Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:13:31.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Supreme Court Justices as Strict and Not-so-Strict Constructionists: Some Implications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

S. Sidney Ulmer
S. Sidney Ulmer*
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In making his televised announcement on the nominations of Lewis Powell and William Rehnquist for seats on the Supreme Court, Richard Nixon observed that he was merely fulfilling a campaign promise. For, he said: “… during my campaign for the Presidency, I pledged to nominate to the Supreme Court individuals who shared my judicial philosophy which is basically a conservative philosophy. … As a judicial conservative, I believe some Court decisions have gone too far in the past in weakening the peace forces as against the criminal forces in our society” (New York Times, 1971: 24C). In 1968, Mr. Nixon said: ”We need more strict constructionists on the highest court of the United States. In my view, the duty of a Justice of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law, not to make the law, and the men I support will share that view“ (U.S. News & World Report, 1968: 42).

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , Fall 1973 , pp. 13 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © 1973 Law and Society Association.

References

Cases

Blevins v. United States, 404 U.S. 823 (1971).Google Scholar
Boiling v. Sharpe, 374 U.S. 497 (1954).Google Scholar
Brown v. Board of Educ, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).Google Scholar
California Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972).Google Scholar
Groppi v. Leslie, 404 U.S. 496 (1972).Google Scholar
Mayer v. Chicago, 404 U.S. 189 (1971).Google Scholar
Norfolk and Western Ry. v. Nemitz, 404 U.S. 37 (1971).Google Scholar
Phelps v. Texas, 404 U.S. 983 (1971).Google Scholar
Quinn v. United States, 404 U.S. 850 (1971).Google Scholar
“Reapportionment Cases”.Google Scholar
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).Google Scholar
Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reliance Elec. Co. v. Emerson Elec. Co., 404 U.S. 418 (1972).Google Scholar
Richardson v. Belcher, 404 U.S. 78 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlib v. Kuebel, 404 U.S. 357 (1972).Google Scholar
Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945).Google Scholar
Swanquist v. Livingston, 404 U.S. 983 (1971).Google Scholar
Tumminello v. Maryland, 404 U.S. 948 (1971).Google Scholar
United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336 (1971).Google Scholar
United States v. Campos-Serrano, 404 U.S. 293 (1971).Google Scholar
“White Primary Cases (Texas)”.Google Scholar
Nixon v. Condon, 286 U.S. 73 (1932).Google Scholar
Grovey v. Townsend, 295 U.S. 45 (1935).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944).Google Scholar

References

AMERICAN JEWISH CONGRESS (1969-70) (1970-71) The Civil Rights and Civil Liberty Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. New York.Google Scholar
BLALOCK, H.M. (1960) Social Statistics. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
DOLBEARE, Kenneth (1969) “The Federal District Courts and Urban Public Policy: An Exploratory Study (1960-1967),” in Joel, GROSSMAN and Joseph, TANENHAUS (eds.) Frontiers of Judicial Research. New York: John Wiley and Sons, at 373.Google Scholar
GOLDMAN, Sheldon (1966) “Voting Behavior on the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 1961-1964,” 60 American Political Science Review 374.Google Scholar
GOLDMAN, Sheldon (1967) “Judicial Appointments to the United States Courts of Appeals,” 1967 Wisconsin Law Review 186.Google Scholar
GRAHAM, Fred P. (1972) “The Emerging ‘Nixon Court’,” The Louisville Courier-Journal, at A7.Google Scholar
HOWARD, J. Woodford Jr. (1968) Mr. Justice Murphy. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. NEW YORK TIMES, October 22, 1971: 24C.Google Scholar
RICHARDSON, Richard J. and Kenneth N., VINES (1970) The Politics of Federal Courts. The Politics of Federal Courts: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
SCHUBERT, Glendon (1962) “Policy Without Law: An Extension of the Certiorari Game,” 14 Stanford Law Review 284.Google Scholar
SCIGLIANO, Robert (1971) The Supreme Court and the Presidency. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
TANENHAUS, Joseph, et al. (1963) “The Supreme Court's Certiorari Jurisdiction: Cue Theory,” in Glendon, SCHUBERT (ed.) Judicial Decision-Making. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
ULMER, S. Sidney (1971) “Earl Warren and the Brown Decision,” 33 Journal of Politics 689.Google Scholar
ULMER, S. Sidney (1972) “The Decision on Certiorari as an Indicator to Decision on the Merits,” 4 Polity 429.Google Scholar
ULMER, S. Sidney, William, HINTZE and Louise, KIRKLOSKY (1972) “The Decision to Grant Certiorari: Further Consideration of Cue Theory,” 6 Law and Society Review 637.Google Scholar
U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, December 2, 1968: 42.Google Scholar
VINES, Kenneth N. (1963) “The Role of the Circuit Courts of Appeals in the Federal Judicial Process: A Case Study,” 7 Midwest Journal of Political Science 311.Google Scholar
VINES, Kenneth N. (1964) “Federal District Judges and Race Relations Cases in the South,” 26 Journal of Politics 337.Google Scholar
VINES, Kenneth N. (1969) “The Judicial Role in the American States: An Exploration,” in Joel, GROSSMAN and Joseph, TANENHAUS (eds.) Frontiers of Judicial Research. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar