Talk:James Clark McReynolds

McReynolds' unpleasantness

I have added more instances of McReynolds rude behavior to some of his Court brethren, as well as a comment by Taft on his general unpleasantness. I got this information from Henry J. Abraham's "Justices, Presidents, and Senators: A History of the U.S. Supreme Court Appointments from Washington to Clinton", New and Revised Edition, Rowman & LIttlefield, 1999. If people think this is somewhat excessive, feel free to trim. Magidin 01:25, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

I may take a whack at it after I do some work on a similar William O. Douglas section, since the unpleasantness section currently reads more like an academic paper than an encylopedia entry and net net, really shouldn't be more prominent than an analysis of his opinions (which given his role as one of the Four Horsemen should be expanded). Old64mb 20:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is unbalanced as too much content is devoted to his abrasive personality and personal opinions. He was a productive Justice despite this. There is not a similar amount of content devoted to personalities of other Justices. Needs to be edited, and overlaps especially deleted.Parkwells (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to add material on his jurisprudence. McReynolds has a lot of space devoted to the conflicts he caused within the Court because this was a notable facet of his service in the Court: Taft and others commented on it, both in private and in public. No similar accounts exist for other Justices (or, if they do, they need to be added). Balance does not require that he be treated the same as everyone else, or that the content here be equally balanced both in favor and against; it requires that the content here accurately reflect the emphasis and the content that exists "out there" (from, of course, verifiable and reliable sources). Magidin (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Term of office

According to this reference (PDF) from the official website of the Supreme Court, McReynolds started his term of office on October 12, 1914. I will be changing the text to match shortly.

— DLJessup (talk) 06:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

————

According to the same reference, McReynolds ended his term of office on January 31, 1941.

— DLJessup (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

McReynolds, his clerks, his attitude towards others

I added a lot of the trivia on the general unpleasantness of McReynolds to the article, based on both the "Oxford Guide to the Supreme Court", and Abraham's book quoted above. Recently, user User 68.5.250.146 has been removing them. He first called them "unsubstantiated allegations". I incorrectly refered to the Oxford Guide, and then after they were removed again, verified them in Abraham's book. In his recent revert, he claims the quotes are not provided in that book, calling it "slander." I have asked him on his talk page why he claims the quote is not there; I would also ask for his comments in this talk page, as a first step in dispute resolution. Magidin 13:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are quotes from sundry sources in extenso, including the passage in question, to justify their inclusion in the article; also justifying the assertion that he was an anti-semite and not merely "accused" of being one by "his critics." From The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States edited by Kermit L. Hall, 1992, in the article on McReynolds (pp. 542-543):

As a person, McReynolds was often rude, impatient, and sarcastic. He detested tobacco and prohibited others from smoking in his presence. His attitudes towards women, especially female attorneys, were likewise intolerant. Perhaps one of his least endearing characteristics was his thoroughgoing anti-Semitism, which preventedd him from being civil to his Jewish Brethren Brandeis and Cardozo.

From Justices, Presidents, and Senators. A History of the U.S. Supreme Court Appointments from Washington to Clinton, New and Revised Edition, by Henry J. Abraham; Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc, 1999. Chapter 8, pp. 133-135 (internal citations omitted):

James Clark McReynold's record and antics during his ensuing 27 years on the Court are legion. Politically and jurisprudentially, the lifelong bachelor, a confirmed mysogynist, came to embrace a philosophy of reaction to progress second to none, and in his personal demeanor on the bench was a disgrace to the Court. Manifesting blatant anti-Semitism, McReynolds refused to speak to Brandeis (the first Jew to sit on the Court) for three years following Brandeis's appointment, and he deliberately absented himself from Brandeis's retirement testimonial at the Court in 1939. He was only somewhat less obnoxious in his behavior to the gentle Benjamin Cardozo, during whose swearing-in ceremony he pointedly read a newspaper, muttering "another one." According to one of his law clerks, McReynolds never spoke to Cardozo at all. In 1922, McReynolds refused to accompany the Court to Philadelphia on a ceremonial occasion because, as he wrote to the exasperated Chief Justice Taft: "As you know, I am not always to be found when there is a Hebrew abroad. Therefore, my 'inability' to attend must not surprise you." And because McReynolds would not sit next to Brandeis (where he then belongedd on the basis of seniority) for the Court's annual picture-taking session in 1924, Taft decided that no Court picture would be taken that year. On sundry occassions he would stalk from the conference table when Brandeis spoke, listening at the outside door until Brandeis finished, and then return to his seat. Nor would McReynolds sign the customary dedicatory letter sent routinely to all Court members on their retirement when that time came for Brandeis in 1939; nor would he attend Frankfurter's robing ceremonies ("My God, Another Jew on the Court!") earlier in 1939.

