A Short Summary Of Why OBAMA Should Nominate …

by Irwin Ironstone –

… Bob Vinik for the United States Supreme Court.

In the face of Republican / Democratic opposition to appointments to the Supreme Court, President Obama needs a candidate who had support from Republicans / and Democrats in the past but who would still move the court in a progressive direction. (Based upon my experiences with the Justice Department, (or lack of Justice Department) Vinik would move the court in directions that it has not seen in hundreds of years. It would result in a progressive direction that would be original, and is based upon Mr. Bob Vinik’s views of the legal system. Vinik is neither conservative nor liberal. He is progressive, he is liberal in some areas and conservative in other areas.

Vinik was never on any president’s short list for any court. He would represent a view of justice that has never been present, or possibly one that has been present in part by both of the major political parties. The proposition to place Bob Vinik on President Obama’s list would be innovative and most likely result in the President’s mental competency being questioned.

It has been noted that one does not have to be a lawyer or a judge to be appointed to the bench (become a judge) or to the Untied States Supreme Court. It would be unique. Some have suggested that legal scholars be appointed. In the past, members of the legislature with minimal judicial experience have been appointed.[1] [i] A Past president was appointed to the Supreme Court.[2] Some members of the court never went to law school but may have received training as apprentices (See Justice Robert Jackson[3] [ii] While Justice Jackson was presiding over the Nuremberg trials in Germany – the court functioned with eight justices rather than nine. Many of the justices later resented Jackson for taking a year leave to preside over these trials. ).

A Short History Of Cap’t Bob USMM, Ret.
And His Accomplishments

Vinik was not involved in the legal process until his second ex-wife sued him for divorce about thirty years ago. However, based upon his experiences in all levels of courts both in states and in the federal system, Vinik has a unique prospective related to the place courts should and should not have in our justice system. Before addressing the many issues and problems in the legal system, Vinik would like to review his qualifications for the position. It would be a long list that could not be matched by any other candidate from either party.

• Captain USMM – knowledge of customs, practices and procedures on the high seas – Admiralty law.

• Progressive education in primary school – in a unique environment

• questioning the domestic relations exception in federal court when federal questions are raised first in a federal forum

• questioning judges violation of law under color of law – Should administrative judges sanction lower court judges for violating their oaths of office?

• progressive legal assistance clinic for a national organization that questioned social policies related to treason by state court judges.

• family interference and violation of constitutional rights when state courts fail to follow higher authorities.

• Corruption in the legal profession and courts
A Short History Of Bob Vinik Qualifications

 Assisted individuals in legal clinics for a national organization (Children’s Rights Counsel that has chapters in many states and also overseas.

 Assisted in Federal actions and state actions in several different states.

 Understood the problems for non-attorneys when 60-80% of the population cannot afford to hire lawyers.

 Although there are honest lawyers and judges, Vinik believes that the legal system is functioning not to protect the public but to protect those in the system who are judges and lawyers. The legal system is broken.

 He is not the brightest person but his elevator does go to the top floor and beyond. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that the judicial system is not working for the average U.S. Citizen.

 After speaking with Vinik, he gave me additional details but there are too many to include in this recommendation. He has helped lots of different individuals over 30-40 years.

 The majority of them will attest to his dedication, work ethic, honesty, and innovative approaches.

 He has worked on both civil cases and also criminal actions

 Vinik is especially proud of his past association with Prof. Bumsey who recruited him to work on her “prisoners Self Help Litigation Committee”

o This clinic assisted wrongly convicted and incarcerated prisoners (Think of Johnson v. Avery 393 U.S. 483 (1969))

o where the Supreme Court recognized that many states fail to assign lawyers or support to people in prisoners who assert that they have been wrongly convicted.

o As a result of that work, Vinik was invited to be a lay member of the NLG (National Lawyers Guild) whose motto is:

 ….. to the end that human rights shall be more sacred than property interests.

