Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-02T20:27:00.963Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deeds Without Doctrines: Civil Rights in the 1960 Term of the Supreme Court1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Robert G. McCloskey
Robert G. McCloskey
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1898, Mr. Justice Brewer measurably strengthened his claim to immortality by publicly inviting criticism of the Supreme Court. His words are well-worn now, for generations of professors have gratefully quoted them in journal and classroom; and during the 20th century the challenge he issued has evoked a response that may give his shade occasional second thoughts. The Supreme Court has had many problems in the years since he spoke, but a shortage of critics has not been one of them. Journalists, academicians, and politicians have, in their several ways, poured out a steady stream of reproach which from time to time has swelled into a torrent.

Type
Two Views of the Supreme Court
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , March 1962 , pp. 71 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1962

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 The most recent seems to be Schubert, op. cit., p. 18.

3 Pritchett, op cit.; Lewis, Anthony, “The Supreme Court and its Critics,” Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 45, pp. 305–332 (01, 1961)Google Scholar; Freund, op. cit., pp. 171–191.

4 Watkins v. United States, 354 U. S. 178 (1957).

5 Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S. 234 (1957).

6 Slochower v. Board of Education, 350 U. S. 551 (1956).

7 Konigsberg v. State Bar, 353 U. S. 252 (1957).

8 See: “Retreat from Freedom,” Christian Century, Vol. 78, pp. 163–4 (02 8, 1961)Google Scholar; “Free Speech and Movies,” Commonweal, Vol. 73, pp. 495–6 (02 10, 1961)Google Scholar; “The Court and the Committee,” ibid., pp. 624–5 (March 17, 1961); “Security and Civil Rights,” id., Vol. 74, pp. 316–17 (June 23, 1961); “Neither Clear Nor Present,” Nation, Vol. 192, pp. 509–10 (June 17, 1961)Google Scholar; “Censorship of Movies,” New Republic, Vol. 144, p. 8 (02 27, 1961)Google Scholar; “Un-American Activities,” ibid., pp. 5–6 (March 13, 1961); “No Decision,” Reporter, Vol. 25, p. 12 (07 6, 1961)Google Scholar.

9 Lewis, op. cit., p. 306.

10 Wechsler, op. cit., p. 16.

11 Hart, H. M. Jr., “Foreword: The Time Chart of the Justices,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 73, pp. 84–125 (11, 1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; A. M. Bickel and H. H. Wellington, “Legislative Purpose and the Judicial Process: The Lincoln Mills Case,” id., Vol. 71, pp. 1–39 (Nov., 1957); E. N. Griswold, “Foreword: Of Time and Attitudes—Professor Hart and Judge Arnold,” id., Vol. 74, pp. 81–94 (Nov., 1960).

12 Scales v. United States, 367 U. S. 203 (1961).

13 Braden v. United States, 365 U. S. 431 (1961).

14 Ibid.

15 Ibid.

16 Wilkinson v. United States, 365 U. S. 399 (1961).

17 Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 367 U. S. 1 (1961).

18 360 U. S. 109.

19 Uphaus v. Wyman, 364 U. S. 388 (1960).

20 Above, note 17.

21 Above, note 12.

22 341 U. S. 494 (1951).

23 Ullman v. United States, 350 U. S. 422 (1956).

24 See In re Opinion of the Justices, 300 Mass. 620 (1938); State v. Wolfe, 64 S.D. 178 (1936).

25 Chafee, Zechariah Jr., Free Speech in the United States (Cambridge, Mass., 1946), pp. 470 483Google Scholar.

26 Schenck v. United States, 249 U. S. 47 (1919).

27 The relevant period in Dennis was 1945 to 1948; in Scales, 1946 to 1954.

28 Dennis v. United States, 183 F.2d 201, 212 (1950).

29 Bickel, A. M., “The Communist Cases,” New Republic, Vol. 144, pp. 15–16 (06 19, 1961)Google Scholar.

30 Yates v. United States, 354 U. S. 298 (1957).

31 “Let the Intellectuals Take it From Here,” National Review, Vol. 10, p. 371 (06 17, 1961)Google Scholar.

32 367 U. S. 290 (1961).

33 367 U. S. 389 (1961).

34 367 U. S. 456 (1961).

