Slightly surprising winner emerges in poll to name the most consequential U.S. Supreme Court chief justice
By Anna-Leigh Firth
Our U.S.-history-themed Question of the Month for July – emailed just before the July 4th holiday – asked NJC alumni whom they consider to be the most consequential U.S. Supreme Court chief justice of all time.
By Hon. Don Ash
This September I will have served on the bench for 25 years. I have presided over divorce trials, medical malpractice lawsuits, sat on appellate panels, and been involved in numerous murder trials, including two death penalty cases. I was honored to be elected president of the Tennessee Judicial Conference in 2001, and I have served as a faculty member of The National Judicial College for almost 20
By Anna-Leigh Firth
Our monthly one-question survey emailed to NJC alumni in June asked trial judges, “About how often do you disagree with the jury’s verdict?”
The choices were:
- Less than 25 percent of the time
- 26 to 50 percent of the time
- 51 to 75 percent of the time
- More than 75 percent of the time
Eighty-two percent of the 446 judges who responded said they disagree less than 25 percent
By Lieutenant Colonel Andrew R. Norton
Although the rules and procedures for military law generally track those of civilian law, the practical differences between civilian and military life have led to some variations.
A new book, The Chief Justices, by former Chicago Bar Association President Dan Cotter profiles the 17 men who have held the title Chief Justice of the United States. In this second of two excerpts (Part I can be read here), we learn about Taney’s tenure as chief and his legacy.
The Taney Court
When Taney began his tenure as chief justice of the Supreme Court of
Chief Justice John Marshall, the nation’s fourth, served thirty-four and a half years in that role. Roger B. Taney, who succeeded Marshall, served for twenty-eight and a half years. The two are the first and second longest serving chief justices. Taney’s tenure would be marked by continued national struggles over the institution of slavery, and his Court’s decision in Dred Scott has not only been assailed as wrongly decided but