 

 and they are proud of the quote by J. Edgar Hoover:

 

 “The National Lawyers Guild is more dangerous than the people throwing the bombs”

Bob Vinik’s Personal Information

Bob Vinik is a 79 year old who has a no law degree from any ABA approved law school. In the past, many lawyers never went to law school.[4] Justice Robert Jackson of New York never went to law school but was an apprentice to another lawyer.[5] For the most part, Vinik is self taught. For his legal education Vinik’s exposure was “born of necessity” and to assist others who could not hire or pay for an attorney (Vinik has argued the very same principals in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372U.S. 335 (1963), and their application in civil contempt actions.) This Court affirmed his position years after he applied the legal principals in Rogers v. Turner, 564 U.S.431 (2011). The Rogers’ Court held that a state must provide safeguards to reduce the risk of erroneous deprivation of liberty in civil contempt cases years after Vinik used the same arguments and principals in state courts.

He is self-taught and has worked with lawyers and non-lawyers to support individual rights and the constitution. He has assisted those who could not defend themselves in court. He went to law classes given by several groups including law school clinics. and was proficient in reading and understanding complex legal theories better than many lawyers with formal education.

At his age, he would fit in with many of the current justices on the court. Justice Bryer is 77, Kennedy is 79+, Ginsberg is 83, and Thomas is 67 years old. The oldest justice on the court was Oliver Wendell Homes who was still on the court at 90. Vinik has learned to play with and learn with others and is not someone who would violate the rights and law of the country. Because of his age, it is unlikely that he will remain on the court for a long time, and that would be perfect to eliminate what some perceive as a constitutional deadlock because the court now has only 8 justices.[6]

Vinik’s influence on the court will not be driven by partisan politics. Some have classified Vinik as a conservative, others as a liberal, others as libertarian, and finally as a free thinker. It is very difficult if not impossible to classify Vinik because he looks at law using his own prospective (Citizen, Father, Grandfather, Scholar, Captain, Advocate, etc.). He did not grow up with a silver spoon in his mouth. He would add several dimensions and life experiences to the court that no other justice has experienced. In his youth, he has been held in jail based upon his failure to be able to pay court awards (This Court has determined that you cannot hold individuals in jail or prison based upon debt.-See Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983). Butfrequently state courts do not follow the Supreme Court. See James v. City Of Boise, Idaho, Et Al., 577 U. S.—– (2016).

Vinik is more likely to suggest that when judges act outside of their jurisdictional and constitutional limitations that they lose immunity. State judges have ignored Bearden, James, Gideon, Rogers, etc – and have locked people up when they could not afford a trip to court. They have regularly failed to apply controlling decisions by this Court. They regularly allow Prosecutors to act improperly without investigation and have allowed states to underfund and ignore the dictates of Gideon, due process and equal protection. Instead of appointing free counsel to the indigent, states have not only charged for “free” legal services but have imposed costs for monitoring, medical, utilities, meals and jail stays.
Why has this happened? Vinik suggests that municipal governments have to support their budgetary requirements and dictate to judges that not only do the judges and police have to earn their salaries but also get administrative costs to pay for bloated local governments.

WHAT POLICIES WILL VINIK UPHOLD OR QUESTION?

It is very difficult to make that determination without a case or controversy before him.

College Expenses And Costs?

Examples that come to mind might be the requirement of a non-custodial parent being required to pay for higher education for children when the state and federal governments terminate support when a child graduates from high school. Almost no state requires married parents to pay for the education of adult children (those who can vote, enter into contracts, join the military and get married.) This requirement by state court judges or even state legislative bodies flies in the face of logic and law. Requiring an adult to pay for the educational costs of another adult sounds like a violation of equal protection, substantive due process, or a violation of a fundamental liberty interest. See Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978). It prevents one person from taking educational classes based upon being required to pay for the education of another adult? Frequently, the non-custodial parent has no choice in the type of education, the cost of the education, the length of the education or any other factors related to the child’s education or upbringing. The current system also prevents the non-custodial adult parent from expanding his or her education.

Domestic Relations Exceptions and Article III Courts?

Vinik might support changes in the laws related to child support. He might review many issues related to current family law policies very differently than the other justices on the court? Rather than “divorce” the court from domestic relations exceptions, Vinik might begin to review constitutional issues that the Court has failed to address (These issues result in hundreds of billions in fees for the legal profession and billions of dollars in federal programs for child support enforcement.) Other social policies that Vinik may question are the right to collect child support when a child has been alienated from the non-custodial parent. In longitudinal studies by Sanford Braver of ASU, Braver has identified the custodial parent as the primary reason for parental alienation. Additionally, many of the myths associated with divorce are identified by Braver.[7] In Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992), this Court addressed fraud in domestic relations actions. Many federal courts dismiss all court cases even when some of the actions question the very functioning of the State courts. Mr. Vinik, may view these cases very differently than pure domestic relations exceptions and exclusions.

