Composition and Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court: Hearing Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Eighty-third Congress, Second Session, on S.J. Res. 44, Joint Resolution Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Relating to the Composition and Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. January 29, 1954
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1954 - 43 pages
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
able action American Bar Association appeal appellate jurisdiction appointed approved associate justices become believe certiorari Chairman Chief Justice circuit court committee committee on jurisprudence Congress consideration considered constitutional amendment controversy course court of appeals decide decision effect executive exercised expressed fact favor February follows future Government hear house of delegates important independence involving Jenner John Joint Resolution 44 judges judicial judiciary jurisprudence and law Justice Hughes Justice Roberts law reform legislation letter limit loopholes Maryland matter McCardle military nine number of Justices opinion original party person political possible present President proposed amendment protect provision question record referred regular active service render representatives respect retirement seems Senate Joint Resolution Senator Butler Senator Dirksen serve Smithey statement suggested Supreme Court taken term thing thought tion Tweed United views wish witness York
Page 19 - We are not at liberty to inquire into the motives of the legislature. We can only examine into its power under the Constitution ; and the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this court is given by express words.
Page 12 - A review on writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only where there are special and important reasons therefor. The following, while neither controlling nor fully measuring the court's discretion, indicate the character of reasons which will be considered: (a) Where a state court has decided a federal question of substance not theretofore determined by this court, or has decided it in a way probably not in accord with applicable decisions...
Page 16 - Prisons since 1937, a lawyer, a member of the house of delegates of the American Bar Association, and...
Page 12 - ... in conflict with applicable decisions of this court; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this court's power of supervision.
Page 12 - ... has decided an important state or territorial question in a way in conflict with applicable state or territorial law; or has decided an important question of federal law which has not been, but should be, settled by this court...
Page 19 - It is quite clear, therefore, that- this court cannot proceed to pronounce judgment in this case, for it has no longer jurisdiction of the appeal; and judicial duty is not less fitly performed by declining ungranted jurisdiction than in exercising firmly that which the Constitution and the laws confer.
Page 25 - The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum.
Page 12 - The court accepts a case for review "in the interest of the law, its appropriate exposition and enforcement; not in the mere interest of the litigants" ( Supreme Court Justice John M.
Page 24 - That the supreme court of the United States shall consist of a chief justice and five associate justices...
Page 37 - Court, apart from any question of policy, which I do not discuss, would not promote the efficiency of the Court. It is believed that it would impair that efficiency so long as the Court acts as a unit. There would be more judges to hear, more judges to confer, more judges to discuss, more judges to be convinced and to decide. The present number of Justices is thought to be large enough so far as the prompt, adequate, and efficient conduct of the work of the Court is concerned.