35 366 U. S. 82 (1961).

36 366 U. S. 36 (1961).

37 357 U. S. 513 (1958).

38 Adler v. Board of Education, 342 U. S. 485 (1952); Garner v. Los Angeles Board, 341 U. S. 16 (1951); Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U. S. 109 (1959).

39 365 U. S. 43 (1961).

40 Mutual Film Corp. v. Ohio Industrial Comm., 236 U. S. 230 (1915).

41 Burstyn v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495 (1952).

42 Kingsley Pictures v. Regents, 360 U. S. 684 (1959); Superior Films v. Ohio, 346 U. S. 587 (1954).

43 “The Supreme Court and Civil Liberties,” Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 4, pp. 533–554 (April 1951)Google Scholar.

44 Kingsley Books v. Brown, 354 U. S. 436 (1957).

45 Frankfurter, J., Murdoch v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105, 129 (1943) (diss.).

46 Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U. S. 599 (1961); Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Super Market of Mass., Inc., 366 U. S. 617 (1961); MoGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420 (1961); Two Guys from Harrison-Allentown, Inc. v. McGinley, 366 U. S. 582 (1961).

47 Railway Express Inc. v. New York, 336 U. S. 106 (1949); Queenside Hills Realty Co. v. Saxl, 328 U. S. 80 (1946).

48 367 U. S. 488 (1961).

49 Betts v. Brady, 316 U. S. 455 (1942).

50 Goldman v. United States, 316 U. S. 129 (1942).

51 334 U. S. 699 (1948).

52 Gori v. United States, 367 U. S. 364 (1961); Callanan v. United States, 364 U. S. 587 (1961).

53 Wilson v. Schnettler, 365 U. S. 381 (1961); Pugach v. Dollinger, 365 U. S. 458 (1961).

54 350 U. S. 214 (1956).

55 367 U. S. 643 (1961).

56 365 U. S. 505 (1961).

57 338 U. S. 25 (1949).

58 Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383 (1914).

59 351 U. S. 12 (1956).

60 Smith v. Bennett, 365 U. S. 708 (1961).

61 Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U. S. 717 (1961).

62 McNeal v. Culver, 365 U. S. 109 (1961).

63 See Peltason, op. cit.

64 Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954).

65 Baltimore v. Dawson, 350 U. S. 877 (1955).

66 Gayle v. Browder, 352 U. S. 903 (1956).

67 N.A.A.C.P. v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449 (1958).

68 Pennsylvania v. Board of Directors, 353 U. S. 230 (1957).

69 364 U. S. 479 (1960).

70 364 U. S. 454 (1960).

71 365 U. S. 715 (1961).

72 364 U. S. 339 (1960).

73 207 U. S. 161 (1907).

74 328 U. S. 549 (1946).

75 Lane v. Wilson, 307 U. S. 268, 275 (1939).

76 Baker v. Carr, 364 U. S. 898 (1960), prob. juris. noted.

77 Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 376 U. S. 886 (1961).

78 Greene v. McElroy, 360 U. S. 474 (1959).

79 International Association of Machinists v. Street, 367 U. S. 740 (1961).

80 Lathrop v. Donohue, 367 U. S. 820 (1961).

81 Poe v. Ullman, 376 U. S. 497 (1961).

82 365 U. S. 167 (1961).

83 United States v. Classic, 313 U. S. 299 (1941).

84 Screws v. United States, 325 U. S. 91 (1945).

85 Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, 365 U. S. 127 (1961).

86 274 U. S. 357 (1927).

87 Both of them seem to have taken leave of the clear and present danger doctrine at one end, while the majority was taking leave of it at another. Both had invoked it in earlier cases [Bridges v. California, 314 U. S. 252 (1941); Craig v. Harney, 331 U. S. 367 (1947)], though Justice Black had declared in the former case that it was only a “minimum compulsion,” which left the way open for him to begin applying a more absolutist standard with Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U. S. 622 (1951).

88 94 U. S. 113 (1877).

89 110 U. S. 516 (1884).

90 Tyson Bros. v. Banton, 273 U. S. 418, 446 (1927).

91 Kunz v. New York, 340 U. S. 290, 299 (1951).

92 Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U. S. 268, 276 (1951).

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.