The Volokh Conspiracy - Supreme Court Justice Retirement Rumors -- in 1896:

Recently I came across this New York Times article from January 21, 1896, and I thought readers might find it interesting:

JUSTICE FIELD NOT TO RETIRE
---
He Will Remain on the Bench So Long As He Works Easily.
  WASHINGTON, Jan. 21. — Associate Justice Stephen J. Field of the United States Supreme Court, in regard to whose retirement rumors have been published for many years, authorizes a denial of the latest statement to that effect, which was published this morning. The venerable jurist says:
  "Of course, a man at my time of life might retire from the bench at any time. If my health should not permit me to attend to my duties easily, I should not hesitate to leave the bench, but so long as I can attend to these duties with ease, I have no intent of retiring."
  Born in 1816, and appointed to the Supreme Court by Abraham Lincoln in 1863, Justice Field has long since passed the limit entitling him to retire on full pay whenever he so desires. Only Chief Justice Marshall and Justice Story have exceeded him in length of service, and they only by a few months.

Field retired about two years later, incidentally. If you follow the succession of his seat, it went to Justice McKenna, then Stone, Robert Jackson, Harlan II, Rehnquist as an Associate Justice, and then presently to Justice Scalia.

(link)

J. Aldridge:

I recall a couple years ago reading about a controversy in 1868 where a Washington paper reported a anonymous supreme court justice as saying if the validity of the fourteenth amendment was to reach the court that the court would have no choice in declaring it unconstitutional. Another paper a couple days later named the source as Stephen J. Field.

5.4.2009 8:27am

ruuffles (mail) (www):

if the validity of the fourteenth amendment was to reach the court that the court would have no choice in declaring it unconstitutional.

Can you give a link or something? I'm curious to read how an amendment to the constitution can be unconstitutional.

5.4.2009 9:22am

ruuffles: I'm just going by memory of something I read (probably from the Congressional Globe) a few years ago. Many thought it was unconstitutional by its forced adoption. Also, three or four northen states who had rescinded their approval before it was officially ratified. Bingham was so alarmed that he tried to push a bill to make it a felony for any member of a state legislature to vote to rescind approval!

OTOH, Ohio was allowed to vote NO on the 15th amendment and a year or so later rescind and voted in favor!!!! Double standard?

5.4.2009 9:38am

MarkField (mail):

Sadly (?), no relation.

5.4.2009 1:24pm

David Chesler (mail) (www):

My table here.

5.5.2009 9:34am

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.