Has there ever been two Supreme Court justices who were reported to hate each other? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 03:19:39 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Has there ever been two Supreme Court justices who were reported to hate each other? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Has there ever been two Supreme Court justices who were reported to hate each other?  (Read 1721 times)
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
« on: December 27, 2021, 08:26:02 PM »

Wikipedia: Associate Justice James Clark McReynolds
Quote
McReynolds was labeled "Scrooge" by journalist Drew Pearson. Chief Justice William Howard Taft thought him selfish, prejudiced, "and someone who seems to delight in making others uncomfortable ... [H]e has a continual grouch, and is always offended because the court is doing something that he regards as undignified." Taft also wrote that McReynolds was the most irresponsible member of the Court, and that "in the absence of McReynolds everything went smoothly."

Early on, his temperament affected his performance in the court. For example, he determined that John Clarke, another Wilson appointee to the court, was "too liberal" and refused to speak with him. Clarke decided to resign early from the court, and said that McReynolds's open antipathy was one factor. McReynolds refused to sign the customary joint memorial letter for Clarke, which was always given to departing members. In a letter, Taft commented that "[t]his is a fair sample of McReynolds's personal character and the difficulty of getting along with him."

Taft wrote that although he considered McReynolds an "able man", he found him to be "selfish to the last degree ... fuller of prejudice than any man I have ever known ... one who delights in making others uncomfortable. He has no sense of duty ... really seems to have less of a loyal spirit to the Court than anybody." In 1929 McReynolds asked Taft to announce opinions assigned to him (McReynolds), explaining that "an imperious voice has called me out of town. I don't think my sudden illness will prove fatal, but strange things some time happen around Thanksgiving." Duck hunting season had opened and McReynolds was off to Maryland for some shooting. In 1925, he left so suddenly on a similar errand that he had no opportunity to notify the Chief Justice of his departure. Taft was infuriated as two important decisions he wanted to deliver were delayed because McReynolds had not handed in a dissent before leaving.

Time "called him 'Puritanical', 'intolerably rude', 'savagely sarcastic', 'incredibly reactionary', and 'anti-Semitic'." McReynolds refused to speak to Louis Brandeis, the first Jewish member of the Court, for three years following Brandeis's appointment. When Brandeis retired in 1939, McReynolds did not sign the customary dedicatory letter sent to justices on their retirement. He habitually left the conference room whenever Brandeis spoke.

When Benjamin Cardozo's appointment was being pressed on President Herbert C. Hoover, McReynolds joined with fellow justices Pierce Butler and Willis Van Devanter in urging the White House not to "afflict the Court with another Jew". When news of Cardozo's appointment was announced, McReynolds is claimed to have said "Huh, it seems that the only way you can get on the Supreme Court these days is to be either the son of a criminal or a Jew, or both." During Cardozo's swearing-in ceremony, McReynolds pointedly read a newspaper. He often would hold a brief or record in front of his face when Cardozo delivered an opinion from the bench. Likewise, he refused to sign opinions authored by Brandeis.

According to John Frush Knox (1907–1997), McReynolds's law clerk for one term and one author of a memoir of his service, McReynolds never spoke to Cardozo at all. McReynolds did not attend the memorial ceremonies held at the Supreme Court in honor of Cardozo. He did not attend Felix Frankfurter's swearing-in, exclaiming "My God, another Jew on the Court!"

In 1922, Taft proposed that members of the Court accompany him to Philadelphia on a ceremonial occasion, but McReynolds refused to go, writing: "As you know, I am not always to be found when there is a Hebrew abroad. Therefore, my 'inability' to attend must not surprise you."

Once, when colleague Harlan Fiske Stone remarked to him about an attorney's brief: "That was the dullest argument I ever heard in my life," McReynolds replied: "The only duller thing I can think of is to hear you read one of your opinions."

Justices Pierce Butler and Willis Van Devanter transferred from the Chevy Chase club to Burning Tree because McReynolds "got disagreeable even beyond their endurance".

Knox wrote "in 1946 he [McReynolds] died a very lonely death in a hospital – without a single friend or relative at his bedside. He was buried in Kentucky, but no member of the Court attended his funeral though one employee of the Court traveled to Kentucky for the services."
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
« Reply #1 on: December 28, 2021, 04:47:26 PM »

Stephen Johnson Field in the late nineteenth century is also said to have been a widely disliked man.
Currently working on an article about Justice Field — notably, one of his bodyguards shot and killed his predecessor as Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, who was allegedly about to stab him to death. Fascinating figure.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2022, 02:38:43 PM »

I cannot imagine that Sotomayor or Kagan are fond of Kavanaugh...
Not sure why you'd think that's the case; Kagan in particular seems friendly w/ him. The correct answer here — sizing up the current court, especially given today's news — is Sotomayor-Gorsuch.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
« Reply #3 on: January 20, 2022, 01:05:02 PM »

I cannot imagine that Sotomayor or Kagan are fond of Kavanaugh...
Not sure why you'd think that's the case; Kagan in particular seems friendly w/ him. The correct answer here — sizing up the current court, especially given today's news — is Sotomayor-Gorsuch.

Wasn't that proven to be fake news?
buddy we're post-reality now and have been for years, please keep up
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 13 queries.