November 24, 2015

"It used to be routine, too, Chief Justice Roberts said, for presidents to appoint prominent public figures to the court."

"In 1941, the year Hughes left the court, Chief Justice Roberts said, 'you had two senators on the court, a representative, three former attorneys general.' The court that decided Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 decision banning segregation in public schools, included Chief Justice Earl Warren, a former governor of California; Hugo L. Black, a former United States senator; William O. Douglas, who had been chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission; and Robert H. Jackson, who had been the attorney general. By contrast, Chief Justice Roberts said, until Justice Elena Kagan arrived in 2010, “every single member of the court had been a court of appeals judge.' He did not comment Friday on the significance of the narrowing of the career paths, but in 2009 he said the development was a positive one, resulting in decisions with 'a more legal perspective and less of a policy perspective.'"

From respectful coverage, by the NYT's Adam Liptak, of a talk by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. at NYU School of Law. Roberts's subject was Charles Evans Hughes, who before becoming Chief Justice "had been governor of New York, an associate justice of the court, the Republican nominee for president (losing narrowly to Woodrow Wilson), secretary of state and a Wall Street lawyer who argued more than 50 cases in the court."

Interesting to see the somewhat random appearance of the name Woodrow Wilson. The old president has become a big issue of late. In this very edition of the NYT, Woodrow Wilson comes up in 2 headlines:

1."Should Woodrow Wilson’s Name Be Erased at Princeton?" These are letters to the editor reacting to yesterday's "At Princeton, Woodrow Wilson, a Heralded Alum, Is Recast as an Intolerant One." From the letters:
"Questioning [Wilson's reputation] is fair game, but doing so should target Wilson’s entire political life, not a few incidents and opinions that were normative during his time in office." (From a sociology professor.)

"Removing [Wilson's] name and images, of course, are merely symbolic demands.... The administration needs to address... the paucity of black faculty members and inadequate attention to African-American culture in the curriculum, and a feeling that black students are not entirely welcomed on campus." (From a Black Studies professor.)

"All of our leaders and heroes, from biblical times to today, are not idols but real people with all-too-common flaws... If the message is that leadership can’t be accompanied by blemishes, what member of this self-aware generation will be willing to stand up to lead?"
2. "What Woodrow Wilson Cost My Grandfather":
An African-American born in 1862 to a prominent white Washington lawyer and his black “housekeeper,” my grandfather was a smart, ambitious and handsome young black man. He emulated his idol, Theodore Roosevelt, in style and dress.... Even as the strictures of Jim Crow segregation began to harden in the South, Washington, and the federal Civil Service, offered African-Americans real opportunity for employment and advancement.... Over a long career, he rose through the ranks from laborer to a position in midlevel management. He supervised an office in which many of his employees were white men.... But only months after Woodrow Wilson was sworn in as president in 1913, my grandfather was demoted.... Wilson was not just a racist. He believed in white supremacy as government policy, so much so that he reversed decades of racial progress....

20 comments:

Laslo Spatula said...

I am fine with removing Woodrow's name from the buildings of the esteemed venerable universities.

It is just the New Elite deciding their Iconography over those of the Past Elite.

It is what the Elite do.

It is their Playground.

It is what the Endowments pay for.

Give it enough years and the Newest Elite will be removing Martin Luther King Jr.'s Name from buildings and roads because he was not Progressive enough.


Bring back the Guillotine.

I am Laslo.

David Begley said...

Appoint Judge Judy to replace RBG. Better and shorter opinions. Also oral arguments would improve.

Sebastian said...

"resulting in decisions with 'a more legal perspective and less of a policy perspective"

Didn't know the Chief had such a great sense of humor.

Gahrie said...

I disagree completely. I think things have gotten worse since the Court has become dominated by elite law school career lawyers and judges.

There is nothing that says Justices have to be lawyers, and I'd personally like to see six of them be non-lawyers in order to give a broader perspective on the issues the Court confronts.

We'd definitely see more commonsense, and fewer emanations from penumbras.