McReynolds also disliked Harlan Stone and his jurisprudence and carped about almost every opinion Stone wrote. When, on one occasion, Stone observed to McReynolds that a particular attorney's brief had been "the dullest argument" he had heard, McReynolds, in typically abrasive and tactless fashion, replied, "The only thing duller I can think of is to hear you read one of your opinions." Another one of his targets was the gentle John Hessin Clarke, whose voting record on the bench equally displeased him, especially becaused he had thought of Clarke as one of his protégés. Although McReynold's[sic] enmity was not decisive in Clarke's resignation from the Court in 1922, it clearly contributed to his resolve to leave. "McReynolds," he wrote to Woodrow Wilson, "as you know, is the most reactionary judge on the Court. There are many other things which had better not be set down in black and white." And ex-President Taft not only considered McReynolds weak, he regarded him as a selfish, prejudiced, bigoted person "and one who seems to delight in making others uncomfortable. He has no sense of duty! He is a continual grouch." After FDR entered the White House, McReynolds refused to attend receptions there and on one occasion would not stand when the president entered the room.

Justice McReynolds's bigoted personality became evidente quickly: he would not accept "Jews, drinkers, blacks, women, smokers, married or engaged individuals as law clerks"; and, according to Justice Douglas, he once asked a black Supreme Court barber, "Tell me, where is this nigger university in Washington?" Douglas named a card game after McReynolds, which he entitled "Son of a Bitch." [...]

Certainly, James Clark McReynolds desservedly earned the all but unanimous condemnation of the Court experts, who have rated him at the top of their brief list of failures.

The citations given by Abraham in the above text are: John Knox, A Personal Recollection of Justice Cardozo; the letter to Taft and the photograph incident are referenced to William Howard Taft: Chief Justice by Alpheus Thomas Mason, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1965, note 26 and pp. 216-217. The exchange with Stone is quoted from Supreme Court Hiistorical Society Quaterly 6, (Winter 1983), pp. 6. Clarke's letter to Wilson in the same, pp. 167. Taft's comments are referenced to Mason's book, as well as Henry F. Pringle's The Life and Times of William Howard Taft (New York: Farrar & Rinehart, 1939). William O. Douglas's comments from his book The Court Years (1939-1975): The Autobiography of William O. Douglas, pp. 15 of the Random House, Vintage Books 1980 edition.

In the same book, when discussing Cardozo, Abraham writes (pp. 153):

Yet Hoover continued to demur; he really did not want to appoint anyone, no matter how superbly and uniquely qualified he might be, from a state that already had two eminent "representatives" (Hughes - he had sent him there himself - and Stone) and whose religion (Jewish) was not only already "represented" on the Court (Brandeis), but would most assuredly cause McReynolds to act up again. (It did: The Supreme Court's resident bigot remarked that to become a justice one only had to be a Jew and have a father who was a crook, and he conspicuously buried himself in a newspaper at the swearing-in ceremony.)

This is attributed to Richard Polenberg, The World of Benjamin Cardozo: Personal Values and the Judicial Process, Harvard University Press, 1997, pp. 171.

In Closed Chambers, Penguin Books, 1999, Edward Lazarus writes (pp.284):

The view from the other side was, if anything, even more dismissive. McReynolds, the surliest of the old guard, was a thoroughgoing anti-Semite and for all practical purposes refused to speak to either Brandeis and Cardozo.

This is referenced to Arthur Schlesinger's The Politics of Upheaval, Houghton-Mifflin, 1960, pp. 455.

In David Atkinson's Leaving the Bench. Supreme Court Justices at the End, University Press of Kansas, 1999, discussing Brandeis's retirement (pp. 111):

Only Justice McReynolds refused to sign the letter of appreciation that the other justices sent to Brandeis when hee retired. (McReynolds had also previously absented himself from the memorial ceremonies held at the Supreme Court in honor of Justice Cardozo.)

