text:
Select your region
You've landed at the Australia site, but it looks like you're visiting from United States.
You have no items in your shopping cart.
You have no items in your shopping cart.Back
Penny Skateboards make premium plastic skateboards in a great range of colours, parts and gear to ensure you a smooth and stylish ride! Embrace the Penny lifestyle, join in the fun and find your favourite Penny products for sale online.
There are lots of reasons why Penny's the world's favourite plastic skateboard. Our ever-changing product range is made of the best boards, parts and skate gear possible. Browse the Penny Skateboards range and shop for skateboards online from wherever you are!
Check out the great Penny completes right here, and buy a skateboard online! We have the full range of Penny boards for sale, and our online store lets you purchase from your computer or phone - it's so easy!
Available in 22" or 27" for different riding styles, skating abilities and personal preference, you'll find a Penny board that's perfect for you and your skateboard needs. And let's be honest, everyone needs a Penny skateboard to cruise on - to the beach, the park, the shops or on holidays.
Wondering where to buy spare Penny wheels, trucks, decks or hardware? Don't worry, you can buy spare Penny parts online. It doesn't matter if you're looking for replacement board parts, or simply looking to swap the colours on a Penny - you'll find what you're looking for in our online skateboard shop.
Look the part with a bright Penny iPhone Case, or some Penny threads in the form of a t-shirt or caps. All featuring the renowned Penny logo, these items of Penny skate apparel will be sure to turn a few heads in the right direction.
Looking for Penny Grip Tape to so you don't slip off a skateboard? We have a great range of colours that you can add to your board for extra skate safety. They're die-cut and the best fitting grip tape for a Penny.
You've landed at the Australia site, but it looks like you're visiting from United States.


text:
Kristen Stewart fuels lesbian rumours by getting cosy with pal Alicia Cargile
Kristen Stewart and Alicia Cargile are said to be 'inseparable'.
Says her quotes were made up. Awkward!
Kristen's mum confirmed her daughter is 'happy' in new romance
Pineapple Express meets The Bourne Identity
She adds that fame is the 'worst thing in the world'
There's no need for aggression in equality fight, she says.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Share this product with your friends and family!
Out Of Stock
A collection of music of English and Welsh travellers and gypsies. Included with the CD is a 48 page booklet containing extensive and informative notes and performer biographies. Part of the 'Voice of the People' anthology.
We're sorry to say this item has now sold out.
There are over 100,000 more items in stock. Start browsing with our suggestions below.
A collection of music of English and Welsh travellers and gypsies. Included with the CD is a 48 page booklet containing extensive and informative notes and performer biographies. Part of the 'Voice of the People' anthology.
This item will be dispatched to UK addresses via second class post within 2 working days of receipt of your order. Standard UK delivery is £3.95 per order, so you're only charged once no matter how many items you have in your basket. Any additional courier charges will be applied at checkout as they vary depending on delivery address.
You can find out more about delivery and returns in our help section.
We offer a no quibble returns policy as follows:
Wedding dresses: 14 days
Overseas returns: 31 days
Everything else: 21 days
This item is also available for international delivery by airmail, carrying a mandatory delivery charge of:
Europe: £4.80
Outside Europe: £7.00
Wonder how this unique item ended up online?
Most of the second-hand items you see online have been donated, by supporters like you, to our high street stores. Each item is then priced, photographed and listed on this site by our amazing team of volunteers from across the country.
After you have bought your item, our team of volunteers package and dispatch it from the Shop straight to you or your chosen recipient.
All profits from the sales of our goods go towards funding Oxfam's work around the world. We rely on your donations to sell online so please keep the cycle of goodness going!
To find out more about volunteering with Oxfam, please visit our how to volunteer page.
We stock a wider selection of books than most shops, from modern fiction and leisure interest to more specialist subjects, classics, and rare or collectable books. We have a great range of donated music as well. Come and browse.
View Shop
What we do
Get involved
Make a donation
© 2015. Oxfam is a registered charity in England and Wales (no 202918) and Scotland (SC039042).
Oxfam GB is a member of Oxfam International.


