SCOTUS member Ward Hunt motivates U.S. Congress to better solve disability prior to Woodrow Wilson’s 1919 stroke ? ? ?

[Dancing Fool]

Supreme Court Justices Today Are Unlikely to Die with Their Boots On – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

law.marquette.edu

“ . . . in January 1879, he [Ward Hunt] suffered a paralyzing stroke that left him incapable of speaking.

“At the time of his stroke, Hunt was 68 years old and had served on the Court for six years. Although his affliction left him incapable of hearing cases or writing opinions, Hunt refused to resign from the Court for three years . . . ”

***********

I can’t blame the guy, because he probably didn’t want his wife to live in poverty in her senior years. But Holy Cow, there has to be a better way!

Your ideas please.

 

[Dancing Fool]

Alright, one reform . . .

I’m convinced that through most of American history, the Vice President is an afterthought, is nominated in a clumsy attempt to “electrify” the Convention, and it’s only by luck that we sometimes get a good Vice President.

We’d be better off picking the Senate leader in the President’s own party as next in line. This would also be the U.S. Constitution’s 1st mention of party!

 

[CalBear]

It is only up to Congress to the point that it can send a Constitutional Amendment to the states for possible ratification to rewrite Article 3 Section 1 of the Constitution.

Not going to happen. Literal ZERO possibility.

 

[Dancing Fool]

Not going to happen. Literal ZERO possibility.

It’s a challenge. No question.

But during the Progressive Era, there were 4 Constitutional Amendments passed — income tax, direct election of Senators, Prohibition, and equal voting rights for women.

I’m basically asking that the Amendment on Presidential disability (ratified in 1967) be ratified about a century earlier.

 

[Mikestone8]

It is only up to Congress to the point that it can send a Constitutional Amendment to the states for possible ratification to rewrite Article 3 Section 1 of the Constitution.

For the SCOTUS, perhaps a statute allowing the President to appoint an additional Justice if two thirds of the Justices and a two-thirds majority of the Senate find that a Justice is unable to perform his duties. When the diabled justice dies or resigns, he is not replaced.

For the Presidency, perhaps a law allowing two-thirds of both houses to find that the POTUS is unable, and allowing the VP to act until the disability be removed.

 

[CalBear]

For the SCOTUS, perhaps a statute allowing the President to appoint an additional Justice if two thirds of the Justices and a two-thirds majority of the Senate find that a Justice is unable to perform his duties. When the diabled justice dies or resigns, he is not replaced.

For the Presidency, perhaps a law allowing two-thirds of both houses to find that the POTUS is unable, and allowing the VP to act until the disability be removed.

Couldn't be a statute. Has to be an actual Amendment.

Both are good ideas, but the issue is getting them through the Congress and the States/ IOTL it too the Wilson debacle, FDR's passing , Ike heart problems AND JFK's assassination to even get the conversation started.

 

[Evan]

Couldn't be a statute. Has to be an actual Amendment.

Both are good ideas, but the issue is getting them through the Congress and the States/ IOTL it too the Wilson debacle, FDR's passing , Ike heart problems AND JFK's assassination to even get the conversation started.

For SCOTUS, a statute could do it, because the Constitution doesn't specify a size for SCOTUS. Congress can add a new justice by statute whenever it wants, or it can pass a statute saying that two-thirds of the Court or whoever else can trigger adding a new justice.

(I think the size should be in the Constitution to prevent politicized court-packing, but that's another story.)

But yes, the Presidency requires an amendment.

 

[Dancing Fool]

When the diabled justice dies or resigns, he is not replaced.

I like this part. But I’m not a fan of supermajorities.

If it’s a reasonable political environment, just do it on a case by case basis. Just pass a law temporarily increasing the size of the Court to 10, and have the law state that when Justice Hunt retires (or passes away), he will not be replaced. If things aren’t friendly or reasonable, nothing gets done. And that’s okay, too.

For bonus points, maybe a tradition develops that in a case like this, the President strives mightily to find and appoint a sound moderate. [in my perfect world, the Court has 5 moderates, 2 conservatives, and 2 liberals]

A similar case in modern times is Justice William O. Douglas having a serious stroke the tail end of 1974. He hung on through most of 1975 even though he didn’t and couldn’t get much work done.

 

[Dancing Fool]

Act Fast to Stop Stroke

Remember BE FAST stroke acronym. Learn what to do when symptoms occur.

www.scripps.org

And by God, if we’re going to talk about stroke let’s advance our first aid knowledge. B and E might be new to you.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

Given the era "solutions" would probably involved brutal eugenics legislation.

If you want a better approach than OTL you'd probably need to prevent the progressive era in favor of laborites/georgists filling the voice. A laborite-georgist alliance instead of OTL's shortlived progressive-laborite alliance with the new deal coalition.

 

[Mikestone8]

Couldn't be a statute. Has to be an actual Amendment.

Are you sure? The Constitution provides that in case of inability the President's powers devolve on the VP, but does not specify how inability is to be determined, so I would have thought that the Framers were leaving that for Congress to determine by law.

That, I suspect was what VP Marshall had in mind when he indicated that he would not take over the Presidency w/o Wilson's express consent unless requested to do so by two-thirds of both houses and a declaration by a majority of the Justices of the SCOTUS. that his action was constitutional. He evidently thought an Amendment not essential, but wanted all bases covered.

I quite agree, though, that the issue was fuzzy enough and serious enough that an Amendment was *better*.

 

[Dancing Fool]

Given the era "solutions" would probably involved brutal eugenics legislation.

Eugenics is certainly a sorry chapter in U.S. history with institutionalization and forced sterilization, and many otherwise decent people seemed to believe in this crap [among other issues, they didn’t seem to understand that if something is a recessive gene and already rare, how many generations into the future you’re going to have to keep doing this stuff]

But I’m not seeing the connection with disability and lines of succession. Perhaps you could help me out in this regard?

—————————————————

Later edit—

The signature case in this regard is Buck v. Bell (1927). Carrie Buck was an ordinary woman who did crossword puzzles in her later years. Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. and Louis Brandeis who voted for the state of Virginia and against her were just plain wrong. And were the other Justices in an 8-1 decision.

And shows how common these pro-eugenics views were.

Buck v. Bell - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Dancing Fool]

That, I suspect was what VP Marshall [former Indiana Governor Tom Marshall] had in mind when he indicated that he would not take over the Presidency w/o Wilson's express consent unless requested to do so by two-thirds of both houses and a declaration by a majority of the Justices of the SCOTUS. that his action was constitutional. He evidently thought an Amendment not essential, but wanted all bases covered.

It would be interesting if Congress and the Court said, Yes.