“Imagined Resignations”
From an article in the Fulton County Daily Report:
Thomas’ five-minute address included a suggestion that no member of his court was planning to retire. Since Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist announced he was being treated for thyroid cancer last fall, speculation about a court vacancy has been rampant.
Thomas noted that his court ended its term on Monday as “winds of controversy swirled about the Court’s decisions and, unfortunately, about the imagined resignations.”
I can’t help but wonder something. It seems to me that this term would not be the note on which the Chief would want to leave; as I think Tom mentioned the other day, any number of cases have not gone the way I suspect he’d prefer or would have expected. Tom also noted on the SCOTUS nomination blog that Rehnquist certainly has the facility to carry on for as long as he’s physically able, so it becomes a question of will. So I wonder if, even had Rehnquist nursed a desire to leave back in January, it evaporated as cases were decided.
So I would be far from surprised - and far from displeased - if he did stay.
Comment by Simon — June 28, 2005 @ 11:04 pm
Rehnquist will retire no sooner than March 2006, when these nine Justices become the longest serving panel of the Supreme Court in our Nation’s history. Like his eight fellow Justices, the Chief Justice undoubtedly recognizes that, 100 years from now, every legal historian in this country will consider this panel to have been the most influential in the history of the United States Supreme Court. These nine Justices have taken American jurisprudence to the next level, and every opinion in every decision they have rendered has contributed to an 11 year intellectual revolution which will continue to reverberate throughout our legal system for generations to come.
Comment by Anonymous — June 29, 2005 @ 12:46 am
Wow. I am really impressed by Anonymous (above)’s bold statement regarding legal history in 100 years from now, June 29, 2105. Here _I_ would have thought that an ambitious statement would have been the following:
The Supreme Court as it has been composed since the addition of its youngest member, Clarence Thomas, has been one of the most (whatever; intellectually something or other; politically something else; actively a third thing; pick your description) in the hundred years prior to that date, back to at least the 1880s.
Of course, even that kind of remark could be remarkably wrong, or biased in favor of the later (better records, more media attention, more awareness of the interaction that has always existed between politics and judiciary, etc.). But at least it has a chance of being accurate now, and thus accurate from the more-objective distance (if that’s possible) of a hundred years hence.
But most likely of all, I would say, is that in a hundred years this panel will be utterly forgotten, except by students of the obscure and the overlooked. Scholars of the court will remember it; a few may still be alive who attended arguments before it, or remember the reverberations from its decisions. But c’mon, Anonymous.
How many decisions from the fall term of 1905 do you personally care about and remember? How about 1904? 1903? Do you know who was on the bench then? I know some names, but would have to check.
How about the Marshall Court? Remember who was on then? The Jay Court? What about Taney’s gang?
The most-remembered will be the most-honored or most-reviled. While it’s possible, I suppose, that these are them, I would not wager a dollar on it (adjusted for inflation, and with interest). A hundred years is a _long_ time for futurists, which is why they pick it; they’ll be dead by the time their predictions can be laughed at, most of the time. Being anonymous helps, though.
Regards,
The Eh Nonymous lawyer.
p.s. read my blawg!
Comment by Eh Nonymous — June 29, 2005 @ 12:06 pm
I like the first part of Anonymous’s concept, but I peg the date at September 18, 2005 (Sept. 15 if you adjust 28-day Feb. vs. 31-day Aug.; leap days (3) are the same in both 1812-23 & 1994-2005). Story joined the court Feb. 3, 1812, and Livingston died March 18, 1823: 11 yrs 1 month 15 days. Breyer was sworn in Aug. 3, 1994. Where does March 2006 come from?
Comment by Philadelphia lawyer — June 29, 2005 @ 5:52 pm
I think that Anonymous underrates the capacity of legal historians to disagree. Disagreement over interpretations is the stock in trade of historians. Even if Anonymous’s judgment were correct (insert caveat here about the possibility of correct judgment on questions of relative historical importance), that would certainly not guarantee agreement among historians.
However, I think Eh Nonymous underrates the power of the legal profession’s memory. I’ll test this by venturing the recollection that Lochner was decided in 1905. (I confess I don’t know any from 1903 or 1904, but I’m sure mine is not the most learned head reading this blog.)
Comment by Leighton Moore — June 29, 2005 @ 6:30 pm
Eh Nonymous asked:
“How many decisions from the fall term of 1905 do you personally care about and remember?”
Lochner had been decided the previous term, and it will always symbolize the short-lived reign of liberty of contract. That was certainly a period of Supreme Court history that had a profound influence which is still felt today, even if it is perceived as a negative influence by most jurists.
Philadephia Lawyer asked:
“Where does March 2006 come from?”
I computed it from Justice Thompson being sworn in instead of from Justice Livingston’s death (although my math might still be wrong).
Comment by Anonymous — June 29, 2005 @ 7:57 pm
Leighton Moore correctly observes that “Disagreement over interpretations is the stock in trade of historians.” Historiography is indeed what separates the historian from the archivist. The degree of a court’s influence, however, is a largely factual inquiry. In contrast, assessing the significance of that influence is where the historians will earn their pay.
Comment by Anonymous — June 29, 2005 @ 9:32 pm