What did Marbury do next?

[Paul Finkelman]

was it purely a political purge or a Jeffersonian remaking of Courts
because the new administration did not want a 3 layered federal court
system and wanted to the SC justices to ride circuit. Remember, TJ at
least claimed to oppose big fed gov. and certainly wanted justice at the
state level with state judges.  Ther were surely elements of a purge but
it was not a purge to put in Jeffersonians it was a "purging" of the
political system of a bad court system

Paul Finkelman
President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
     and Public Policy
Albany Law School
80 New Scotland Avenue
Albany, New York   12208-3494

518-445-3386 
pfink at albanylaw.edu
>>> "Sanford Levinson" <SLevinson at law.utexas.edu> 03/11/07 12:11 PM >>>
Paul asks a very interesting question.  I do think that one difference
between the Jefferson repeal and his hypo is that the first was clearly
and unequivocally a political purge and the second would not be.  Assume
that the Jeffersonian Congress did pass a new Act in, say, 1803,
re-establishing the circuit courts and authorizing TJ to make 14 new
appointments.  How would we describe this, and would there be any
constitutional problems?  (Even if one thinks there might be, could
anyone seriously imagine that the Court of Marbury and the far more
important case of Stuart v. Laird would in fact do anything to resist
such a development?)

sandy 

-----Original Message-----
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 11:37 AM
To: fishman at duq.edu; conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu; hartneed at shu.edu
Cc: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: What did Marbury do next?

I am not sure why Ed thinks the 1801 judges had a stronger claim to
office, since their office no longer existed.  Are you arguing that
Congress can NEVER abolish a court; change a court system.  The Congress
did not remove the judges and then allow TJ to appoint new ones;
Consider the other piece of the 1801 act, which reduced the size of the
SC by one justice with the next vacancy; Congress could surely reverse
that, which it did.  You could not argue that the next judge nominated
and confirmed could not take his seat because the old 1801 act trumped
the new 1802 act.  

Try this one; suppose North and South Dakota decide that it is just
stupdid to have two states with almost no one living in them and that
they should simply become the state of Dakota.  Congress approves this
merger becuase it will save the country lots of money and lead to
greater efficiencies.  In approving the merger Congress also eliminates
many federal jobs and offices including all of the District Courts that
existed in both states and creates two new Federal District Courts --
one for the Eastern District of  Dakota and one for the Western District
of Dakota, both cutting across the lines of what had been the two
states. The old federal courts no longer exist and that the judges who
formally worked in those jobs are no longer Federal Judges.  Instead,
there is a entirely new Court created, for the District of Dakota.  Can
these judges still claim to have jobs if their districts no longer
exist?

Paul Finkelman
President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
     and Public Policy
Albany Law School
80 New Scotland Avenue
Albany, New York   12208-3494

518-445-3386
pfink at albanylaw.edu
>>> Edward A Hartnett <hartneed at shu.edu> 03/11/07 9:20 AM >>>
I understand that Tilghman lost his office because of the repeal of the
JA of 1801.  (I wouldn't say "replaced" because no one was then
appointed circuit judge; instead, the Supreme Court Justices resumed
riding circuit, holding the old and restored circuit courts with the
local district
judge.)  Does anyone doubt that he (and the other circuit judges who
were
removed) had a stronger claim to office than Marbury? 

My point is both formal and political.

As a formal matter, commissions mattered (and I think still do). 
Greene's
commission had an obvious formal error, and that meant he was out of
luck.

As a political matter, life tenured  circuit judges were being tossed
out of office, Supreme Court Justices actively went along with that
removal (by holding the  old and restored circuit courts), and, by the
way, a Supreme Court Justice was about to be impeached. 

In that environment, I think it is completely implausible that Marbury,
armed with nothing but dicta rendered in a case that he lost , could
convince any judge to swear him into office. 

Why does anyone think that it is more likely that some judge would have
sworn Marbury into office (if only he had asked) than that Greene would
have been sworn in or that Tilghman (and the other removed circuit
judges)
would have remained in office? 

What judge do you have in mind to do the swearing in?  One of the
removed circuit judges?  One of the DC Circuit Judges, who could be as
easily removed as the other circuit judges?  A Supreme Court Justice who
had just ruled against giving Marbury any relief, who had cooperated
with the removal of the circuit judges, with impeachment looming?  A
district judge who had just seen the circuit judges removed, and
(following the lead of

the Supreme Court Justices) had also cooperated in that removal by
holding the old and restored circuit courts with a Justice? Maybe
District Judge

Pickering, before he was convicted by the Senate and removed from
office? 
 

Edward A. Hartnett
Richard J. Hughes Professor
     for Constitutional and Public Law and Service Seton Hall University
School of Law One Newark Center Newark, NJ 07102-5210
973-642-8842
hartneed at shu.edu
SSRN author page: http://ssrn.com/author=253335



fishman at duq.edu
03/11/2007 12:28 AM

To
"Edward A Hartnett" <hartneed at shu.edu>
cc
"guayiya" <guayiya at bellsouth.net>, conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu,
kurt.lash at lls.edu, conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu Subject
Re: What did Marbury do next?





Ed:

But Tilghman was replaced because of the Judiciary Act of 1802 that took
away his and other federal judicial appointments at the time.

Joel


> I think it highly unlikely -- even today -- that you could find a
judge 
to
> swear in someone who lacked a commission.  How many of you would buy
or
> sell a house (or represent a buyer or seller at a closing) without the
> seller producing a deed?
>
> Anyone who thinks that Marbury could have been sworn in should
consider
> the situation of Senator Ray Greene.  He had been nominated and 
confirmed
> by the Senate as district judge for Rhode Island (and resigned from
the
> Senate), but the commission he received from Adams erroneously
purported
> to appoint him as a circuit judge.  Jefferson refused to give Greene a
> corrected commission, and instead filled the position to which Greene 
had
> been confirmed by giving a recess appointment to David Barnes.
>
> If Greene could not be sworn in because of a obvious error in his
> commission, and thereby saw his position filled by someone else, how 
could
> Marbury possibily have been sworn in without any commission at all?
>
> At the same time, there were supposedly life tenured judges who had
not
> only been confirmed and commissioned, but actually deciding cases for
a
> year before being tossed out, such as William Tilghman, chief judge of

the
> United States Circuit Court for the Third Circuit.  See, e.g.,
> Hollingsworth v. Duane, 12 F. Cas 367 (C.C. Pa. 1801).
>
> If the Supreme Court cooperated in the displacement of already-sitting
> judges such as Tilghman -- and the displacement of almost-judges such
as
> Greene --  why would anyone think that some judge would swear in
Marbury
> who had no commission and lost his case in the Supreme Court?
>
> Edward A. Hartnett
> Richard J. Hughes Professor
>      for Constitutional and Public Law and Service
> Seton Hall University School of Law
> One Newark Center
> Newark, NJ 07102-5210
> 973-642-8842
> hartneed at shu.edu
> SSRN author page:
> 
http://ssrn.com/author=253335___________________________________________
____

> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
(rightly 
or
> wrongly) forward the messages to others.


--
Joel
____________________________________
Joel Fishman, Ph.D.
Asst. Director for Lawyer Services
Duquesne University Center for Legal Information/
Allegheny County Law Library
921 City-County Bldg.
414 Grant St.
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
412.350.5727; fax: 412.350.5889
email: fishman at duq.edu


_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
or wrongly) forward the messages to others.