The politics of division and distraction, conservatives’ claims of liberalism’s dangers, the wisdom of amoral foreign policy, a partisan challenge to a Supreme Court justice, and threats to the constitutionally mandated balance between the three branches of government: however of the moment these matters might seem, they are clearly presaged in events chronicled by Joshua E. Kastenberg in this book, the first in-depth account of a campaign to impeach Supreme Court justice William O. Douglas nearly fifty years ago. On April 15, 1970, at President Richard Nixon’s behest, Republican House Minority Leader Gerald Ford brazenly called for the impeachment of Douglas, the nation’s leading liberal judge—and the House Judiciary Committee responded with a six-month investigation, while the Senate awaited a potential trial that never occurred. Ford’s actions against Douglas mirrored the anger that millions of Americans, then as now, harbored toward changing social, economic, and moral norms, and a federal government seemingly unconcerned with the lives of everyday working white Americans. Those actions also reflected, as this book reveals, what came to be known as the Republicans’ “southern strategy,” a cynical attempt to exploit the hostility of white southern voters toward the civil rights movement. Kastenberg describes the political actors, ambitions, alliances, and maneuvers behind the move to impeach Douglas—including the Nixon administration’s vain hope of deflecting attention from a surprisingly unpopular invasion of Cambodia—and follows the ill-advised effort to its ignominious conclusion, with consequences that resonate to this day. Marking a turning point in American politics, The Campaign to Impeach Justice William O. Douglas is a sobering, cautionary tale, a critical chapter in the history of constitutional malfeasance, and a reminder of the importance of judicial independence in a politically polarized age.
Throughout America's history, lawyers with a crusading zeal have, through their moral stance, intellectual integrity, and sheer brilliance, made use of the law to fight social injustice. In short biographical chapters, the authors tell the stories of ten of these lawyers. Some are well known: Thurgood Marshall; William Kunstler; Louis Brandeis; Morris Dees; Clarence Darrow; and Ralph Nader. Others are not so well known, but deserve to be. All are fascinating and influential attorneys, and examination of their lives illuminates key issues in American history. An annotated bibliography; a chronology of the person's life and work; and a helpful table detailing their most prominent cases accompany each chapter.
February issue includes Appendix entitled Directory of United States Government periodicals and subscription publications; September issue includes List of depository libraries; June and December issues include semiannual index
The inside story of how one president forever altered the most powerful legal institution in the country—with consequences that endure today By the summer of 1941, in the ninth year of his presidency, Franklin Roosevelt had molded his Court. He had appointed seven of the nine justices—the most by any president except George Washington—and handpicked the chief justice. But the wartime Roosevelt Court had two faces. One was bold and progressive, the other supine and abject, cowed by the charisma of the revered president. The Court at War explores this pivotal period. It provides a cast of unforgettable characters in the justices—from the mercurial, Vienna-born intellectual Felix Frankfurter to the Alabama populist Hugo Black; from the western prodigy William O. Douglas, FDR’s initial pick to be his running mate in 1944, to Roosevelt’s former attorney general and Nuremberg prosecutor Robert Jackson. The justices’ shameless capitulation and unwillingness to cross their beloved president highlight the dangers of an unseemly closeness between Supreme Court justices and their political patrons. But the FDR Court’s finest moments also provided a robust defense of individual rights, rights the current Court has put in jeopardy. Sloan’s intimate portrait is a vivid, instructive tale for modern times.
While much has been written on Supreme Court appointments, Deciding to Leave provides the first systematic look at the process by which justices decide to retire from the bench, and why this has become increasingly partisan in recent years. Since 1954, generous retirement provisions and decreasing workloads have allowed justices to depart strategically when a president of their own party occupies the White House. Otherwise, the justices remain in their seats, often past their ability to effectively participate in the work of the Court. While there are benefits and drawbacks to various reform proposals, Ward argues that mandatory retirement goes farthest in combating partisanship and protecting the institution of the Court.
This work will serve as the authoritative reference text on the Supreme Court during the period of 1921 to 1930, when William Howard Taft was Chief Justice. It will become a point of common reference across multiple disciplines, including history, law, and political science.