Day 2: Stephen Field

[A18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Johnson_Field

Discuss. I'll post later.

[A18]

Stephen Field was an ardent believer in economic liberty, and that much is commendable. Unfortunately, he also cared nothing about the text of the Constitution, and was perfectly willing to use his vote to try to promote his policy preferences from the bench; his decisions were driven not by text and tradition, but by his personal understanding of so-called "natural law" and "inalienable rights."

Unsurprisingly, Field's opinions lacked coherence and consistency. Whereas the vague Privileges or Immunities and Due Process Clauses became vehicles for enacting, well, Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statistics (attempted in the Slaughterhouse Cases and Munn v. Illinois), clear textual provisions like the Equal Protection Clause were largely ignored (not just Plessy v. Ferguson, but also Strauder v. West Virginia and others).

Certainly one of the most results-based justices.

BTW, does anyone know why Field hated Grover Cleveland?

[Emsworth]

Field might be described as the conservative counterpart to William Douglas. His jurisprudence had very little to do with the text of the Constitution, and much to do with his conservative/libertarian views.

Towards the end of his very long career, he became senile. Despite poor health, he insisted on continuing on the bench, either so that he could break John Marshall's record as longest-serving Supreme Court justice, or so that his replacement could be appointed by someone other than Grover Cleveland. (Why he disliked Cleveland, I do not know.)