Talk:Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937

Reed ineffective?

James Crawford Biggs is generally considered "congenial and ineffective." The press of businss before the Supreme Court overwhelmed him, leading to losses before the Court which might have been avoided. But Stanley Forman Reed was considered a terrific Solicitor General. Reed's inability to win Supreme Court approval for New Deal legislation was due more to the Court's adherence to Lochner-era jurisprudence than to ineffectiveness. Indeed, under Reed, the Court began its "switch in time". - Tim1965 (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That was Eusebeus's edit of my original edit. He was snapping up the prose, if I recall. Either way, the point it that of McKenna's, cited in the article, and not the opinion of either one of us. The point McKenna was making, in more words, is that Biggs was a poor manager of the government's cases before the Court; Reed was not much more effective. I think the evaluation is one of administrative prowess, and not of legal acumen. Foofighter20x (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think my edit reflects scholarly consensus. Eusebeus (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Pyrrhic Victory???

Ok, in the last sentence of the first section (immediately above the contents box) it says "The entire episode garnered several negative consequences for Roosevelt that lasted through the rest of his administration, leading many scholars to conclude the President's victory was a pyrrhic one.[7]" Now, forgive me if I've missed something here, but what victory is being referred to here? In order to have a Pyrrhic victory, one has to have won something. As I've always understood it (and as this article seems to imply) this whole affair was a colossal defeat for the President. If I am missing something here, can someone please enlighten me? SpudHawg948 (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I think you are missing something: the stitch in time that saved nine was considered a "victory" for the Administration, which was widely (if falsely) linked to the JRB. So Roosevelt "won" a court (usu. 5-4) that was willing to rule his New Deal agenda constitutional. Is that not clear from the article? ... more work, sigh... Eusebeus (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The sentence now lacks any information (even the previous vague "negative consequences") about what was pyrrhic about the victory (setting aside the degree to which it was one). So now the question is, not how was it a victory, but how was it pyrrhic. I looked up the source, and the main reasons seem to be that it decreased his popularity, weakened his support among Democrats and hardened opposition by Republicans (among other reasons). These should probably make it into the article, because right now, it seems tacked on and because it uses weasel words, somewhat fishy. 24.196.67.58 (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

They're not weasel words when they're cited by a reputable source. Make sure you know what a wiki-term means before making objections, please. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As a casual reader I was confused by the reference to a pyrrhic victory as the final paragraph seems to refer to the Act and not the "Switch". I would suggest moving the allusion to the prior paragraph, in which the "Switch" is mentioned rather than leave it in the concluding paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.221.255.62 (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

A Pyrrhic victory is one that comes at a nearly ruinous cost ("Another such victory and I shall be ruined."). In this case, the victory was Roosevelt's—he got the majority on the Court that favored his legislative program, just as he wanted. However, he spent a great deal of political capital getting it and his party took a beating in the 1938 midterms as a result. Additionally, Roosevelt's interference in the 1938 midterms and the shellacking they took as a result of the Court-packing attempt served to solidify the conservative Democratic coalition (which didn't have the same zeal for the New Deal that Roosevelt et al. did) that sat in the political middle and essentially governed domestic social welfare policy for the next 30-odd years. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 07:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Speculation on Roberts's "foreknowledge"

The McKenna cite given does not support the addition. Neither do any of its footnotes. It, in fact, states exactly the opposite: Roberts had no foreknowledge of the administration's plans. Thus, my removal of the text in my last edit is justified, and the statement should not be re-inserted unless another verifiable source can be found. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Back to FA?

Foo, you up for another stab? I think we're getting close here. Eusebeus (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure! But you might have to take first chair on this: Life has decided to launch several simultaneous barrages at me. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Roberts's "Switch"

The passage in question has two cites supporting it, and further narrative and cites later in the article. I imagine I can easily find more if needed. Please provide better justification for your desire to remove this passage. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I am impartial about this subject and don't frankly care about any of the details. If, however, you want to make a claim of chronology, you must at least make the timeline described in the article correspond with your alleged chronology. The article clearly states, "The legislation was unveiled on February 5, 1937... on March 29, the Supreme Court upheld." Which comes first - February 5, or March 29? Either delete the inaccurate reference, or change the article, but dont leave a reader to wonder why the author believes March comes before February.Dikteren (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You must not understand how the Supreme Court operates. It appears you are operating on an false assumption. Announcement of an opinion is not the same as having the conference vote on the same day or writing up the opinion on that same day. Think about it: a lot of opinions issued by the court number into the hundreds of pages. Do you really think the justices just sit down and spit them out in one day? No. Could you sit down and write even a well-researched and cited 40 page legal paper in one day? Unlikely.

