Introduction

Abstract

Introduction Melvin I. Urofsky Those of us responsible for the contents ofthe Journal ofSupreme Court History have learned, much to ourjoy, that there appears to be no real limit on what can legitimately come within the stated parameters of our mission— namely, to chronicle the history ofthe Supreme Court of the United States. We do not, of course, run articles of doctrinal analysis, con­ sidering that area to be the purview of the law reviews. Clearly, some doctrinal analysis is necessary when dealing with a court, but our rule is that the historical aspects take prece­ dence to the doctrinal, always aware that the two cannot be easily separated. In making our selections, I am often re­ minded of that wonderful quote from the leg­ endary Harvard law teacher, Thomas Reed Powell: “Ifyou think that you can think about a thing, inextricably attached to something else, without thinking of the thing it is attached to, then you have a legal mind.” Those ofus at the Journal do have to think about connections. In that way, at least, perhaps we can distinguish between the legal and the editorial minds. This issue of the Journal once again ranges across a wide spectrum of topics. Jus­ tice Sandra Day O’Connor gave the annual lec­ ture at the Society’s meeting last June, and her topic is of great importance to students of the Court. Certainly no Chief Justice since John Marshall was as concerned about the Court speaking with one voice as William Howard Taft, a man once dismissed as inconsequential but who has been greatly redeemed by newer scholarship that emphasizes his real skills at leadership on the bench. We have other articles in this issue on Jus­ tices, and this gives me a great deal of satis­ faction, since I have spent much of my pro­ fessional life dealing with biography. John D. Fassett, once a clerk to Justice Stanley Reed, writes about the rather bizarre relationship be­ tween his Justice and that great proselytizer, Felix Frankfurter. What is interesting is that many new Justices, once they had been as­ saulted by Frankfurter, wanted as little as pos­ sible to do with him. But Reed seems to have taken it all in stride, and aside from Robert v vi JOURNAL OF SUPREME COURT HISTORY H. Jackson, may have had the best relationship with Frankfurter ofanyone on the Court at that time. My article derives from a talk I was in­ vited to give at the Woodrow Wilson House in Washington. I am grateful to the organizers for getting me to rethink some of the issues involved in that appointment. Separation ofpowers is, ofcourse, one of the favorite topics of teachers of both law and political science, but what happens when past or future Presidents appear as attorneys before the high court? And how well do they do? Allen Sharp’s interest in this question led him to do the research, and we are glad to publish the results. The remaining two articles, Michael J. C. Taylor’s on Ableman v. Booth and Scott E. Lemieux’s on Marbury v. Madison, bring me back to my original comments on doctrinal analysis and history. In both of these cases, any effort to study the doctrine outside the con­ text of history—or vice versa—is clearly use­ less. History and doctrine walk hand in hand through great cases, as they do through the pages of this Journal. ...