Court-packing in Context

IF 0.1 Q3 HISTORY Journal of Supreme Court History Pub Date : 2023-07-11 DOI:10.1353/sch.2023.a901538
Barry M. Cushman
{"title":"Court-packing in Context","authors":"Barry M. Cushman","doi":"10.1353/sch.2023.a901538","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"two related questions: First, what were the Court-packing plan’s prospects for ultimate congressional enactment, and second, to what extent, if any, did the pendency of the Court-packing plan affect the outcomes in the Court’s major constitutional decisions in the spring of 1937? Perhaps as a consequence of this focus, proposed alternatives to Court-packing tend to be treated as something of a sideshow. Discussion of such proposals typically concentrates on the strategic reasons for which Roosevelt rejected them in favor of his own Court-packing plan. Largely overlooked is the rich contemporary legal, newspaper, and periodical literature in which these alternative measures received sustained legal and policy consideration.3 Similarly, the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Roosevelt’s bill, at which such proposals also were the subjects of extensive deliberation, routinely receive rather limited exploration. In some cases, discussion is largely confined to the manner in which the bill’s opponents used the hearings to delay its ultimate floor consideration.4 Other treatments offer more There is a curious lacuna in the literature on the Court-packing crisis of 1937. The proposal for reform of the federal judiciary that received the most attention and consideration in that year was, of course, president Franklin D. Roosevelt’s proposal to enlarge the membership of the Supreme Court from nine to fifteen justices.1 Yet, both before and throughout the battle over the president’s “Court-packing plan,” members of Congress introduced a wide variety of alternative measures for addressing their dissatisfaction with recent Supreme Court decisions invalidating various state and federal laws designed to relieve economic distress and stimulate economic recovery.2 Some of these proposals would have taken statutory form, while many others would have amended the Constitution in various respects. In the end, none of these measures was reported out of Committee. Nevertheless, they were the subject of serious discussion in multiple contemporary venues. Scholarly treatments of the Courtpacking episode typically are focused on Court-packing in Context","PeriodicalId":41873,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Supreme Court History","volume":"48 1","pages":"174 - 214"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Supreme Court History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/sch.2023.a901538","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

two related questions: First, what were the Court-packing plan’s prospects for ultimate congressional enactment, and second, to what extent, if any, did the pendency of the Court-packing plan affect the outcomes in the Court’s major constitutional decisions in the spring of 1937? Perhaps as a consequence of this focus, proposed alternatives to Court-packing tend to be treated as something of a sideshow. Discussion of such proposals typically concentrates on the strategic reasons for which Roosevelt rejected them in favor of his own Court-packing plan. Largely overlooked is the rich contemporary legal, newspaper, and periodical literature in which these alternative measures received sustained legal and policy consideration.3 Similarly, the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Roosevelt’s bill, at which such proposals also were the subjects of extensive deliberation, routinely receive rather limited exploration. In some cases, discussion is largely confined to the manner in which the bill’s opponents used the hearings to delay its ultimate floor consideration.4 Other treatments offer more There is a curious lacuna in the literature on the Court-packing crisis of 1937. The proposal for reform of the federal judiciary that received the most attention and consideration in that year was, of course, president Franklin D. Roosevelt’s proposal to enlarge the membership of the Supreme Court from nine to fifteen justices.1 Yet, both before and throughout the battle over the president’s “Court-packing plan,” members of Congress introduced a wide variety of alternative measures for addressing their dissatisfaction with recent Supreme Court decisions invalidating various state and federal laws designed to relieve economic distress and stimulate economic recovery.2 Some of these proposals would have taken statutory form, while many others would have amended the Constitution in various respects. In the end, none of these measures was reported out of Committee. Nevertheless, they were the subject of serious discussion in multiple contemporary venues. Scholarly treatments of the Courtpacking episode typically are focused on Court-packing in Context
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
语境中的法庭包装
两个相关的问题:首先,最高法院打包计划在国会最终颁布的前景如何,其次,如果有的话,法院打包计划的悬而未决在多大程度上影响了1937年春季最高法院重大宪法裁决的结果?也许由于这种关注,法院包装的拟议替代方案往往被视为一种杂耍。对这些提议的讨论通常集中在罗斯福拒绝这些提议而支持他自己的法院打包计划的战略原因上。在很大程度上被忽视的是丰富的当代法律、报纸和期刊文献,在这些文献中,这些替代措施得到了持续的法律和政策考虑。3同样,参议院司法委员会关于罗斯福法案的听证会也受到了广泛的审议,但通常会受到相当有限的探索。在某些情况下,讨论主要局限于该法案的反对者利用听证会推迟其最终最低审议的方式。4其他处理方法提供了更多。关于1937年法院包装危机的文献中有一个奇怪的空白。当然,当年最受关注和考虑的联邦司法改革提案是富兰克林·D·罗斯福总统提出的将最高法院法官人数从9人增加到15人的提案。1然而,在围绕总统的“法院打包计划”展开的斗争之前和整个过程中,国会议员都提出了各种各样的替代措施,以解决他们对最高法院最近的裁决的不满,这些裁决使旨在缓解经济困境和刺激经济复苏的各种州和联邦法律无效形式,而许多其他人则会在各个方面修改宪法。最后,这些措施都没有向委员会报告。尽管如此,它们仍然是当代多个场所认真讨论的主题。学术界对法院包装事件的处理通常集中在语境中的法院包装上
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
期刊最新文献
The Bronze Doors, or A Tribute to the Legitimacy and Endurance of the Written Rule of Law Livingston v. Jefferson and Jefferson v. Marshall—Defending an Ex-President Samuel Nelson and Judicial Reputation William Howard Taft as Solicitor General Senator Charles Sumner and the Admission of John S. Rock to the Supreme Court Barn
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1