William said...

I can see why Jews would be loathe to play Wagner in Tel Aviv, but he remains a towering figure in music. It wouldn't be right to ban the playing of his music in NYC although many musicians and audience members here are Jewish. Just so with Woodrow Wilson. I'm ok with banning his name from buildings on the Howard campus but not so with Princeton. Wilson is the towering figure who brought us the income tax and the inequitable end of WWI and deserves to be honored for these achievements.......A better form of protest would be to refuse to use any device based othe work of that notorious racist Shockley.

cubanbob said...

Considering most statutes and regulations derived from them are so badly written as to be garbage who better than having a couple of garbage men on the court to determine what is and what isn't garbage?

jimbino said...

You also have to be a Roman Catholic or Jew to gain appointment to SCOTUS. You don't stand a chance if you're a Protestant or, god forbid, an atheist, humanist or deist like Jefferson, Madison, Franklin or Paine.

Mr Wibble said...

By contrast, Chief Justice Roberts said, until Justice Elena Kagan arrived in 2010, “every single member of the court had been a court of appeals judge.' He did not comment Friday on the significance of the narrowing of the career paths, but in 2009 he said the development was a positive one, resulting in decisions with 'a more legal perspective and less of a policy perspective.'"

Is this really a good thing. It strikes me that the court isn't more divorced from political questions, but is certainly less sensitive to the political aspects of their rulings. Focusing on the legalese ends up hurting everyone. Would a more politically sensitive court have allowed the administration to argue that Obamacare was really a tax, when they had publicly declared it to be a fine for years? Would a judge who'd served in legislative or executive capacities, and was sensitive to how citizens would react, have been more or less likely to allow the city of New London to seize private property for a private developer?

Birches said...

I'm guessing these kids have never heard of the Cultural Revolution. And here I thought it could never happen here.

Hagar said...

Kelo was not about the City of New London "condemning land on behalf of a private dveloper."
The City of New London was the developer - and on a speculative basis at that.

eric said...

News flash!

Judge thinks judges make the best judges.

He's wrong.

tim maguire said...

Remember when Bush tried to appoint a non-Judge to the bench? It will be some time before a president makes that msitake again.

Like most here, I got a good laugh out of Roberts bit of tone-deafness over policy vs. law on the court. Sure, it should probably be majority judges, but 2 or 3 non-judges, maybe even a non-lawyer, might add a dose of real world common sense to the bench.

damikesc said...

I disagree completely. I think things have gotten worse since the Court has become dominated by elite law school career lawyers and judges.

There is impressive lockstep conformity amongst people never required to actually live under the horrible conditions their policies bring about. I fail to see the benefit of having lawyers only on the SCOTUS. I would kill for us to stop nominating lawyers/judges for a while.

Mind you, non-lawyers had REALLY tortured logic as well, but I'd like a different perspective.

Fred Drinkwater said...

God save us all from judges who haven't done anything but law all their lives.

BrianE said...

I think the next winner of Survivor should be nominated, or possibly the person winning Dancing with the Stars.

Can't be any worse than the tripe-- excuse me, empathy, we're getting now.

khematite said...

There is some evidence that FDR considered at least two non-lawyers for nomination to the Supreme Court. One was Edward S. Corwin, a professor of political science and leading constitutional scholar at Princeton; the other was Senator Robert LaFollette, Jr, a Progressive from Wisconsin. In the end, of course, neither one was nominated. At least in part, this must have stemmed from concern within the administration that setting such a precedent would consume far more political capital than was worthwhile.

Unknown said...

What we need is someone who can read and apply the plain words of the English language that are in the Constitution.

There is no such thing as a penumbra. And something cannot be both a tax and a fee.

Okay Johnny?

Unknown said...

"resulting in decisions with 'a more legal perspective and less of a policy perspective" -- spew

Bob Ellison said...

Brown was a crappy decision.

Freeman Hunt said...

I would like to see evidence for the assertion made by Roberts.