Interpersonal conflicts among the Justices are as old as the Supreme Court itself. But the very public fracas between Hugo Black and Robert Jackson was on a level all its own
When it revised the Judicial Code in 1948 to, among other things, put more teeth into judicial disqualification rules, Congress added “that a judge shall disqualify himself if his relationship with the attorneys involved warrants it.”
Am I correct in thinking that the Judicial Code in 1948 did not apply to the SC? From your excellent post, because you mention the 1948 amendment shortly after referencing the Black-Jackson dispute, I wondered if at some point in its history the SC did have rules of ethics.
I know that unlike all other lawyers and judges, the Justices of the SC are not subject to legal ethics rules, but are now free to do whatever they, individually, think is ''right'' with no requirement to explain their decision. Were SC justices ever subject to legal ethics rules?
Some decisions by SC justices not to recuse have been puzzling.
It's complicated. The Supreme Court issued a number of anti-Jim Crow decisions starting with the early 20th century: the peonage cases in the teens, the white primary cases from the 20's to the 40's; and (IIRC) some advanced education desegregation cases. There was also Shelley v. Kramer, which banned racially restrictive covenants. But they were kind of weak tea. Then again, so was Brown v. Board, which was effectively overruled in the 1970's case of Milliken v. Bradley, which forbade courts from desegregating schools by redistricting municipalities. Even Brown v. Board did not formally abolish Jim Crow--it distinguished Plessey v. Ferguson rather than overruling it.
A lot depends on how one defines "Jim Crow." In terms of prohibiting legislatures from formal racial discrimination, Jim Crow pretty much died in the 1960's. But its bastard descendants are flourishing, blessed by the Supreme Court. For instance, a person has a formal right to be free of racial discrimination in applying the death penalty. But a person cannot use statistical evidence to vindicate this right, even though it is the only decent evidence around. (McCleskey v. Kemp.)
Good concise summary of the first decision of the term, along with the possible reasons for the DIG regarding attorney/client privilege.
When it revised the Judicial Code in 1948 to, among other things, put more teeth into judicial disqualification rules, Congress added “that a judge shall disqualify himself if his relationship with the attorneys involved warrants it.”
Am I correct in thinking that the Judicial Code in 1948 did not apply to the SC? From your excellent post, because you mention the 1948 amendment shortly after referencing the Black-Jackson dispute, I wondered if at some point in its history the SC did have rules of ethics.
I know that unlike all other lawyers and judges, the Justices of the SC are not subject to legal ethics rules, but are now free to do whatever they, individually, think is ''right'' with no requirement to explain their decision. Were SC justices ever subject to legal ethics rules?
Some decisions by SC justices not to recuse have been puzzling.
Is it fair to say that the Supreme Court from 1870 to 1954 is responsible for allowing JIm Crow to exist in the United States?
It's complicated. The Supreme Court issued a number of anti-Jim Crow decisions starting with the early 20th century: the peonage cases in the teens, the white primary cases from the 20's to the 40's; and (IIRC) some advanced education desegregation cases. There was also Shelley v. Kramer, which banned racially restrictive covenants. But they were kind of weak tea. Then again, so was Brown v. Board, which was effectively overruled in the 1970's case of Milliken v. Bradley, which forbade courts from desegregating schools by redistricting municipalities. Even Brown v. Board did not formally abolish Jim Crow--it distinguished Plessey v. Ferguson rather than overruling it.
A lot depends on how one defines "Jim Crow." In terms of prohibiting legislatures from formal racial discrimination, Jim Crow pretty much died in the 1960's. But its bastard descendants are flourishing, blessed by the Supreme Court. For instance, a person has a formal right to be free of racial discrimination in applying the death penalty. But a person cannot use statistical evidence to vindicate this right, even though it is the only decent evidence around. (McCleskey v. Kemp.)