text: It's Power Products Week on Electronic Products.com Sponsored By: For more articles, new products, videos, news and columns go to Power Products Week. Home > Power Products > AC/DC Power Supplies This article was posted on 11/07/2012 Companies in the Industry: CUI Inc. Founded in 1989, CUI Inc is a technology company focused on the development and distribution of electromechanical products with a specialization in power electronics. The company has set out with the mission to create long-term, collaborative partnerships with employees, customers, and the communities in which it operates. The outcome of this philosophy is a growing global recognition that CUI is no ordinary manufacturer of advanced power supplies and electromechanical components. Rather, it's an extraordinarily innovative company that seeks to make conducting business a pleasurable and rewarding experience for all involved. CUI Inc. is a subsidiary of CUI Global, Inc., a publicly traded company whose common stock trades on the NASDAQ Exchange under the symbol CUI.View full list of partsCUI Inc.Read articles about CUI Inc. Digital PoL modules need no digital bus 300-W supplies offer 12.5 W/in3density More articles about ROHM SemiconductorVisit websiteCUI Inc. Learn more about Electronic Products Magazine Related Articles Level VI compliant ac/dc adapter has Interchangeable blades 10 kW air-cooled supply offers 0.95 PF Higher efficiency at low loads – how it's possible Powerex Adds New Modules to PowerSim app Add Comment Text Only 2000 character limit Please login to comment on the article


text:
Cameroon urged to release jailed men for wearing 'gay' clothes and for drinking Baileys
Post your comment
Comments on this article are now closed.
Reader comments
Right! Bout time we donned our sequined disco pants, nipple-piercings and showed em just how gay it can get! *snap*. Where's my pas-pawt?
Drinking Baileys makes you look 'gay' now does it???
Oh blimey. Best get down Canal Street quick and change my drinks order!
You go girlfriend!
This deserves to go viral. Men jailed for drinking Bailys. I wonder what the makers of this particular version of whiskey think about this – perhaps a warning can be stamped on the label to avoid DANGER OF INCARCERATION IF MEN DRINK THIS IRISH WHISKEY. Maybe Pink News could contact them and ask for their views.
although technically, Baileys isn't a "brand (version) of whiskey".. it is a cream liquor with a whiskey alcohol base.
just calling it "whiskey" makes it sound SO much more butch than it really is.
BTW, I LOVE Baileys, but being diabetic, it is stricken from my list :-(
It'd be a joke if it wasn't so petty and hateful. How to make yourself look really, really stupid as demonstrated by a Cameroon judge.
Yet another country poisoned by wrongful interpretations of what christianity is "meant" to mean.
It would be hysterical if it weren't so downright dangerous.
Believe me, the reasons or excuses that make you look gay, that will come about are going to get more and more petty. It'll be something like the way you walk, or the way you pick up a bottle say, that will be the next reason.
Honestly, the religious world has gone bonkers.
And needs to be stopped at the earliest time, before we find our windows being panned in.
Their lunacy knows no ends.
Ironically if you drink enough Baileys your vomit comes up looking like the Cameroon flag :-o
The staggering stupidity of this story makes it hilarious
What exactly did the Europeans do in Africa that they did not do in North America when they colonized it?
For a start, they didn't more or less wipe out the indigenous people (though in places like Namibia they tried their best).
77 countries around the world are still jailing people on the very basis of sleeping with someone of their own sex!
It is high-time that gay sex is universally decriminalised!
"All gay men and lesbians have a universal fundamental human right to express their love, affection and express that love though sex with someone of their own sex – without being attacked, bothered, harassed, mocked, ridiculed or prosecuted and/or put though the courts or worse – jail. Every gay man or lesbian woman has a right to a partner as their boyfriend, girlfriend, husband or wife!"
Oh, good grief. Every time you dare to think there might be a glimmer of possible progress in at least some corner of Africa, along comes news like this to shatter the hope.
These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.