Societal Problems In Single Parent Households?

Bob and I were talking about many different, difficult social issues and problems. There are many areas where judges cannot make law or develop social policy. A few of those issues were raised in our discussions. Children in families with single parents are less likely to be successful and are more likely to have social problems. Is this the great society that our political establishment has constructed? In the past, those receiving Aid for Dependant Children (ADC) benefits were/are required to give federal, state and local authorities the name of the “alleged” fathers. This policy has nothing to do with reality since many mothers do not want to identify the fathers, may not know the fathers and may send state agencies on wild goose chases. When child support is lower, there may very well be fewer out of wedlock births and also fewer divorces.

Successive unwed births to mothers should not result in an automatic child support award based upon the status of the father (non-custodial parent?) Although Aid to Dependent Children awards allows for economies of scale, this approach frequently does not apply when there are state awards based on independent non-custodial parents. As an example, many child support guidelines award about 17% for the first child in a family, and 25% for two children when the parents are the same. So if the non-custodial parent earns $1,000 a week the child support is 170 for one child and 250 for two children.

However, when a woman has a child with two different men, assuming the same income, the child support award is usually 170 for each child. so instead of 250 the custodial mother receives 170 + 170 or 340 for the two children. Does this state policy assist in supporting unwed mothers who try to maximize societal benefits? instead of 250 they receive 340. 90 dollars more per week. 90/250= 36% greater.

Bob Is An Independent Thinker And Supports Honesty In All Branches Of Government From All Political Parties. This Will Be A Problem With Confirmation. He Has Not Been Bought And Cannot Be Bought By Industry Or Party Politicians.

Like Justice Douglas, Vinik likes and has assisted women in their quests for justice. Unlike Douglas, Vinik may flirt but certainly will not marry a woman who is 30-40 years his junior. I am sure that he has used some of the very cases argued by Justice Ginsberg to fight for sexual equality (for men).

Mr. Vinik understands the concepts related to judicial immunity and many of the limits. He would be more open to questioning judges who acted in violation of the original intent of the constitution or the laws of congress. Although Vinik is not a strict constructionist, a textualist or an originalist, he is likely to support the meaning of the constitution to protect minorities in courts. His strong analytical approaches and values would serve his country well.

In a past life, Vinik was a captain in the USMM and held several licensing certificates enabling him to pilot boats. These licenses were granted to him by the U.S. Coast Guard. Having had to follow and learn admiralty law, he could be an asset to the court where the other justices lack his knowledge and experiences on the high seas.
As noted, he is mechanically inclined and “fixes” things and would be an interesting addition to patent and copyright cases.

Although he was not born in a log cabin like Lincoln or Justice John Marshall, he grew up exposed to a value system that comes from a different era of American history. He understands that stare decisis[8] ( is a principal that is not stuck in cement based upon past interpretations. That would place him on the same playing field as many justices who had very little formal legal training.
Abraham Lincoln never went to law school but trained as an apprentice. I cannot say that Vinik read by candle light but I can say that he has diligently read law books, and decisional law at all hours of the day and night. He has done research on comparative law where he reviewed English law and the American common law. After reading the Congressional Globe, Vinik realized that Congress abrogated judicial immunity in the civil rights laws after the Civil War. (See Ex Parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 (1879). However, after ignoring these laws for years, once again, the majority of the Supreme Court “legislated from the bench” to protect judges.

They said, “By a rule we announce today judges will have immunity for judicial acts in the performance of their office.” This is in effect saying that congress didn’t mean what they said and we will fix it. The original drafters were well aware of corruption in the southern states in all branches of Government (Read this KKK). The civil rights laws were to protect the people, not the judges.

Although he was not born in a log cabin like Lincoln or Marshall, he was born in New York and then with his family moved to New Jersey. We should not hold living in New Jersey against him just because of Justice Alito’s position on the Third Circuit.

