicking my link? Apparently not.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Did you try clicking my link? Apparently not.

I’m not disputing that these posts sometimes recognize the argument date. They also sometimes recognize the date the opinion was issued. And sometimes they recognize events that have nothing to do with Supreme Court history, even though there are easily-available alternatives noted in the comments.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Marshall reverses a judgment of freedom, holding that a judgment that the mother was free does not mean that her children are free. Ah, good times . . . Francis Scott Key argued for the slaveowner.

Key v. Madison must have been a coin flip when the Federalist Society was choosing its mascot.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The B-29 had a rather bad safety record, with such a bad reputation for engine fires that I could see that being a state secret in 1953. Remember that the 2 nuke runs -- the bombs had to be armed in flight out of fear that the planes might crash on takeoff and blow up the airbase.

I flew with a guy who had flown "the hump" -- I always wondered why he did an ignition check during his takeoff run -- there are two ignition systems, right on down to dual spark plugs, and he'd run it on one and then the other, and then switch back to both. Usually you check out your engine on the apron but the B-29 engines were so prone to overheating that you wanted to take off and get up to speed as quickly as you could so the wind could cool them.

1953 was before ICBMs and before sub-launched nukes, all we had were bombers and while the B-36 was starting to arrive, it had engine overheating problems of its own because of the rear-mounted pusher propellers. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-36_Peacemaker#/media/File:B-36aarrivalcarswell1948.jpg the B-36 is on the right.

So I can see why we might not want the Soviets to know just how vulnerable the B-29 was to engine fires...

[John F. Carr]

I believe checking both magnetos is part of the standard pre-takeoff checks for piston engine aircraft, not merely a habit of scared B-29 flight engineers.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

And by then, the B-29 was on its way out, as was its successor the B-50. Even the B-36 was obsolete by then, replaced by the B-47 and B-52.

There was no State secret. It was nothing but the usual government embarrassment and cover up.

[Dr. Ed 2]

B-52 started entering service in 1955 — they made them through 1963. The B-29 wasn’t fully retired until 1960. The B-50/B-54 was canceled, the B-47 wasn’t introduced until 1951 but really didn’t arrive in bulk until later.

The thing to remember is that we didn’t throw away obsolete aircraft until we had the new ones AND pilots trained to fly them. Ted Williams, a Marine pilot in both WWII & Korea, wrote about transferring to jets in his autobiography.

The F-102 that Bush 43 flew entered service in 1956, was obsolete when he flew it 1968-72, but they weren’t retired until 1976. Etc.

Of course it was governmental embarrassment and coverup — but we also didn’t want the Soviets to know that our toys weren’t as good as we claimed they were…

[Dr. Ed 2]

Checking it as part of the pre-takeoff checks -- not as you are rolling down the runway...

[Mr. Bumble]

Anyone have any idea as to how many "public figures" have successfully won a libel action since Sullivan?

[wolfefan]

Off the top of my head I know Carol Burnett won against the National Enquirer. I'm sure there have been others.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Shirley Jones

[David Nieporent]

Johnny Depp.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Didn't his ex also win her suit, but the net win went to Depp?

I confess I only vaguely remember the headlines, and sort of vaguely rejoice in the self-selected elite chewing each other up.

[David Nieporent]

I paid no attention whatsoever to the case, but I believe that your summary is correct.

[Voize]

Jesse Ventura won against Chris Kyle, although the judgment was vacated on appeal on other grounds.

[Drewski]

At least four.

[Dr. Ed 2]

She hasn't technically "won" yet, but E Jean Carroll comes to mind -- and I'd call an advice columnist (etc) a public figure.

[David Nieporent]

Editor's Note: she technically has won yet.