The oath: the Obama White House and the Supreme Court

2013 ◽  
Vol 50 (10) ◽  
pp. 50-5886-50-5886

Significance Rubio's move comes as several candidates for the Democratic Party's 2020 presidential nomination are discussing 'packing' the Supreme Court -- adding justices intended to nullify the perceived long-term conservative bias of the Court following Trump-era appointments. Impacts A constitutional change to limit the Supreme Court to nine justices is unlikely: amendments are purposely hard. Court-packing would not guarantee 'Democratic' or 'Republican' rulings: much depends on the case and how justices feel. Packing the courts would likely increase their politicisation, and potentially slow their deliberative capacity. If Trump wins a second term and Republicans keep the Senate, they will appoint further conservative justices. If the Democrats win the White House and Senate in 2020, they might 'pack' the lower courts.


Significance However, following Clinton's success in the delegate-rich April 29 contests, Sanders is mathematically unable to win the Democratic Party's nomination based solely on pledged delegates from the remaining primaries, setting up a period of political deal-making to build Democratic unity behind Clinton before the party convention beginning on July 25. Impacts The importance of the Supreme Court vacancy will give added impetus for each party to unite and secure the presidency. Sanders's non-interventionist leanings will not affect Clinton's hawkish foreign policy stance. Trump will adopt more populist positions on financial regulation and taxation to appeal for centrist support. Sanders may find more support for his views in a revitalised Democratic Senate majority than in a Clinton White House.


Significance President Donald Trump nominated Gorsuch to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death last year. Congressional Republicans blocked former President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill the vacancy, Judge Merrick Garland, enabling Trump to name a conservative justice to set the balance of the Court after winning the presidential election. At least one Democratic senator has threatened to block Gorsuch’s appointment via upper house procedure. Impacts Future Democratic presidential candidates from the current Senate may suffer in primaries if they allow Gorsuch’s appointment. Gorsuch will help the White House and Congress severely cut back federal regulatory powers. Congressional Republicans are more likely to defy Trump on personnel and policy as his personal influence wanes ahead of the 2020 elections.


2008 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. 253-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin J. McMahon

Following the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist in the summer of 2005, President George W. Bush appeared to be in alliance with conservatives in his desire to fill the two vacancies with strong ideologues who would push the Supreme Court to the right. However, after pleasing conservatives with his selection of John Roberts for one of the vacancies, President Bush angered many of his ideological brethren by choosing White House counsel Harriet Miers for the other. This article considers why the president decided on Miers and why her selection upset so many conservatives. It concludes by suggesting that Miers’s forced withdrawal represented a highpoint in the conservative effort to transform the Court.


1987 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Graham Fish

Before a gathering of the White House Press corps on March 21, 1930, President Herbert Hoover announced his nomination for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court to fill a vacancy unexpectedly created by the death of Edward T. Sanford. His nominee was forty-four year old native North Carolinian John J. Parker, a member since 1925 of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Within days of the nomination organized labor and its allies in Congress and the press unleashed withering attacks on a single judicial opinion authored by Parker. In the process, the priority of issues raised in that case was dramatically inverted. The foremost issue, federal jurisdiction, became subordinated to the scope of an injunctive decree, an issue of secondary importance. Thus, the nominee's three year old opinion in International Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Red Jacket Consolidated Coal and Coke Company became the catalyst for transforming him from relative obscurity into a symbol of anti-labor conservatism.


