The Fixed Law of Patents, as Established by the Supreme Court of the United States and the Nine Circuit Courts of Appeal

American politics is at a decisive historical conjuncture, one that resembles Gramsci’s description of a Caesarian response to an organic crisis. The courts, as a lagging indicator, reveal this longstanding catastrophic equilibrium. Following an examination of class struggle ‘from above’, in this paper I trace how digital media instruments are used by different factions within the capitalist ruling class to capture and maintain the commanding heights of the American social structure. Using this hegemony, I argue that one can see the prospect of American Caesarism being institutionally entrenched via judicial appointments at the Supreme Court of the United States and other circuit courts.

Download Full-text

Repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801

American Political Science Review ◽

10.2307/1946064 ◽

1915 ◽

Vol 9 (3) ◽

pp. 519-528 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

William S. Carpenter

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Supreme Court ◽

The United States ◽

Federal Courts ◽

The Political ◽

The Federalist ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Political Advantage ◽

The One ◽

Circuit Courts

The intent of the framers of the judiciary act of 1801 has been to the present day a matter of some doubt. On the one hand it has been shown that alterations in the judiciary system of the United States had long been agitated before the failure of the Federalist party in the elections of 1800. Soon after the establishment of federal courts in 1789 relief had been sought by the justices of the supreme court from the arduous duties necessitated in riding the circuits. In 1799 a bill designed to establish a system of circuit courts was reported upon which action was postponed. But this later became the basis for the act of 1801. It has, therefore, been contended that, quite apart from the political advantage given the Federalists by the passage of the act of 1801, such changes in the judiciary system were warranted by necessity.At the same time it is equally clear that the amount of business before the courts of the United States, although it had been excessive, had begun to decline. No further prosecutions were to be expected under the alien and sedition acts, and a decrease in the number of suits before the federal courts involving other questions was observed even before the accession of Jefferson to the presidency.

Download Full-text

The Business of the Supreme Court of the United States. A Study in the Federal Judicial System. II. From the Civil War to the Circuit Courts of Appeals Act

Harvard Law Review ◽

10.2307/1328855 ◽

1925 ◽

Vol 39 (1) ◽

pp. 35 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Felix Frankfurter

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Civil War ◽

Supreme Court ◽

The United States ◽

Judicial System ◽

Courts Of Appeals ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Circuit Courts

Download Full-text

The Workload of the Supreme Court: A Comment on the Freund Report

Journal of American Studies ◽

10.1017/s0021875800013608 ◽

1976 ◽

Vol 10 (2) ◽

pp. 215-239 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Richard Hodder-Williams

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Civil War ◽

Supreme Court ◽

The United States ◽

District Courts ◽

Discretionary Power ◽

Chief Justice ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Major Reform ◽

Circuit Courts

Belief that the Supreme Court is overburdened is not new. In the years after the Civil War, the expansion of the United States, both territorially and economically, enlarged the work of the Justices enormously, for not only did the number of cases on which they were required to pass judgement increase but the miles they had to travel within their own circuits also multiplied hugely. In 1891 the Circuit Courts of Appeal Act was passed, establishing intermediate courts between the District Courts, product of the original 1789 Judiciary Act, and the Supreme Court itself. Whereas in 1890 before the Act was passed 623 new cases were filed, in the 1892 Term only 275 were, and the Court was soon able to reduce its backlog. Nevertheless the number began once again to drift upwards so that by 1923 nearly 750 appeals and petitions for certiorari, on most of which the Justices were obliged to pronounce, reached the Supreme Court. Following intense lobbying by Howard Taft, at that time Chief Justice, a major reform took place in 1925 which allowed the Court discretionary power over virtually all its docket.

Download Full-text