What, Was William H. Taft Chopped Liver?:
Jeff Rosen: "over the course of history, former politicians have made not only the best chief justices--think of John Marshall, Charles Evans Hughes, and Earl Warren."
What, Was William H. Taft Chopped Liver?:
Jeff Rosen: "over the course of history, former politicians have made not only the best chief justices--think of John Marshall, Charles Evans Hughes, and Earl Warren." |
Imagine a cartoon: 1st frame--9 Justices sitting around and one says, "you know, maybe we should just tell them if you want to change the Constitution go out and amend it." 2d frame--Justices looking at each other. 3d frame--Justices laughing hysterically, holding sides, bending over, etc. And thanks to Earl Warren! One of the best!
Same with Obama. Despite claims that he is a Constitutional Law scholar, there is no evidence whatever of any "scholarship." Yes, he lectured. But that makes him a lecturer, not a scholar.
And finally, as to Earl Warren. Some of his opinions were simply embarassing. And not even for their result, but for shoddy reasoning. He was able to get away with it because he had 5 votes to do anything he wanted. Brown v. Board unquestionably had a right outcome, but it is an embarassment to read. It did not even bother to state that Plessy was being overruled. Instead, it talked about dolls and feelings of inferiority. (Apparently then, so long as no feelings of inferiority are present discrimination is A-OK). So, to the extent that Professor Rosen argues that a politician of Earl Warren's type would be an intellectual match for John Roberts or Antonin Scalia or Stephen Breyer or Sam Alito, he is woefully mistaken.
* Constitutional Law III: Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process
* Current Issues in Racism &the Law
* Voting Rights &the Democratic Process
Probably his most enduring opinion today is the one where he found that payment of income taxes as part of compensation constituted "gross income from whatever source derived." Important enough, but not judicially sexy.
He would be, but he's not arguing that. He's arguing that Warren is among the "best" CJs, which is quite a different beast. (It's also worth noting that he doesn't say exactly how he's defining "best"; Rosen might mean "best at building consensus in important cases," which means Warren is up there, for example.
My guess is that the particular sentence in this post started off with only Marshall and Warren, and needed a third for style.
Besides, Hillary will need a consolation prize.
Butch: Who's the best lawman?
Sundance: You mean toughest or easiest to bribe?
And Taft was a darn good guy, too. Never wanted to be Prez, but did what he thought was his duty, was crushed when TR turned on him, but suffered it with dignity.
An under-appreciated guy all-around. (And he was quite all-around. :-) )
He was a full-time Illinois state representative.
In Marbury v. Madison, he was ruling upon a decision he himself issued, as Sec. of State. His brother was a witness, testifying that Marshall had signed the warrant before midnight on the last day of Adams' administration, which was a disputed fact.
The point stands: He was a part-time lecturer because he otherwise had a full-time job. In Springfield.
For those who care, the word on the street is that the Law School could never convince him to accept a tenure-track faculty position because he was more interested in politics than in the academy. I never heard that when I was a student at the University, but it could be true. He certainly has the brain to be a professor. But probably not the disposition. That's why the likelihood of him accepting a seat on the Supreme Court is about as high as Bill Clinton becoming a judge. These guys are doers. The court is a crypt.
It would have outlawed the U.S. Senate if its structure had not been laid out in the Constitution.
This removed the balance that their was between the high population areas and rural which had provided some restraints on populist demagogues.
I'm not sure that I would consider that a positive achievement.