Author(s):  
J. Harvie Wilkinson

Everyone understands that Brown v. Board of Education helped deliver the Negro from over three centuries of legal bondage. But Brown acted to emancipate the white South and the Supreme Court as well. Not that the South immediately recognized Brown as a deliverance from economic stagnation, moral debility, and sectional isolation, a deliverance that would end with the installment of one of its own in the White House by 1977. And the Court only barely acknowledged in Brown the full weight of history from which it was itself redeemed. Indeed, the true story of the Court’s own past attitude toward the black man remains one of the deafening silences of the Brown opinion. For half a century after the Civil War, the Supreme Court had, in effect, told the Negro to seek solace not in the law of the land but, like Stephen Foster’s Old Black Joe, in cotton fields, mournful song, darkey friends, and the hereafter. It was President Lincoln who issued the Emancipation Proclamation and Congress that moved to secure Negro rights in the South with no fewer than three Constitutional amendments and four Civil Rights acts shortly after the Civil War. Throughout this period, the Court was eyed distrustfully. The Radical Republicans were “aware of the power the Court could exercise. They were for the most part bitterly aware of it, having long fought such decisions as the Dred Scott case.” Radicals such as Congressman Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania probably “had little hope that the Court would play a role in furthering their long range objectives.” What hopes they did have centered on those sections of the post-Civil War amendments permitting Congress to act through “appropriate legislation.” In 1865 the Radicals sensed a long-awaited opportunity. Many a proud southern planter was left to his ashes and rubble, to scorched earth and wistful dreams. “The Old South,” wrote one observer in 1870, “has gone ‘down among the dead men’. . . . For that vanished form of society there can be no resurrection. . . .”


Subject Prospects for US politics to end-2017. Significance The shock 2016 election outcome brought President Donald Trump to the White House, with a conservative-leaning majority on the Supreme Court and Republican control over both houses of Congress. However, the Trump administration has struggled to push through federal policy shifts in many areas, whether sought by political allies as they see a closing window for decisive change, expected by investors as US equity markets reach record highs or feared by the White House’s Democratic opponents.


Significance This would mean a 6-3 conservative majority on the Court, and considerable controversy because Republican Senate leadership refused to consider a Court nominee ahead of the 2016 election. The candidate Trump chooses, and when confirmation is undertaken, will affect the November 3 presidential and Senate elections. Impacts The nomination battle will play into the election, including Trump’s pro-gun and anti-abortion positions. Confirming a new justice, pre-election, would assure a full nine-member Supreme Court to handle any election disputes. House Democrats may seek to slow the confirmation by impeachment proceedings or stalling federal appropriations. If the Democrats win the White House, pressure from progressives to expand the Supreme Court will grow.


1990 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-27
Author(s):  
Haim H. Cohn

The “Jewish Seat” on the Supreme Court of the United States of America, which had been occupied by Justices Brandeis, Cardozo and Frankfurter, was after the tatter's retirement in 1962 offered to Arthur Joseph Goldberg. He was not the only Jewish candidate whom President Kennedy considered for nomination: the other was Paul Freund, Frankfurter's successor on the faculty of Harvard Law School and his intimate friend. Opinions were divided whether Freund's candidature was eliminated because of Goldberg's superior merit, or because the President nourished a grudge against him for having twice refused appointment as solicitor-general, or perhaps because there were already two many Harvard men in high office — a fact which had aroused criticism in some quarters. Goldberg had, for about one year, been Secretary of Labor in Kennedy's cabinet: though his actual successes in ameliorating strike-ridden labor relations were (to say the least) doubtful, the President and his aides at any rate had ample opportunity to acquaint themselves with his personal and professional qualities; and if an assumption of mutuality is in order, Goldberg on his part admired and revered the President well nigh unreservedly. Goldberg's reputation also outside the White House must have been well established: he was the only Jewish candidate for the Supreme Court whose nomination was unopposed and approved after a perfunctory hearing. The opposition to previous Jewish nominations, even to that of Cardozo who was otherwise uncontested, had always had antisemitic undertones which were absent (or suppressed) in Goldberg's case. It was suggested that had Kennedy survived there might have been yet another Jewish appointment to the Supreme Court: not so much because being himself the first Catholic to be elected President, he was particularly sensitive to religious discrimination, as because of his celebrated meritocracy, determined to recruit the best man available for every office.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document