The Court hears the case, and then takes a vote on the outcome. At that point, only AFTER the votes are cast and the justices know where each other stand does the senior justice on each side assign who writes the opinion or dissent for that case. Once the justice writes the opinion, is has to circulate around to all the justices, both so the agreeing justices can give their inputs and the dissenting justices know what arguments are being made and can attempt to justify their own disagreement.

I will say you have a small point on semantics (it's true, the court has already long-ago held something when it finally publishes its opinion, but from the perspective of the public, the court holds as it does on THAT SPECIFIC DATE because the opinions are kept confidential until announced from the bench, and I first wrote the article using vernacular that normal people would understand). The article can be edited to reflect that. But your refusal to find or cite any reliable source to the contrary about the actual DATES of the events of oral arguments, the first conference vote, or the final conference vote, all of which preceded the announcement of JRB37, then you need to stop making the changes you have.

I'll have you know the U.S. courts, const. law, and their history were all the focus of my undergrad and graduate education. I know what I'm talking about. Take a 300- or 400-level class on the courts at your local university and they'll tell you the process is exactly as I've described it. Cheers! -- Foofighter20x (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

One more matter: Read the whole article. The lede is only supposed to be a very general summary that hits on all the main points of the article. The nuances of Supreme Court process are explained in the article, but being included in the lede would make the lede too bulky and detailed. Go down into the article and read the section on White Monday. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with FF. I think the text, as written, is pretty clear. However, since Roberts's decision and vote in the Parrish case predated the introduction of the 1937 bill,.... indicates clearly the chronology. Eusebeus (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I dont know why FF seems to feel he has a de facto right to make claims of fact without any evidence, and then attack me for questioning assertions that are prima facie false. The only source in the article that seems to allegedly support his claim is (McKenna, Marian C. (2002). Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Constitutional War: The Court-packing Crisis of 1937. New York, NY: Fordham University Press. ISBN 9780823221547.). I do not own a library, so I cannot reference that book. The whole premise of the case is that it was a "switch" from the ordinary way of doing things in the Court. Why should I accept without documented evidence that Roberts didn´t "switch" his vote in the last few weeks after the politicking of FDR? Seems as likely as not to have happened, and without evidence to say otherwise, the only thing we have to verify is that the decision was delivered several weeks after FDR gave his fireside chat. Dikteren (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I like your logic. The point is sourced using a scholarly reference that was subject to peer review. You don't own a copy of it so therefore you don't consider it evidence. That's most excellent. Anyway, you don't have to believe the point and if you care that much, presumably you will soon own many of the reference works cited in the article and can arrive at your own determination. Eusebeus (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires only a cite (WP:CITE) from a reliable source (WP:RS) that is verifiable (WP:V), which has been provided. Wikipedia does not require that I additionally provide any reader with some way to review those sources from the comfort of their chair at home. Might verification of said reliable source require one actually do a little legwork and expend some effort to track down a copy of a cited work and review it? Yep. Is the fact that it's personally inconvenient to the reader to make such an effort sufficient grounds to contest or remove the cited assertion per Wikipedia policy? Nope.

I've given plenty of good faith (WP:AGF) to your edits, and have tried to tweak the article to mitigate your concerns, all the while maintaining a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). If you you remove my edits again, I will take this to Wiki-Dispute Resolution (WP:DR), were your account could potentially be suspended for being a disruptive editor (WP:DDE).

In the mean time, since you want this information served up on a silver platter, here's a link to page 18 in Barry Cushman's work Rethinking the New Deal Court: The Structure of a Constitutional Revolution. And just in case there should be any technological difficulty, behold the following excerpt from page 18. (Note: If you'd like a physical copy of the book, I'll point out that I recently purchased a copy of Cushman's book for about $8 (including S&H) online. It's not a hard book to get a hold of, nor is it that expensive. And I'm sure if your local library doesn't have a copy, they are a part of a library network that has a copy somewhere in their aggregate collection and can loan it to your library. Consult with your local librarian for more information about this possibility.)