Vinik has always played with computers and has a technical background that many judges lack. He is aware of new technologies and is willing to assist in areas where these new technologies can reduce costs and improve the perception of justice for the average person caught in the web of the legal system. There are many other areas where technology can improve justice for the majority of individuals and not just for those who can buy justice.[9]

• One Pet peeve of Vinik is that many federal appellate judges dismiss actions without any decision. This approach appears to limit any appeal to higher authorities. Sometimes, these decisions should be remanded to the lower forum for an explanation so not only the appellant but the court can determine the justification for a dismissal

• Frequently, in fact most of the times, the Supreme Court dismisses actions without any explanation. They do not express why an action is dismissed. This is a disservice to the appellant and to the public at large who frequently do not understand why what appears on its face to be a valid question is dismissed. How can lawyers justify the costs of drafting appeals when their appeals are summarily dismissed?

• When Judge Posner was asked about the Supreme Court, he commented that he would not know what to do with all of the free time that the justices must have available to them. Posner hears more than 200 cases a year. (It has been said that justice Douglas wrote more than thirty books and took very little time to draft his opinions. The vast majority of writs submitted to SCOTUS are rejected without any explanation.[10]

• Vinik, although respectful, believes that many individuals do not understand that judges have almost unbridled power. When they make determinations about evidence or the exclusion of evidence, they have by their actions decided many cases before them.

• The courts are not the only culprits in our executive, legislative, legal and administrative branches of government. In many ways each branch has taken approaches to toss a hot potato back at the other branches.

• Examples include the executive branch ignoring national laws (look at the immigration mess; the violation of powers by bypassing congress when making “executive agreements” (treaties); appointing political hacks to administer executive agencies.)

• The legislative branches are one of the best in the world that money can buy. They give up control to not only the executive branch and the judiciary, but establish and approve executive appointments without proper scrutiny. Why can and why do the people of the country allow the legislative branch to grant themselves better health care than not only the general populous but also veterans who risk their lives for the country. In some instances large influential lobbies buy members from both parties to get their businesses protected.

• The Judiciary has deferred to executive agencies and also to the legislature when interpreting laws. There are not sufficient judges to track and overturn all of the unconstitutional laws and actions by states and other federal branches of government.

• One has to recognize that the government is run by lawyers and when they leave government they go to private organizations to lobby and write legislation for business not for we the people.

• Given all of these difficulties, Vinik may not be as qualified as many judicial candidates for the Supreme Court. However, he is one of the best non-lawyer candidate who is qualified. The interesting part of this is that one does not have to be a lawyer to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

• Vinik is not a conventional candidate! He is not beholding to any other members of the legal profession and is willing to review the behavior of members of the legal profession openly and differently.

WHY SELECT VINIK? YOU KNOW THAT HE SUPPORTS THE FIRST AND SECOND AMENDMENTS AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS. THESE ARE THE BUILDING BLOCKS FOR OUR REPUBLIC AND OUR CONSTITUTION.

If Obama’s appointment of Judge Garland is confirmed, or Hillary appoints a justice, there goes the constitution. It may tip the ideological balance to create a Court that would lead to a disaster. Before most republic’s or governments were taken over by dictators, first they took away the rights to own guns. They limited criticism. Then they abolished rights that we have had for more than two hundred years.

That Should Be Sufficient To Nominate And Appoint Bob Vinik And Pray That He Lives Long And Prospers | May 10, 2016

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[1] Justice Hugo Black was a member of the senate see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Black
[2] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Howard_Taft last visited 16-03-25
[3] a short history of Robert Jackson is available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Jackson last visited 16-03-26.
[4] Reading law is the method by which persons in common law countries, particularly the United States, entered the legal profession before the advent oflaw schools. This usage specifically refers to a means of entering the profession (although in England it is still customary to say that a university undergraduate is “reading” a course, which may be law or any other). Reading the law consists of an extended internship or apprenticeship under the tutelage or mentoring of an experienced lawyer. A small number of U.S. jurisdictions still permit this practice today.
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Jackson
Robert Houghwout Jackson (February 13, 1892 – October 9, 1954) was United States Solicitor General (1938-1940), United States Attorney General (1940–1941) and an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court (1941–1954).
He is the only person in United States history to have held all three of those offices. He was also the chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials. A “county-seat lawyer”, he remains the last Supreme Court justice appointed who did not graduate from any law school (though Justice Stanley Reed who served from 1938 to 1957 was the last such justice to serve on the court), although he did attend Albany Law School in Albany, New York for one year. Jackson is remembered for his famous advice that “any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to the police under any circumstances”[1]and for his aphorism describing the Supreme Court, “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.” See Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443. Many lawyers revere Justice Jackson as one of the best writers on the court, and one of the most committed to due process protections from overreaching federal agencies. Bob Vinik has tried to explain legal concepts so that members of the public can understand what he is talking about. In that way, he is most like Justices Elane Kagan and Justice John Roberts who try to write for the masses.

