Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: JasonC
Do you know who is considered by almost all to be the greatest justice to ever serve on SCOTUS? Did you realize this person had only briefly studied law? Did you know he did not have any judicial experience when he was appointed chief justice, and yet he is considered the person who had the most influence on Constitutional Law? Have you ever heard of John Marshall? His single greatest attribute, which has been lacking in many of the recent justices to SCOTUS was character.

John Marshall-Biography

Experience: No prior judicial experience. Marshall held many political offices at the state and national levels.

John Marshall was born in a log cabin on the Virginia frontier, the first of fifteen children. He was a participant in the Revolutionary War as a member of the 3d Virginia Regiment. He studied law briefly in 1780, and was admitted to practice the same year. He quickly established a successful career defending individuals against their pre-War British creditors.

Marshall served in Virginia's House of Delegates. He also participated in the state ratifying convention and spoke forcefully on behalf of the new constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation.

Marshall contemplated several offers to serve in the Washington and Adams administrations. He declined service as attorney general for Washington; he declined positions on the Supreme Court and as secretary of war under Adams. At Washington's direction, Marshall ran successfully for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives but his tenure there was brief. Adams offered Marshall the position of secretary of state, which Marshall accepted. When Ellsworth resigned as chief justice in 1800, Adams turned to the first chief justice, John Jay, who declined. Federalists urged Adams to promote associate justice William Paterson to the spot; Adams opted for Marshall.

Marshall's impact on American constitutional law is peerless. He served for more than 34 years (a record that few others have broken), he participated in more than 1000 decisions and authored over 500 opinions. As the single most important figure on constitutional law, Marshall's imprint can still be fathomed in the great issues of contemporary America. Other justices will surpass his single accomplishments, but no one will replace him as the Babe Ruth of the Supreme Court!

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/legal_entity/13/overview

142 posted on 10/11/2005 6:00:08 AM PDT by GarySpFc (Sneakypete, De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies ]


To: GarySpFc
I wish Miers' defenders would start comparing apples to apples.

Marshall had a record as a Federalist. He was a popular and good attorney before running for office. He spoke for Federalism, voted for Federalists, contributed to Federalists and was rewarded.

Miers has no record as a conservative. Her tenure on the school board was pro-diversity and she brought Gloria Steinem to SMU.

Again, I am not going after her on "qualifications." The constitution articulates no specific qualifications for SCOTUS so I think it is a non-issue.

The issue here (as I have said on earlier posts on this thread) is that conservatives have been burned too many times on SCOTUS nominees to back someone with a questionable philosophy.

149 posted on 10/11/2005 7:03:58 AM PDT by nonliberal (Graduate: Curtis E. LeMay School of International Relations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies ]

To: GarySpFc
She didn't ratify the constitution. Get a grip. The only thing she has in common with Marshall is neither were judges. You might as well compare her hat size to that of Brandeis.

What we have learned since - and could have guessed - is that Bush first decided it had to be a woman, for affirmative action and ease of confirmation reasons - and that the most qualified in that deliberately limited pool of the less than best turned it down as not worth the political circus involved in a confirmation fight. Leaving us with the most experienced female lawyer friend of the President who is willing to have spitballs thrown at her - a stellar recommendation, isn't it?

Naturally, some of the blame for that state of affairs belongs on other shoulders. Those who inventing "Borking", those who have appeased affirmative action nonsense for decades, those unwilling to put up with personal attacks for a greater good for their country, etc. But it is a profile in the opposite of courage, any way you slice it.

155 posted on 10/12/2005 10:39:44 AM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson