Today in Supreme Court History: September 8, 1953

9/8/1953: Chief Justice Fred Vinson dies.

Chief Justice Fred Vinson

 

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Tuscarora Nation of Indians v. Power Authority of the State of New York, 79 S.Ct. 4 (decided September 8, 1958): Harlan partially affirms and partially reverses Second Circuit’s stay of condemnation of Tuscarora lands for power project; power authority says it can hold off on some parts of it without financial loss; notes that tribe’s separate action disputing the Power Authority’s license in the D.C. District Court would be heard by the D.C. Circuit, not the Second Circuit (the Power Authority eventually won, 362 U.S. 99, 1960)

[Mr. Bumble]

Vinson died (of a heart attack) at the fairly young age of 63.
During those 63 years he managed to serve in all three branches of the federal government as a Congressman, judge, Secretary of the Treasury and finally as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Pity he died after only 7 years as CJ leading to Earl Warren becoming CJ.

[Malika the Maiz]

FWIW the male life expectancy in 1953 was 66.

https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR02/lr5A3-h.html

[Mr. Bumble]

True, according to the table in the link but that is 23 years old and the life expectancy you mention was at birth; at age 65 (for the same birth year) the LE was 13 more years.

[Malika the Maiz]

I think the way life expectancy works actually is that’s what a child born in 53 could expect to live to, Vinson was of course born much earlier when life expectancy was even lower.

[Mr. Bumble]

You might be right. Per Statista a male born in 1890 in the US had a life expectancy of 44.05 years.

[defaultdotxbe]

That would be life expectancy at birth, which is skewed downward due to high infant mortality. For example if you look at 2 people both in 1890, one died before their 1st birthday and the other lived to be 88, then their combined life expectancy would be 44 years.

A better method would be to try to find something like life expectancy at 30 for the year 1920.

[Magister]

I couldn't find any actuarial tables specific to 56 year olds in 1946, but 65 year olds in 1946 (as noted above) had a life expectancy of 13 more years, and a 56 year old would presumably do at least as well, and probably better.

[SRG2]

65 year olds in 1946 (as noted above) had a life expectancy of 13 more years, and a 56 year old would presumably do at least as well, and probably better.

So a 65yo could expect to live to 78. A 56yo would not expect to live as long because there would always be the chance they'd die before reaching 65.

[Magister]

But a 56 year old could be expected to live another 13 years or more; the years between 56 and 65 are not particularly fraught with risk (unlike, e.g., early childhood, or early adulthood during a major war for young men).

[Krayt]

Or a life expectancy dodging major diseases, wars, and accidents. Like a "biological life" expectancy. That may not be the best measurement but is how people look at it.

[David Nieporent]

No, it wasn't. Or, rather, yes, it was, but it's an irrelevant stat, since 66 was the life expectancy at birth in 1953, and Vinson was not born in 1953.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

CJ Vinson dying, a proof of God’s existence per Justice Frankfurter. Given Roberts’ long tenure as Chief Justice, notable how many Chief Justices had short tenures. There was a stream of 20th Century CJs with tenures of around 5-10 years.

On September 8, 2023, a summer order list was dropped. Alito added a statement on why he did not recuse in Moore v. U.S.

https://www.lawdork.com/p/the-un-ethics-of-sam-alito

[Krayt]

Given the predefined idealogical alignment on whether it’s cool to just declare unrealized gains as taxable because of profound incontinent spending, with no intent whatsoever to reduce spending much less cut the debt, is there really any use to recusal? He wouldn’t be voting otherwise. (Apparently an author of 2 articles about him in the WSJ are by a lawyer in the case.)

Do not be laughable and suggest that, if’n onlies that hadn’t happen, he’d be all for it!

The Moore case addresses the ability to, in effect, tax wealth. Unsurprisingly, places like The Wall Street Journal are very interested in the outcome of this case.

Unsurprisingly, so is this guy.

[Sarcastr0]

This kind of slam-dunk legal realism is itself a product of ideological bias.

While ideology is an influence in why a Justice is appointed, and what kind of decisions they will render, it is not determinative. You see conservative defections from the broad ideology of conservativism all the time.

Even the smaller liberal cohort has Kagan breaking to do stare decisis policing, kind of her jam.

Whenever you have an 'interesting lineup' reported on here that's a sign that legal realism is overly reductive.

As to your whole 'profound incontinent spending' thing, well, that's just salesmanship.
It's your ideology you've just cloaked it in a false moral coat of responsibility versus the not as appealing to most 'government must be radically made smaller' or even your particular 'all government is inherently corrupt' which is much fringier and doesn't have a lot of subscribers.

[Krayt]

Nothing I said is inaccurate. They will not balance the budget, much less pay down debt. Even if it balanced the budget, they would quickly work to unbalance it and borrow again, as was proven with the Internet boom windfall, which never went away. That is their business model: incontinent spending. For voter brownie points, to hide corruption like a needle in a haystack, whatever. But they think winning is the most important thing, and spending is the best way to get there.

As for your falsehood, a meme of “radically smaller government”, no. That’s nonsense from your echo chamber passing through your wiring and out your fingers. But, to bite, why is this rejected out of hand as idiotic? People weren’t dying because government was smaller decades ago. They were dying from lagging tech, nutrition, things this country deals with from freedom via capitalism.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

This sort of logic would make what is usually deemed slam-dunk recusals, such as if a person's spouse or child is in the case, dubious if the justice was going to vote that way either way.

If people wish, they can read Chris Geidner's take on why recusal would probably be appropriate.

[Magister]

That stream of Chief Justices with tenures of around 5-10 years were, except for Vinson, all over 60 years old when appointed; before the 20th century, all the Chief Justices were younger when appointed, as was the only Chief Justice appointed in this century.

Curiously, all Supreme Court Chief Justices age 50 or younger when appointed (Jay, Marshall, Roberts) were named John; the only older Chief Justice named John, Rutledge, was accordingly rejected by the Senate and thus served only a recess appointment.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Vinson remains the last Chief Justice appointed by a Democrat, 78 years ago (1946). Warren, Burger, Rehnquist, Roberts were all appointed by Republicans.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Maybe that should be a rule -- only people over 60 should be nominated as Chief Justice.

I'm game to have the role rotate every 10 years or so.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Musical Chief Justices?

[Magister]

A reality show called Supreme Court's Got Talent might improve the court's approval rating.