First, allow myself to introduce…myself. For those of you who don’t know me, I teach at the University of Kentucky College of Law and write about election law. Dan graciously allowed me to begin my July guest stint early so I could post about Shelby County. (Thanks Dan!) I guess my time here
Comments
Having little more than basic knowledge on the American Judicial system, I pose the question: Can the presence of majority of liberals be related to the proverbial ‘ impartial judge ‘, and feed into the idea that judges can be historians? Ambiguous? Perhaps. Curious? Def6.
Posted by: B.c. | Jul 29, 2021 10:04:44 AM
Henry Friendly’s opinions created the law in many areas. Sandra Day O’Connor was notable for her gender not her judging. What about Rehnquist? He steered the court in a direction that many law professors don’t like but it’s hard to dispute his impact.
Posted by: Douglas Levene | Jun 29, 2013 6:12:46 AM
Ronald George – long time and important chief of the California Supreme Court.
Felix Franfurter – obviously an influence on the current chief.
Posted by: Brett | Jun 28, 2013 4:45:49 PM
Roger J. Traynor
Agree with Howard, regarding his doubts about O’Connor — doesn’t seem like she has had much jurisprudential impact. Pioneering counts, but Jackie Robinson was a HOF’er even without that.
Posted by: andy | Jun 28, 2013 4:15:19 PM
Henry Friendly
Posted by: Mr. Friendly | Jun 28, 2013 11:14:06 AM
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=F20715FE345D12728DDDAC0894DC405B898BF1D3
Posted by: Marty Lederman | Jun 28, 2013 11:00:18 AM
Interesting comments, all. Corey, I love the Joe Jackson/Roger Taney analogy!
For me, O’Connor’s influence as the deciding Justice was significant, although I agree that reasonable minds can differ.
OK, everyone. More! More! Should we turn this into a “real” thing?!?
Posted by: Josh Douglas | Jun 28, 2013 10:17:39 AM
I thought of Jackson. You should put him in on the strength of Barnette and Steel Seizure alone.
Posted by: Howard Wasserman | Jun 28, 2013 9:45:30 AM
Roger Traynor would be a good choice for a purely state judge.
Also don’t think O’Connor should get in. Being the first woman is important, but she didn’t make much jurisprudential impact, and where she did it’s not necessarily a good thing. The absence of women and minority candidates mostly reflects the dead/retired requirement; there just haven’t been very many until the last two generations.
Which side of the Jackson-Frankfurter feud gets in? Either? Both?
Does his Dred Scott opinion disqualify Taney? Because otherwise he would probably get in easily, right? Does that make Taney the Shoeless Joe Jacskson/Pete Rose of the Judicial Hall of Fame? Say it ain’t so, Roger, say it ain’t so!
Posted by: Corey | Jun 28, 2013 9:22:22 AM
I’ll play.
No to O’Connor. Her contributions were short-lasting and, in many cases, incoherent. Yes, she was the first. But Pumpsie Green is not in the Hall and the BBWAA didn’t put Larry Doby in. Thurgood Marshall is an interesting question; the issue is how much of his tremendous impact on the law was made through his judicial decisions, as opposed to when he was a lawyer?
I’ll add:
• Joseph Story. Smarter than Marshall.
• James Kent. Made Equity meaningful in NY.
• Frank Johnson. Especially for his segregation decisions as a district judge)
Posted by: Howard Wasserman | Jun 28, 2013 8:56:10 AM
Need to make an exception to the state or federal requirement for Coke and Blackstone.
Posted by: brad | Jun 28, 2013 8:54:34 AM
How about Thomas Cooley? Arguably, his scholarship (e.g., Constitutional Limitations) articulated a dominant worldview of an entire an era of American law. And with him you can add a state court judge to the list.
Posted by: Lael Weinberger | Jun 28, 2013 8:14:53 AM