>It is essential, Roosevelt argued, that a justice be a “party man, a constructive statesman” in the “higher sense” of those concepts. But Roosevelt’s “higher sense” suddenly descends into the question whether Holmes agrees with Roosevelt on every political matter that Roosevelt regards as important
Well this is an eery reminder that this type of thing not new.
>Presidents who don’t understand or appreciate that the craft of judging is distinct from politics will be disappointed when they appoint Supreme Court justices who do understand that distinction and who do their best to abide by it. Some presidents and their supporters will conclude that’s a large reason not to appoint such justices: “Let’s get our political hacks on the Court.” But the constitutionally sound conclusion is that presidents should develop and pursue a better understanding of what good judging consists of.
Well Mr. Whelan when you’re right you’re right
FuckYouRomanPolanski on
You won’t hear me say this very often but more presidents should be like Gerald Ford in this regard. This is what he had to say when asked if he regretted nominating John Paul Stevens after Stevens became one of the leading liberal on the court:
>Historians study the significant diplomatic, legislative and economic events that occurred during a Presidential term to evaluate that Presidency. Normally, little or no consideration is given to the long term effects of a President’s Supreme Court nominees. Eisenhower’s Earl Warren, John Adams’ John Marshall and Wilson’s Louis Brandeis immediately come to mind; although references to these great jurists are usually absent in Presidential biographies.
>Let that not be the case with my Presidency. For I am prepared to allow history’s judgment of my term in office to rest (if necessary, exclusively) on my nomination thirty years ago of Justice John Paul Stevens to the U.S. Supreme Court. I endorse his constitutional views on the secular character of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, on securing procedural safeguards in criminal case and on the constitution’s broad grant of regulatory authority to Congress. I include as well my special admiration for his charming wit and sense of humor; as evidence in his dissent in the 1986 commerce clause case of Maine v. Taylor and United States, involving the constitutionality of a Maine statute that broadly restricted any interstate trade of Maine’s minnows. In words perhaps somewhat less memorable then, “Shouting fire in a crowded theater,” Justice Stevens wrote, “There is something fishy about this case.”
>He has served his nation well, at all times carrying out his judicial duties with dignity, intellect and without partisan political concerns. Justice Stevens has made me, and our fellow citizens, proud of my three decade old decision to appoint him to the Supreme Court. I wish him long life, good health and many more years on the bench.
Ford may not be the best president of all time but damn it I respect a man that stands on business
3 Comments
!ping HISTORY&LAW
>It is essential, Roosevelt argued, that a justice be a “party man, a constructive statesman” in the “higher sense” of those concepts. But Roosevelt’s “higher sense” suddenly descends into the question whether Holmes agrees with Roosevelt on every political matter that Roosevelt regards as important
Well this is an eery reminder that this type of thing not new.
>Presidents who don’t understand or appreciate that the craft of judging is distinct from politics will be disappointed when they appoint Supreme Court justices who do understand that distinction and who do their best to abide by it. Some presidents and their supporters will conclude that’s a large reason not to appoint such justices: “Let’s get our political hacks on the Court.” But the constitutionally sound conclusion is that presidents should develop and pursue a better understanding of what good judging consists of.
Well Mr. Whelan when you’re right you’re right
You won’t hear me say this very often but more presidents should be like Gerald Ford in this regard. This is what he had to say when asked if he regretted nominating John Paul Stevens after Stevens became one of the leading liberal on the court:
>Historians study the significant diplomatic, legislative and economic events that occurred during a Presidential term to evaluate that Presidency. Normally, little or no consideration is given to the long term effects of a President’s Supreme Court nominees. Eisenhower’s Earl Warren, John Adams’ John Marshall and Wilson’s Louis Brandeis immediately come to mind; although references to these great jurists are usually absent in Presidential biographies.
>Let that not be the case with my Presidency. For I am prepared to allow history’s judgment of my term in office to rest (if necessary, exclusively) on my nomination thirty years ago of Justice John Paul Stevens to the U.S. Supreme Court. I endorse his constitutional views on the secular character of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, on securing procedural safeguards in criminal case and on the constitution’s broad grant of regulatory authority to Congress. I include as well my special admiration for his charming wit and sense of humor; as evidence in his dissent in the 1986 commerce clause case of Maine v. Taylor and United States, involving the constitutionality of a Maine statute that broadly restricted any interstate trade of Maine’s minnows. In words perhaps somewhat less memorable then, “Shouting fire in a crowded theater,” Justice Stevens wrote, “There is something fishy about this case.”
>He has served his nation well, at all times carrying out his judicial duties with dignity, intellect and without partisan political concerns. Justice Stevens has made me, and our fellow citizens, proud of my three decade old decision to appoint him to the Supreme Court. I wish him long life, good health and many more years on the bench.
Ford may not be the best president of all time but damn it I respect a man that stands on business