Repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801

1915 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 519-528 ◽  
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.

scholarly journals The Civil War in the American Ruling Class

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 857-881
Author(s):  
Scott Timcke
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Social Structure ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Digital Media ◽  
Class Struggle ◽  
The United States ◽  
Ruling Class ◽  
Judicial Appointments ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Circuit Courts

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.

scholarly journals When Courts Run Amuck: A Book Review of Unequal

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 391-404
Author(s):  
Theresa M. Beiner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Employment Discrimination ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Legal Standards ◽  
Point Analysis ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Law Professors

In Unequal: How America’s Courts Undermine Discrimination Law (“Unequal”), law professors Sandra F. Sperino and Suja A. Thomas provide a point-by-point analysis of how the federal courts’ interpretations of federal anti-discrimination laws have undermined their efficacy to provide relief to workers whose employers have allegedly engaged in discrimination. The cases’ results are consistently pro-employer, even while the Supreme Court of the United States—a court not known for being particularly pro-plaintiff—has occasionally ruled in favor of plaintiff employees. The authors suggest some reasons for this apparent anti-plaintiff bias among the federal courts, although they do not settle on a particular reason for the courts’ frequent dismissal of these claims. Instead, the book seeks to expose how these seemingly erroneous dismissals occur and suggest avenues for reforming these legal standards. This Review begins by describing the book’s main arguments. Throughout this description, the Review supports and at times challenges some of the authors’ positions. In particular, this Review examines arguments regarding the role politics play in the courts’ decisionmaking in employment discrimination cases. It also explores the ironic result that the courts’ approaches to these cases actually may lead to more discrimination in the workplace and therefore more cases. Finally, this Review describes the authors’ suggestions for reform and proposes that changes in this area of the law are best accomplished by the entities that created the problems—the courts.

Excerpts from Declaration of Gordon E. Baker in Badham v. Eu

1985 ◽  
Vol 18 (03) ◽  
pp. 551-560
Author(s):  
Gordon E. Baker
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
The Political ◽  
Test Case ◽  
Traditional Practice ◽  
Fair Representation ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Political Advantage ◽  
The 1960S

Gerrymandering—the intentional manipulation of legislative boundaries for political advantage—is a venerable practice. Why, then, some might wonder, should we pay greater attention to it at this time? In particular, should judicial inquiry into constitutional issues of fair representation, intense for some two decades, now turn to what may well seem to comprise the heart of the “political thicket”? Throughout this period of reapportionment litigation, federal courts have alluded to the problem, with increasing concern shown by members of the Supreme Court of the United States, about its importance (e.g.,Karcher v. Daggett, 103 S. Ct. 2653: 1983). Is the time ripe for a direct judicial examination of the gerrymander on constitutional grounds? And, if so, does California comprise an appropriate test case?Prerequisite to answering such questions are: (1) an understanding of how and why gerrymandering, in magnitude, extent, and impact, has become an essentially new kind of issue rather than a mere extension of a traditional practice; and (2) a need to develop judicially manageable standards of identifying gerrymanders.Prior to the reapportionment revolution of the 1960s, there existed a variety of constraints that conditioned boundary manipulation. For one thing, a large number of states simply failed to redistrict for several decades, the situation that triggeredBaker v. Can(369 U.S. 186: 1962),Wesberry v. Sanders(376 U.S. 1: 1964),et al.This resulted in great disparities in population among districts, a form of “silent” or “status quo” gerrymander that in practice minimized periodic boundary manipulation. For example, district lines for Congress were typically redrawn only in states—usually a minority—that lost or gained seats.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document