More like this
- Gambian president: I've 'cured' 68 HIV patients 31
- UK: Gay man fights deportation to Nigeria 19
- Malawi: President Joyce Banda U-turns on gay rights 25
- Uganda: British producer of gay play bailed from jail 3
- UK Border Agency halts deportation of lesbian asylum seeker bound for Cameroon 4
- Zimbabwe: LGBT activists being visited by police after last week's raid 10
- 'Gay Hate Day' taking place in Cameroon today 54
- European Parliament condemns violence against lesbians in Africa 4
- Gay man's deportation to Cameroon halted 42
- Amnesty urges Cameroon to release men on gay sex charges 10
Most commented this week
- Comment: Why I'm glad UKIP were able to march at Pride in London 168
- Police use tear gas and rubber bullets at Istanbul Pride 163
- Dr Christian Jessen: Same-sex dance couples on Strictly would look 'silly' 105
- Christian minister blames the Jews for America getting equal marriage 91
- Ofcom won't investigate Coleen Nolan's 'ISIS cake' comments 81
- Homophobes now showing they don't like gay people with 'US flag' Facebook pictures 74
- US trans students win right to use appropriate gender toilets 73
- Ex-UKIP candidate Kellie Maloney hits out at Nigel Farage 63
- Police investigating alleged anti-Semitism at Pride in London 61
- Watch: Anti-gay marriage activists cry in ridiculous ad 61


text:
Abstract available in
Claims available in
Description (OCR text may contain errors)
21, 1951 c. H. KOQNZ Em 2,565,311
EGG PASTEURIZATION Filed June 2 1948 SHELLED WHOLE Eaas HAsHlNa ./-10
FLASHOHEATQHHG "114 VAT PASTEURIZATION CH l LLING l4 PAcKAc-HNG AND n15 FREEZING FROZ as PASTEUR azs 0 Bass 1 N VEN TOR8 Car/J6. Koon Fio yd Lt, Kauffman A TI'ORNE 2 Patented Aug. 21, 1951 1 2,505,311 EGG PASTEURIZATION Carl B. Koonz and Floyd L. Kaufl'man, Chicago, IlL, assignors to Swift & Company, Chicago, 111., a corporation of Illinois V Application June 2, 1948, Serial No. 30,605
5 Claims. (Cl. 119-161) fresh whole eg s are treated in a manner to destroy bacteria therein.
The functions of pasteurizing eggs are generally twofold. One is to improve the keeping time in the bake shops. Most of the bacteria are destroyed during pasteurization; consequently, when the frozen pasteurized product is defrosted, it will show an improved keeping time in the bake shop. The other function of pasteurization is to kill or destroy bacteria organisms that are potentially pathogenic.
Heretofore, essentially two methods of pasteurizing eggs have been used. One has been called vat pasteurization" which, if conducted properly, will often kill sufficient of the bacteria to improve the keeping time in the bake shop and will substantially destroy the pathogenic organisms. Vat pasteurization, however, is not particularly suitable for handlin a large volume of product in commercial practice. I The product is often overheated, and the eggs frequently show evidence of undue coagulation. Also, the time element involved in the type of operation is unfavorable for large operations, as a considerable length of time is required for filling the vat and heating the contents to pasteurization temperatures.
The second method for pasteurizing eggs that I has been used is referred to as fiashpasteuriza- In accordance with this method a sum tion. cient number of bacteria are destroyed so that tive pasteurization temperature, is then transferred to a vat for conducting the second step of our process. The vat preferably has such a capacity and suitable temperature controls so that the product can be held for sufiicient length of time at the effective pasteurization temperature to produce the desired pasteurization. For example, we have found a, holding period of about 2 to 30 minutes at 125 F. to 145 F., and preferably about 10 minutes at 140 F., to be satisfactory.
Prior suggestions relative to vat pasteurization of eggs have involved the slow heating of the eggs after they have been introduced into a large container or vat, holding them at the elevated temperature for a substantial period of time, and then cooling the eggs in the vat. Constant agitation of the eggs in the vat has been required in an effort to uniformly heat the contents of the vat. Despite the constant agitation, it has been found impossible to prevent coagulation of a substantial portion of the egg material due to local overheating. A layer of coagulated material builds up on the walls of the vat or upon heatthe keeping time of the product in the bake shop is definitely improved, but it is diflicult to hold the product for a sufiicient length of time at .the pasteurizing temperatures employed (140 to 150 F.) to destroy the pathogenic bacteria. The flash pasteurization usually involves the use of a tubular type of heater, and attempts have been made to use a sufficient length of pipe to cause destruction of the pathogenic organisms. However, such equipment presents dimculties in handling large volumes of product.
In accordance with the present invention, the egg material, which may be of a homogenous mixture of a whole egg product, is subjected to a two-step pasteurization process. In the first step, the product is rapidly heated or flash heated to around the pasteurization temperature: for example, about 138 F. to 150 F. and preferably approximately 140 F. This initial heating operation is almost instantaneous, usually requiring merely a matter ,of seconds. The homogenous egg mixture, brought to at least about an effecing elements immersed in the vat since the temperature of the heated walls or heating elements must be substantially higher than the average temperature of the eggs in order to impart heat to the contents of the vat. Such coagulated layers constitute heat insulation, further increasing the difficulties of heating the egg material.
It is, therefore, an object of the present invention to proivde an improved process of pasteurizing eg s in which bacteria in the-eggs are substantially destroyed without coagulation of the eggs.