[6] This is not the first time that the court has not filled its full complement of justices. After WWII, Justice Jackson left the court to become a Prosecutor at theNuremberg war crime Trials.. This upset the other justices who believed that they could not function with fewer than 9 justices and an odd number of justices.
Before President John Adams left the White House, congress passed laws limiting the number of justices who could be appointed. At one time, President Roosevelt spoke of packing the Supreme Court so that his legislation could be passed in the court.
See http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/7-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-u-s-supreme-court
The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_Judges_Act An attempt by President Adams to limit the appointment of justices by Thomas Jefferson. The Act reduced the number of seats on the Supreme Court from 6 to 5, effective upon the next vacancy in the Court. No such vacancy occurred during the brief period the Act was in effect, so the size of the Court remained unchanged. The Act also created 16 new judgeships that Adams rapid began to fulfill the last weeks of his presidency. These judges came to be known as the “Midnight Judges.”

[7] When a parent is alienated from his/her children, that parent should not be required to pay child support. This approach to social policy would change the way custodial parents indoctrinate children. It would force custodial parents to insure that the non-custodial families still have ties with the children of their family. See http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/g/gay/02/gay072302.htm for many of the myths related to divorced fathers.

[8] Stare Decisis – [Latin, Let the decision stand.] The policy of courts to abideby or adhere to principles established by decisions in earlier cases.

[9] There are many other topics and areas where technology should be used by courts to improve the perception of justice. After having been in the court system for about 25 years, it is evident that there should be major reforms. This may include the elimination of judicial immunity or at the very minimum, a special review of complaints or actions filed against judges prior to any state representing a judges (Recently, a friend pointed out to me that the original civil rights legislation that was passed in the 1860s and 1870s wanted to hold Southern judges accountable for their actions – this was noted in the Congressional Globe while the legislation was being debated. One can also look at Ex Pare Virginia 100 U.S. 339 (1879). How then did judges become absolutely immune? They legislated from the bench. It is my opinion that it does not deserve stare decisis and if the legislature (mostly lawyers) does not change it, then the Supreme Court should reverse their determinations.
. Similarly, complaints against lawyers should not be closed from public review. (Some states allow the person who made a complaint about a lawyer to speak about it in public forums. (N.J.) Most states do not allow public criticism against bad lawyers or judges while an investigation is going on. According to the N.J. Supreme Court that violates the First Amendment. See R.M., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Supreme Court of New Jersey, District XIII Ethics Committee and Office of Attorney Ethics,185 N.J. 208 (2005). This case determined that the Complainant may discuss his complaint and is not restricted. When complaints are made public, others with similar complaints are likely to join actions.

Many other states, Florida and New York keep these complaints secret until there is a finding against an attorney or judge. This system is not working and most likely will never work. Vinik has observed lawyer’s in several states act inappropriately and get away with it. Before a lawyer can file an action against a party who he represented or against an opponent, it must be reviewed in an open public forum (Otherwise, lawyers or large law firms will file a SLAPP law suit. Strategic lawsuit Against Public Policy.) You may want to read a book by Ralph Nader called No Contest that talks about how law firms and large companies abuse the law.

Although Vinik respect the justices, he understands that some of their decisions are not ones that he would have supported. When Justice Alito was on the Third Circuit, he must have had his law clerk write a decision supporting a judge who was technologically ignorant. The response must have been one of those decisions that was drafted by judge Alito’s law clerks when he was in the Third Circuit. This was revealed to the public during Alito’s senate interviews. He did not take the time to review the facts or the law that questioned the integrity of several state court systems. With the right mix of law clerks, Vinik believes that innovations can be made in not only federal courts but in many state court systems.

Another pet peeve is that decisions by judges frequently go unopposed. This is disgraceful because it follows the philosophy that history is written by the winners. It is hoped that in the future, losers can criticize some of these unopposed determinations. Rather than protect the current legal system at all costs, integrity can assist in allowing the public to review alternative decisions and maintain these papers though not written by judges.