“ On March 29, the Court handed down its 5 to 4 decision upholding Washington State's minimum wage law for women.⁵² The new majority consisted of Brandeis, Stone, Cardozo, and Hughes, all of whom had voted to uphold similar laws in the past, and Justice Owen Roberts, who had voted to strike down a similar New York law the previous term.⁵³ Despite the appearance at the time, however, the decision in West Coast Hotel [v. Parrish] was not influenced by the pendency of the Court-packing plan. The case was actually voted on by the justices in conference on December 19, 1936. The vote was 4 to 4, with Roberts joining Hughes, Brandeis, and Cardozo. Justice Stone was unable to attend the conference due to a severe bout with amoebic dysentery, which kept him away from the Court for more than three months. All of the justices knew how Stone would vote, however, and Hughes decided it would be better to affirm the lower court's decision by a 5 to 4 vote rather than by the vote of an equally divided Court. The case was therefore held until Stone could return to the Court and cast his deciding vote. Stone did return and cast his vote at the beginning of February, and Hughes set about drafting the opinion of the Court. Roosevelt shortly thereafter announced his Court-packing scheme, however, and Hughes decided that if the Court were to hand down the Parrish opinion so soon after the president's announcement, it would convey the false impression that the Court was capitulating to political pressure. He therefore decided to hold the opinion for release at a more propitious date. That date was to be March 29, exactly one week after Wheeler's dramatic reading of Hughes' letter before the Senate Judiciary Committee.⁵⁴ Though Hughes was largely unsuccessful in his attempt to avoid conveying the impression that Parrish was an act of judicial obeisance to an aggressive executive, it is amply clear that the constitutional revolution was actually initiated more than six weeks before the Court-packing plan, a very closely guarded secret, became public knowledge.⁵⁵ ”

Cushman's Chapter 1 End-notes (pages 231-32):

• 52. West Cost Hotel, 300 U.S. at 379.
• 53. Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo, 298 U.S. 587 (1936).
• 54. Owen J. Roberts to Felix Frankfurter, Memorandum dated November 9, 1945, printed in Felix Frankfurter, "Mr. Justice Roberts," U. Pa. L. Rev. 104 (1955): 311, 314-15; Pusey, Charles Evans Hughes, 757; Alfred Kelly, Winfred Harbison and Herman Belz, The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development, 7th ed. (New York, 1991), 488.
• 55. Alsop and Catledge were aware as early as 1938 that the Parrish vote had taken place before the announcement of the Court-packing plan, though they believed that the vote had taken place in January rather than December. Alsop and Catledge, The 168 Days, 140. The persistence of the view that Parrish was at least partially influenced by the Court-packing plan is therefore something of a mystery. See, e.g., Murphy, The Constitution in Crisis Times, 115.

Any further edits which reflect your disagreement about this, unless it pertains to any legitimate academic criticisms of Cushman or McKenna's respective works or methodological approach to historical research (assuming such criticisms exist), will be viewed as disruptive editing, instead of honest academic disagreement, and will be referred to dispute resolution.

Thank you, all, you've been great. Peace and love. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 06:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Source for FDR's intentions?

Hi all,

I'm aware that it's the commonly-accepted historical interpretation of FDR's actions that his true purpose was to pack the court with like-minded judges. But unless there was some fireside mea culpa I'm unaware of, FDR himself never admitted to any such motive. As a result, his stated purpose is the only direct acknowledgement we have of what his intention was: to ease the burden on an aging court.

Obviously I'm not suggesting we distort WP's portrayal of what was going on. But isn't it a form of Original Research for us to simply state baldly and without attribution that "court-packing" was Roosevelt's actual intention in fact and not merely what his political enemies were accusing him of? If we can't find a source or two, wouldn't it be more NPOV to simply state, "a move which his opponents stated had the true intention of" (or some such language) and then describe as court-packing?

Again, just because "everybody knows" what FDR was really up to is no reason for WP to relax its standards. --Kasreyn (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

For instance, under the section "Antecedents to the Judiciary Reorganization Bill", a statement that Roosevelt "relished" doing something is properly backed-up by a citation in order to justify making a statement about his state of mind. So, something much more important and more central to the overall thrust of the article - ie., that Roosevelt's stated purpose in the bill was a disingenuous cover for his true intentions - should definitely have some attribution to a source. I'm sure dozens of neutral and distinguished sources are available. I went ahead and added a cite needed tag. -Kasreyn (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Article had a cite from Leuchtenberg in the paragraph following that made essentially the exact same point. Have put in a 2nd cite as such. Hope that works for you. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what Gunbirddriver lede edits were doing

S/He changed one sentence so much that it no longer reflected the cite supporting it, and simultaneously removed sourced material reflecting the scholarship of G. Edward White, a law professor and legal historian at the University of Virginia School of Law. I've restored the sourced material. I'd like to know why Gunbirddriver removed them without providing sourced justification here on the talk page. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to shorten trio of background and context sections