Another object of the invention is to provide an improved process of pasteurizing eggs which is especially effective in killing sufiicient numbers of predominant flora in eggs to improve the keeping time in the bake shop and at the same time to destroy substantially all of the pathogens which may be present.
The steps of the present process are indicated in the attached drawing which is a schematic flow sheet of the steps of the process.
Referring to the drawing, whole eggs are hashed or mixed, as indicated at l0, and are delivered to a flash-heating step, indicated by i l. The apparatus employed in the flash-heating step may be any known or suitable device conventionally employed for flash-heating operations. The
most satisfactory flash-heating apparatus for eggs involves the spreading of the hashed eggs as a thin layer upon a heated surface, followed by rapid removal or the heated material from the heated surface. Suitable devices for this purpose are known in the art. Examples of such devices are various types of plate heaters. Also, Votators,-such as shown in U. S. Patents Re. 21,406; 1,783,865; 1,783,366; 1,847,149; 1,940,473; 1,965,618; 2,013,025; and 2,063,066, may be used. Flash heating may also be accomplished by pumping the material through pipe coils surrounded by a heatingmedium, although heaters of the heated plate" or "Votator type are preferred. In such heating devices, the temperature of the hashed eggs may be raised from room temperature to about 138 F. to 150 F, in a short period of time ranging from approximately 20 seconds to 5 minutes, depending upon the particular device employed, without increasing the temperature of any portion of the eggs substantially above the temperature given above.
The heated material discharged from the heating step is subjected to a vat pasteurization step as indicated at l3. In the vat pasteurization step, the material is introduced into a vat or container and held without agitation for the desired period of time. The walls of the vat or container may be heat insulated to prevent a drop in temperature of the outer portions of the material therein. The period of time during which the eggs are held at a temperature between 125 F. and 145 F. will depend upon the exact temperature selected but will usually range from approximately 2 minutes to 30 minutes.
The eggs which have been heat treated in the vat pasteurization step 13 are withdrawn from the vat and chilled in any desired manner in a chilling step, indicated at I 4, to a temperature between approximately 40 F. and 55 F. in any suitable type of apparatus, such as that discussed above with respect to the heating step ii. The material may then be introduced into a suitable type of package, such as metal cans or waxed paper cartons, after which the chilled material may be frozen, the packaging and freezing steps being indicated at 15. The frozen, pasteurized eggs may then be marketed in frozen form.
The present invention has the advantage of providing a simple and efficient method for pasteurization of large volumes of eggs. Also, the method of the invention is substantially foolproof in that all portions of the egg are subjected to uniform temperature treatment. The product of the present invention is substantially steri111; and yet is practically free of coagulated mater l.
While we have disclosed the preferred embodiment or our invention. it is understood that the details thereof may be varied within the scope of the following claims.
We claim:
1. The process of continuously pasteurizing whole fresh eggs which comprises: flash heating a stream oi. hashed whole eggs to a temperature between approximately 138 F. and 150 F. by passing the hashed eggs in a thin layer through a heating zone, promptly subjecting the heated eggs to a temperature between about F. and 145 F., holding the eggs at the last-mentioned temperature for about 2 to 30 minutes to substantially completely destroy bacteria contained in said eggs, and thereafter promptly chilling said 2. A process of pasteurizing eggs which comprises: passing a stream of the egg material in a thin layer through a heatin zone wherein said egg material is flash heated to a pasteurizing temperature of about l38-l50 F. and thereafter maintaining the heated eggs at a pasteurizing temperature of about 125-l45 F. for about 2 to 30 minutes to destroy the predominant flora of bacteria in the eggs.
3. A process of pasteurizing fresh eggs which comprises: subjecting egg material in a thin layer to flash heating whereby the egg material is raised to a pasteurizing temperature about 138-l50 F. in several seconds, maintaining the heated egg material at a pasteurizin temperature of about 125-l50 for several minutes to de stroy the bulk of the bacteria in the eggs, and promptly chilling the eggs.
4. A process substantiallyas described in claim 3 in which the eggs are flash heated to about 140 F.
5. A process substantially as described in claim 3 in which the eggs, after flash heating, are maintained at a pasteurizing temperature of about 140 F. for a period of about 10 minutes.
REFERENCES CITED The following references are of record in the file of this patent:
UNITED STATES PATENTS Number Name Date Re. 19,898 Fousek Mar. 24, 1936 2,093,786 Swarthout Sept. 21, 1937 2,423,233 Funk July 1, 1947
Patent Citations
Referenced by
Original Image


text:
Let Us Prey: Big Trouble at First Baptist Church
A string of assaults and sexual crimes committed by pastors across the country have one thing in common: The perpetrators have ties to the megachurch in Hammond, Indiana.