Those who are on the Supreme Court are not always correct. As an example, one should review not just the 5-4 determinations but also the 7-2 and 8-1 decisions where one brave, independent justice questions the other eight justices. Take a look at UNITED STATES v. SCHEFFER (96-1133) 44 M. J. 442, reversed.., where justice Stevens was the only dissenting justice on the court. The case was about using lie detector tests. Sometime in the future this very topic is going to be reviewed again. As science improves, the courts change.
As one of my law school professors noted – Appellate law clerks have as a major function – the elimination of cases to lighten the load of appellate judges.

[10] The SCOTUS accepts between 65-85 cases to hear each year. The Court says that they receive about 10,000 writs each year. In my opinion, the court receives many more requests but eliminates them on procedural grounds. They are submitted and are not timely. They are incorrectly formatted. Individuals apply to submit a writ as a poor person and the court rejects their request. Of the many writs submitted that are written by non-attorneys, very, very few are accepted (I would say the odds are at least 1 in 40,000). Even when there are constitutional violations by states and state courts, the Supreme Court may not decide to hear an action because it has already ruled on the issue in another case.
Only if the Court gets really upset and the State Courts make extra work for the Federal judiciary, may the SCOTUS decide to issue an opinion on a particular case. In James v. Boise, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), The Court issued a per curium determination and reasserted its position as the court that interprets the constitution and federal laws. It said:

“It is this Court’s responsibility to say what a [federal] statute means, and once the Court has spoken, it is the duty of other courts to respect that understanding of the governing rule of law.” Nitro-Lift Technologies, L. L. C. v. Howard, 568 U. S. ___, ___ (2012) (per curiam) (slip op., at 5) (quoting Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U. S. 298, 312 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted)). And for good reason.
As Justice Story explained 200 years ago, if state courts were permitted to disregard this Court’s rulings on federal law, “the laws, the treaties, and the constitution of the United States would be different in different states, and might, perhaps, never have precisely the same construction, obligation, or efficacy, in any two states. The public mischiefs that would attend such a state of things would be truly deplorable.” Martin v.Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 348 (1816).

The Idaho Supreme Court, like any other state or federal court, [should] be bound by this Court’s interpretation of federal law. The state court erred in concluding otherwise. The judgment of the Idaho Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
[i] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Black
Hugo Lafayette Black (February 27, 1886 – September 25, 1971) was an American politician and jurist. A member of the Democratic Party, Black represented Alabama in the United States Senate from 1927 to 1937, and served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1937 to 1971. Black was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 63 to 16 (6 Democratic Senators and 10 Republican Senators voted against him.) He was first of nine Roosevelt nominees to the Court,[2] and he outlasted all except for William O. Douglas.[3]Black is widely regarded as one of the most influential Supreme Court justices in the 20th century.
The fifth longest-serving justice in Supreme Court history, Black is noted for his advocacy of a textualistreading of the United States Constitution and of the position that the liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights were imposed on the states (“incorporated”) by the Fourteenth Amendment. During his political career, Black was regarded as a staunch supporter of liberal policies and civil liberties.[4][5] However, Black consistently opposed the doctrine of substantive due process (the anti-New Deal Supreme Court cited this concept in such a way as to make it impossible for the government to enact legislation that interfered with the freedom of business owners)[6] and believed that there was no basis in the words of the Constitution for a right to privacy, voting against finding one in Griswold v. Connecticut.[7] Black endorsed Roosevelt in both the 1932 and 1936 US Presidential elections and was a staunch supporter of the New Deal.[8]

[ii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Jackson
Robert Houghwout Jackson (February 13, 1892 – October 9, 1954) was United States Solicitor General (1938-1940), United States Attorney General (1940–1941) and an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court (1941–1954).
He is the only person in United States history to have held all three of those offices. He was also the chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials. A “county-seat lawyer”, he remains the last Supreme Court justice appointed who did not graduate from any law school (though Justice Stanley Reed who served from 1938 to 1957 was the last such justice to serve on the court), although he did attend Albany Law School in Albany, New York for one year. He is remembered for his famous advice that “any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to the police under any circumstances”[1] and for his aphorism describing the Supreme Court, “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.”[2] Many lawyers revere Justice Jackson as one of the best writers on the court, and one of the most committed to due process protections from overreaching federal agencies.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply