Talk:The switch in time that saved nine

Nature vs. Size

I changed the last phrase from "nine-Justice nature of the Supreme Court" to the size of the Supreme Court; I did this in part because the size of the Supreme Court has changed many times over the years, and so I do not think it is truly part of the "nature" of the Supreme Court. Magidin 17:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

See Also

Should direct readers to see also: Bruce Ackerman, "WE THE PEOPLE: Foundations" for a discussion of the overarching political impetus and ramifications of this change.

Debate among historians

I re-edited the paragraph adding the debate among historians; it should be in the same paragraph as the regular view, I think. The extra paragraph also pointed to the fact that following the switch the court voted to uphold New Deal legislation, but that was already addressed by a change in the composition of the Court. Magidin 17:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any changes on the page history. Is something wrong? Piratejosh85 (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You are replying to a comment made in September 2006 (three and a half years ago). You can see that change here, and there have been many edits since. Magidin (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

bha ha ha. Wow. I feel really dumb. I just saw the talk page was changed and assumed it was the last portion. Whoops :) Piratejosh85 (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I am moving the latest comment (not counting yours) to a new section on the bottom to prevent this. Magidin (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Lackluster article

I think this Wiki entry is a lackluster review of the "switch". Very little is mentioned of the ultimatum that Roosevelt put upon the Supreme Court in his request that certain votes be made or he would nominate Justices until he had a majority that would support his views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.106.230 (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That's discussed extensively in the article on the Court-packing plan. This article is just about the "switch". On the other hand, it might be a good idea to have a more prominent link to the main article in the lead. Magidin (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Then I nominate you, Magidin, to make it so. Thus the consequence of having a good idea. :p -- Foofighter20x (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I nominate 24.206.106.230. Anyone who starts their comment with "I think this wiki entry is a lockluster review" is by default bound to do the work required to remedy the situation. Piratejosh85 (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha. Touché, Piratejosh85. Touché. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 01:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just did a quick add; used the details template to direct to the article on the court-packing plan, at the end of the lead. Magidin (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Fact the Pierce Butler Wrote The Majority Opinion in the Morehead Case Suggests A Whole Lot

After all, Butler would again vote to strike down a similar minimum wage law in the Parrish case. Roberts did not speak for the majority in the Morehead case and there is nothing written in this article to suggest he only sided with the majority because of the US Constitution's "case or controversy" clause. I do not believe in erasing the "case or controversy" section, but it should be added that it was Butler who spoke for the majority in the Morehead case and that he was one of the justices who struck down another minimum wage law in the Parrish case as well.75.72.35.253 (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

FooFighter20x has given an interesting description of his/her political opinions on his/her user page. These confessions of libertarianism suggest there is a possibly the user could have erased my content for political reasons. My content is reliable, sourced and neutral. Wikipedia is a neutral website and should not be used for political activism.75.72.35.253 (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Not seeing what this really has to do with anything. Have you seen the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 page? Are you aware that I'm the primary author of that page? Do you know I've read start to finish every source that's been cited on that page and this one? I won't profess to be THE expert on the matter, but I'm definitely Wikipedia's resident expert (not a position I necessarily want, however). -- Foofighter20x (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the compromise edit FooFighter20x. Now I do not have to continue editing the article. Had you done it earlier, I would've not suspected political activism.75.72.35.253 (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

My intent is solely this: the "switch in time" narrative is primarily about Justice Roberts, Chief Justice Hughes, and FDR. I'm just trying to keep it focused on that is all. As to Justice Butler: it doesn't matter who writes the opinion of the Court as its contents are collaborative amongst those justices who sign on. In a 5-4 opinion, however, the rationale will reflect the views of the Justice with the narrowest take on the case (in the Tipaldo case, Roberts), regardless of whomever authors the opinion. Why? If the other justices push too hard, the fifth justice can defects to write his or her own concurring opinion, which becomes the narrowest opinion is support of the judgement and thus controlling, or can even switch sides and form a new majority that holds the other way. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Would the committee consider...

Hello, I am a University student asking your consideration. Over the Summer our newspaper published a feed about a find researchers made while indexing the records of Merlo J. Pusey, who interviewed Justice Roberts. The news release found here http://news.byu.edu/archive12-sep-switchintime.aspx details that Roberts considered public opinion when he made his voting decision. Is this discussion worthy? -Cleancutmatt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleancutmatt (talk • contribs) 23:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

My two cents: Discussion worthy? Definitely. But at this point, it's probably improvident to put anything into the article about it until there's independent academic review, consideration, and publication about the import of the notes. My primary response to seeing the notes, in combination with my knowledge of the subject matter of the topic, is that the notes don't appear to undermine recent scholarship. Nor do they support the conventional narrative. Remember: the conventional account is that Roberts buckled under the pressure of the legislation pursued by FDR. Seems here it is specifically stressed that Roberts asserts he did change his mind after more reflective consideration, but not cave to FDR. This supports the timing critique of the conventional account by more recent scholarship, which claims that Roberts had changed his mind prior to the Tipaldo case but still exerted judicial discipline in waiting until the legal question was appropriately before him to resolve the matter. The Courtpacking scandal just happened coincidentally while Roberts waited for the judicial process to play out. --Foofighter20x (talk) 06:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)