This is quoted from the New York Times, 19 February 1939.

In short: the claim that the quote regarding his clerks is absent from Abraham's book is false. There is very clearly a consensus on McReynolds, coming from both people who disliked him and others such as his former clerk Knox. There is no doubt on his anti-Semitism: it is neither "alleged", nor a simple claim by "critics." I believe the statements as they existed before the current revert edits should stand. Magidin 21:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Magidin you have already materially misrepresented the contents of the sources to which you cite. Now you are admitting your fault but citing to a new source, which is not online to reference and check. How are we to believe you again after you miscited your sources in material ways before, unless we can see the source? Just take your word for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.250.146 (talk)

I incorrectly attributed in an Edit Summary months after making the addition. I correctly cited the sources when I added the material (as you can see in this very talk page), and have now provided full quotations, bibliography, and sources given in the bibliography for the quotes and facts. You asserted that the quote was not in Abraham; was this the result of checking, or were you guessing? As for verifying a source that is not on-line, I believe libraries still exist. The quotes have been correctly sourced, and I have given ample evidence that McReynolds anti-semitism was far from simply an "accusation by his critics", which seems to be your position. Perhaps you can provide verifiable sources for your assertions? Magidin 14:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot-created subpage

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/James Clark McReynolds was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Personality and conflicts

A recent edit removed the entire Personality and conflicts section calling it hearsay and defamation. I've reinstated that section. I believe that the assertions are all properly sourced to reliable sources, primary, secondary, and tertiary; I do not see how it can be called "hearsay"; as for 'defamation', we are reporting what others have said and written about McReynolds in reliable sources, which as I understand the policies on biographies, is precisely what we are supposed to do. I would appreciate comments on whether the removal of the section was appropriate; of course, editing the section, making it more objective, or bringing more sources to bear is welcomed, but I think the removal was improper and the justification was not appropriate. Magidin (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It may be well sourced, but it's undue weight overshadows the article. McReynolds is notable for his decisions and they should be of greater length than scurrilious scuttlebutt regarding his personality conflicts. He may have been a disagreeable, ornery cuss, but he was first and foremost a supreme court justice. Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That is solved by providing further (well-sourced) information about decisions he may have been notable for. Magidin (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Magidin. Indeed, McReynolds interpersonal relationships on the court, his bigotry and his dyspeptic persona were an important part of him and his legacy. If you've got analysis of his decisions please feel free to beef that section up. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that both (all) aspects of what McReynolds is remembered for should be disucssed in detail in the article. It bears emphasis that McReynolds' disagreeable personality is not just an item of gossip, but itself had substantial impact on the history of the Court and thus of the country: among other things, some accounts say that Woodrow Wilson appointed McReynolds as a Justice in the first place in order to get him out of the Cabinet without antagonizing him and his supporters; and the early retirement of one of McReynolds' colleagues (Justice Clarke) was, at least in part, directly attributed to Clarke's not wanting to work with him any more. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This would be a good place to start concerning additions to the opinions section. Hall, Kermit L. (2005). "McReynolds, James Clark". The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Encyclopedia.com. Retrieved March 20, 2012. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

An anonymous editor attempted to remove a lot of the sourced commentary on McReynolds in the Demographics article, and then made substantial edits here. A lot of them seem reasonably good, but the referencing was ill-formatted and incomplete. I've patched the formatting, but don't have the time to go through converting the references to corrected templates. A few of the comments seemed irrelevant or inappropriate and I removed them (quoting Taft criticising Holmes, presumably as a way to blunt his criticism of McReynolds; an incorrect comment on McReynolds sitting opposite Brandeis on the bench according to seniority being the source of the claim he refused to sit next to Brandeis, when in fact the claim was about the Court photograph, not the bench sitting order; and an inserted line that changed a quote from a book). I'd appreciate it if someone else also takes a pass, and if someone with the time reformats the new references. Magidin (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