…splitting the current content off as a separate full article, and summarizing the content of those three section herein. These three sections giving the background and legislative battles leading up to the Reform Act comprise more than 50% of the prose text in this article, and delay readers from getting to the actual topic of the article. There is clearly enough in them for an article unto itself. Hence, I am calling for a shortening of these, and creation of a stand-alone article on Roosevelt New Deal judicial battles (to contain the current full background content). Bottom line, these three contextual/background sections are far too long. When the introduction to a subject comprises more than 50% of the article, students will never make it ti the Reform Bill content itself. Great content, overly done for this specific article. Cheers. Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

At first I was going to disagree, then I re-read the article and now I agree with your proposal. The first part of the article should be reorganized as a separate article on the judicial response to the New Deal (the New Deal article itself is already way too long) and then both this article and the New Deal article should summarize and link to that article. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

As the person who wrote and cited the bulk of the article as it is, I do concede that I have long seen and been aware the OP's point prior to it being raised, but have not had the time to tackle the problem. I would just like to suggest the following breakout, if done:

• Articles:
  • Constitutional challenges to the New Deal under Roosevelt: this could cannibalize most of Sections 2, 3, 4, and 8.
  • The Constitutional Crisis of 1937: This would be where most of the detailed context in Section 1 would go, would also summarize Sections 3, 5, 6.1, 6.2, a smattering of 8 saying the bill was defeated, most of 10, and the Timeline in 11.
  • Each of the court cases mentioned in the current article, if they do not already have their own page.
  • The revised version of this article (JPRB37), paring it down to a heavily condensed recap of Sections 2 through 5 and picking up the bulk of Sections 6, 7, 9, and a small bit of 10.
• Definite Stubs, if not Articles:
  • Black Monday (i.e., Section 3)
  • White Monday (i.e., Section 8)

Let me know what you guys think. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Foofighter20x seems good to me. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720120721/http://calvert.wustl.edu/PolSci3103.fall04/newdealcases.html to http://calvert.wustl.edu/PolSci3103.fall04/newdealcases.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070713134208/http://www.supremecourthistory.org/04_library/subs_volumes/04_c12_m.html to http://www.supremecourthistory.org/04_library/subs_volumes/04_c12_m.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151206204300/http://www.presidentialtimeline.org/ to http://presidentialtimeline.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090514001735/http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=1602 to http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=1602

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120404200647/http://newdeal.feri.org/court/roberts.htm to http://newdeal.feri.org/court/roberts.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Removed so-called "maintenance" templates

I've removed antiquated (2016) and tendentious "maintenance" templates ("overly detailed") that were really expressions of opinion about the content of the article, rather than meaningful contributions to its technical maintenance. I see no evidence whatsoever that there was any consensus behind them. Please do not try to leverage maintenance templates to insist on expressing a particular opinion in an article in the absence of evidence of consensus for such opinion. Instead, allow the normal consensus process to play out.

—Syrenka V (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Risk of politicization

Court-packing is a major political issue in the American national election right now. We have already seen a concerted attempt by one party and its allies in the news media to redefine "court-packing" away from what was the universally accepted definition until days ago -- increasing the number of judges on the court -- towards a more politically convenient (for them) definition of doing anything that changes the political makeup of the court. Typically in the case of political controversies, politically motivated editors flood in to rewrite Wikipedia articles on related subjects, and Wikipedia has done a very poor job of fending them off. We should watch out for such attempts to rewrite articles about court-packing as well.

98.237.242.206 (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that's definitely an issue. I don't know how these things work, but I feel like making this page semi-protected and creating a separate page for the general concept of court packing would be appropriate. Krehel (talk) 07:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Source for "87%" quote

The article (see footnotes 7 and 8) says that FDR criticized the Court's failing to hear cases, allowing by the "sheer necessity of its business to decline", and that "87%" of private litigants could not get their case heard. This appears nowhere in the fireside chat to which the note refers, and I could not find the quote elsewhere online. If it comes from something other than the cited fireside chat, it would be good to have that source cited. If it's not, then maybe consider deleting it. (As a lawyer, I find this interesting because the percentage of cases unheard by the Court is now far greater than 87%). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bvernia (talk • contribs) 12:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Missing citation for McKenna

I was unable to find the "McKenna" source for many quotes in the article. I see now, only from "Robert's Switch" in the Talk, that it is Marion C. McKenna-- The book however is apparently impossible to find, so it is not a useful source on this very interesting subject. Sanjuandav (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)