Talk:Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This should be merged with Court packing. I'm too busy right now ... any takers?
dino 19:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Disputed statement
From the one-volume history of the US Supreme Court that I read, I don't think it's clear that the court-packing plan was the direct cause of the switched vote. I'll dig up a reference. -- Beland 01:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
- I can prove that it was at least a part of the reason for the switch. But I can't get it until Monday or later. Falphin 21:54, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Barry Cushman, Rethinking the New Deal Court (1998) and G. Edward White, The Constitution and the New Deal (2000) argue persuasively that:
1. The switch happened at a case conference (the justices voted on December 19, 1936 to uphold the statute in Parrish)that occurred before the plan was announced publicly. 2. That the Justices would have been aware that the bill did not have a reasonable chance of passage; and 3. That the switch was really the result of better drafting combined with doctrinal nuance.
Some illustrative links:
http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/journal_of_interdisciplinary_history/v030/30.1tushnet.html http://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/winter2002/morgan.html
- To implement the source we need to get the book number. We can't use book reviews Falphin 22:59, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
The ISBN numbers? I'm new to this, sorry if it shows. Anyway
Cushman 0195115325 White 0674008316
Links to Amazon listings. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195115325/qid=1120950755/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0508241-3802330?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674008316/qid=1120951030/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0508241-3802330?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
Hope this helps.
The unclaimed comments above are mine. I just figured out how this comment stuff works. Gfactor 12:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Wheeler and Hughes
I'm surprised this makes no mention of the role of Burton Wheeler and Charles Evans Hughes in defeating the plan. PedanticallySpeaking 16:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] A revealing article title
It is very much in character for Wikipedia to label the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937—which is a redirect here—with this journalistic sobriquet: the Court-packing Bill. For all the chitter- chatter about "NPOV" among common Wikipedians, let us not forget the systemic bias at Wikipedia that does not always reveal itself in as delightfully unsubtle a manner as here. Beyond doubt, Roosevelt overstepped his constitutional authority in this bill, which is presented here, however, as a simplistic win/lose operation—with all the cultural depth of a baseball game. --Wetman 18:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Wetman is right, this article should be moved to its proper title with "Court-packing Bill" being used as a redirect. - Jord 19:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
This title is the usual way the matter is referred to. I disagree it is biased. PedanticallySpeaking 16:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm for moving this article to the proper name of the Bill. JSIN 03:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. enochlau (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Agree with PedanticallySpeaking that "Court-packing Bill" is the way it's typically referred to. Which is a great reason to have a redirect from Court-packing Bill to the correct name, which is being done. Should definately leave the article with the correct full name (as it is currently), with a redirect from "Court-packing Bill" to here. Treznor 16:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Original research?
We discussed this bill briefly today in my U.S. history class. I came here to get more info on it. It's a good article, but it feels like a somewhat quickly-written essay without adequate documentation. In some areas, it almost sounds like original research--if it isn't, the analyses need to be better attributed.
I haven't put an original research template up, but I wanted to post my concerns here so they can be either addressed or disputed.
In any case, the article could benefit from some copyediting and a more encyclopedic tone. I fixed a few spelling errors but didn't want to do anything major in case the article gets a major overhaul.
Thanks, cluth 22:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