General overview

I've enhanced all aspects of the article. In a general sense, one of the most interesting (and largely untapped) sources is Lucas, Roy (2004). "The Forgotten Justice James Clark McReynolds & The Neglected First, Second & Fourteenth Amendments". Washington, D.C. Retrieved March 21, 2012.. I think that the study and rankings of his effectiveness as a judge are worth pursuing. Also, his decision in the 2nd amendment case could use expansion, particularly as it was such an odd Rube Goldberg case, and it had long lasting implications. Also, his meanderings on right of privacy are interesting, particularly since one can hardly imagine McReynolds coming to the conclusion reached in Griswold v. Connecticut. Of course, the language he used survived on, perhaps disembodied from its roots, and walking Zombie like through the US Reports. Of course, his narrow reading of the U.S. Constitution on the powers of the federal government will appeal to those who want to revivify the 10th and 11th Amendments, and should appeal to those looking to retrench government back to the 18th Century (or at least the early 20th). His 2nd and 14th Amendment decisions are quite apart. In passing, I would say that in writing 500 decisions, McReynolds proved that 'even a stopped clock is right twice a day.' 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on James Clark McReynolds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100528051906/http://www.ucumberlands.edu/academics/history/upsilonian/files/vol17/vol17.pdf to http://www.ucumberlands.edu/academics/history/upsilonian/files/vol17/vol17.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on James Clark McReynolds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090514001735/http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=1602 to http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=1602
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527134033/http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/lib_hist/Courts/supreme/judges/mcreynolds/jcm-lop.html to http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/lib_hist/courts/supreme/judges/mcreynolds/jcm-lop.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527134044/http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/lib_hist/Courts/supreme/judges/mcreynolds/jcm-bib.html to http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/lib_hist/courts/supreme/judges/mcreynolds/jcm-bib.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Request of dedicated editors here

@Magidin, @7&6=thirteen et al. — with the Biden SCOTUS nomination imminent, and the focus on U.S. and its justices, past and present that this brings, I would suggest the crew of regulars here does a review of this (and any other potentially important) article, in particular for the basics—lede summarising article, completeness and quality of sources, and the like. The observation that prompts this is the poor quality of sources that support charges of McReynolds bigotry in the lede, and the disconnection of that content from the solid development and sourcing of the article's main body. I am not raising any doubt about the statements; I would just suggest partially presented, author-less —and likely non-peer reviewed or fact-checked—web sources not appear in the lede, and that the sources in support of this and any other potentially divisive historical contention be sourced in an exemplary way (and then those sources presented in exemplary fashion as well).

I think it very likely that the sources and content needed are already here; if not, the regular contributors should have access to the existing and other quality sources that might fully substantiate any charge of bigotry (e.g., without resorting to web lists of best and worst justices). I leave this in your very capable hands. I will only, today, open some of the current sources, and complete their citations, it such is possible. Cheers, 98.253.16.20 (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I reiterate and amplify the concern: After combining and completing two pairs of redundant citations appearing in relation to this content, Fox and Peacock (do diff on last three edits), I ask that this source be immediately removed or replaced. The reason is that WP is his stated source of his information, and he quotes from this exact article for the McReynolds section of the cited blog. This creates/constitutes an untenable, disallowed WP:FORK–/WP:BACKWARDSCOPY–type of issue. Thanks for dealing with this first, before any other issue presented above. 98.253.16.20 (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Enough edit warring

Two anonymous editors - 98.253.16.20 and 2601:246:c700:558:9cf2:858f:cf8d:a97a - have been adding and tagging cites back and forth recently. I'm really primarily motivated in not having the page littered with preblematic sources and jarring tags.

This is over citations to a lede sentence

He is best known today for his sustained opposition to the domestic programs of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and his personality which was widely viewed negatively, and included documented elements of overt anti-semitism and racism.[2][better source needed][3][circular reporting?][disputed – discuss][4]

Here is a list of the citations and their bickering over them.

• [2] Todd Peppers, Richmond U law paper. Argument against is that it doesn't support the sentence. However, it clearly does. The argument tries top make it appear that the source is ambiguous. In reality, it fully supports the sentence while also mentioning some possible mitigations indicating that while the presented facts may be true, they may not be as extremem or present a complete picture of the man. My read: excvellent source, silly argument against, removing the "better source needed" tag.
• [3] WIlliam Peacock, FindLaw blog. Argument against is that it is circular, using this WP article as a source. Then double-tagged as disputed. Argument is clearly valid, and this source has no place here, removing source and tags.
• [4] Everyone seems fine with this one, 'nuff said.

Dovid (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)