During the early/mid twentieth century the supreme court was dominated by four key members, known as the four horsemen of the apocalypse. These four horsemen were all extraordinarily probusiness. They were known for avidly supporting business and striking down any law that was aimed at helping the workers. Hughes after running for president in 1916 and losing against Woodrow Wilson by a margin of only 23 electoral votes was later made secretary of state by Warren G. Harding in 1921. After the death of Chief justice Taft in 1930, Hughes was nominated to take his place by president Herbert Hoover. Hughes although having a fairly distant and hard personality was respected for his intellect, his social skills or lack of did help him at times with the constantly arguing and irritable court.
The supreme court greatly controlled by the four horsemen struck down almost all of the government's attempts to create anything that nearly resembled welfare programs. Although Hughes was considered a progressive towards race issues and the New Deal’s policies, he did side with the four horsemen on several key pieces of legislation. Hughes often acted as the swing vote on the court, although he did side with the minority, he did often side with the conservative majority. This constant repealing of welfare laws caused the threat of adding several more justice positions to the court, all of which would support progressive ideals to be to be declared against the four horsemen and their supporters. Hughes also was avidly against this effort by Roosevelt to reorganise the supreme court. Although he would often side with the beliefs of the four horsemen, in the end he ruled in order to uphold state minimum wage laws as well as convince the other moderate justice to side with the liberals in order to better balance the supreme court and its verdicts.
Sources:
http://fee.org/freeman/four-justices-who-stood-for-justice/
Are there any other times in history where voting blocks have formed in the supreme court? Seeing as FDR was able to pass and hold several decidedly anti-business laws, it seems that the "four horsemen" were eventually defeated. How do you think this defeat came to pass?
ReplyDeletehttp://fee.org/freeman/four-justices-who-stood-for-justice/
It would seem inevitable that there would have been times of voting blocks in the supreme court, as all that needs to happen, is that four justices that believe in the same thing come onto the bench at overlapping times. It seems that the four horsemen were never truly defeated, but rather tamed. They weren't defeated, as they were never removed from office, but they did begin to listen to Roosevelt's wishes. The cause of this would almost undoubtedly have been from Roosevelt's threat to fill the court with extra jurors all supporting him, if the four horsemen didn't stop ruling against everything he supported.
DeleteHow different would government policies would have been if the four horsemen were not in their place? Would the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933 have passed if it weren't for the four horsemen?
ReplyDeletesource-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_(Supreme_Court)
It would seem that government policies would have in general been more progressive, or at least would be more representative of the public's wishes. As the four horsemen were essentially the only ones in government preventing such laws from being accepted as law. Considering that the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933 was passed but such high margins (315-98 in the House, and 64-20 in the Senate) it would also seem that it would have stayed in effect at the very least, for significantly longer than it did.
DeleteEven though the Supreme Court shouldn't have biases, why do you think the committee of the four horsemen was allowed to persist for so long? Aren't they supposed to vote for the public not based on their own views? Justice Holmes was a strong opponent of bias in the Supreme Court. He felt that the justice should vote on propositions that reflected the public's opinion. His views greatly contradicted that of the Four Horsemen.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.let.rug.nl/usa/biographies/oliver-wendell-holmes/
It is true that the four horsemen were indeed not doing what they were supposed to be doing as supreme court justices, as they should have been voting for the public not themselves. However the process for removing a supreme court justice includes them being impeached by the House of Representatives, and then being convicted by a Senate trial. And I don't believe that congress was united enough to do this, until Roosevelt came into office, and by that point he was already dealing with them. As well as the justices would have had to disobey the guidelines set by articles I and II of the Constitution, something that they did not necessarily do.
Delete