(page 5 of 7)
Jack Schaap preaching in 2010
II Kings
Jack Hyles wouldn't live to see Mulligan's conviction. In 2001, he died of complications from heart surgery at age 74. There was no question who would succeed him: Hyles had been grooming his son-in-law Jack Schaap ever since his own son's prospects had plummeted.
While Schaap was from a more prosperous family, in all important ways he was a virtual Hyles clone. And, says Kaifetz, "he got a hero's welcome. When he walked out on the stage of those chapel services, you've never seen anything more over-the-top expressive—thousands waving the Bible in the air, screaming, shouting, whistling."
In the beginning, Schaap's preaching was standard Hyles: emotional denunciations of the flock for not doing enough to please God. Though the sermons "weren't nearly as sexual in the beginning," says Schaap's former editor, "he was seductive. He charmed people in order to get them to do what he wanted them to do."
As Schaap consolidated his grip on the congregation, says former church member Linda Gensaw, "he became more brazen—graphic sexual sermons to the point that I didn't want to take my children."
Tom Brennan, the Independent Baptist pastor in Chicago and former First Baptist member, agrees. "He was beyond the bounds of what was appropriate," says Brennan. "His preaching had gotten so—I hesitate to use the word 'pornographic.' It was so vulgar sometimes that it was just a grief to my spirit."
Challenging Schaap, Busby says, was not an option: "He had absolute power. He could destroy you."
In fact, he nearly destroyed Busby's marriage. After she and her husband hit a rocky patch, they turned to Schaap for counseling. At first, Busby says, "it really seemed like he wanted to help us." But soon Schaap was requesting numerous sessions with Busby alone. "When he would counsel me," she says, "he would be asking me these shocking questions about sex. I mean, absolutely, purely shocking. I would literally vomit before some of our meetings it got so bad."
When the couple eventually left the church, Schaap turned on her, Busby says. "He got up in front of a staff meeting—in front of the whole staff—and shared all kinds of confidential stuff that never should have been shared. He told people to shun me."
Leaving First Baptist was in Busby's opinion like leaving a cult. "I've never been able to say the c-word—and anyone from the church who reads this will take great offense—but that's what it was like."
Busby is far from the only person to compare First Baptist to a cult. So does every expert and religion blogger tracking the church—and virtually every one of the dozens of victims and former church members—with whom I spoke. Including Linda Murphrey, Hyles's daughter. "I believe First Baptist Church gradually evolved into a cult that was in complete idolatry of my father and, after his death, complete idolatry of Jack Schaap," she says.
What makes a church a cult? I asked Rick Ross, whose nonprofit institute maintains an online archive of data on cults and controversial movements. (He says he is not familiar with the details of First Baptist.) Ross points to a landmark 1981 Harvard study on cult formation, which suggests that all cults, destructive or not, share three elements: an
absolute authoritarian leader who defines the group; a "thought program" that includes "control of the environment, control of information, and people subordinating themselves and their feelings to the demands of the leader"; and a lack of accountability for the head of the group.
Another common characteristic of cults, Ross says, is that they use shame and some sort of exploitation—financial, spiritual, or sexual—to exercise control. Members of a Bible-based group, for example, are made to believe that "it's a sin of pride for you to think for yourself," he says. "It's your ego or a demon or Satan's influence that causes you to doubt the edicts of the leadership."
First Baptist members have long scoffed at cult comparisons. And Brennan says they have a point. "I emphatically and strongly disagree with those who would assert that the church is a cult," he says. "There's a world of difference between a cult of personality and a cult. I don't care how controlling Jack Schaap was. I don't care how overbearing he was. I don't care how much he demanded personal loyalty. Nobody there ever drank Kool-Aid. It's not even a valid comparison."
Photograph: Kyle Telechan/The Times/APEdit Module
Submit your comment
Comments are moderated. We review them in an effort to remove foul language, commercial messages, abuse, and irrelevancies.


text:
Coaches of ControversiesGreg Chappell, Cricket This former Australian batsman was appointed as the coach of India in 2005 with a huge expectation. But the 66-year-old courted controversy from the very beginning. He got into infighting with the then captain Sourav ... New Indian Express, 1 week ago
Chappell salutes Bayliss choice - Sky Sports, 2 weeks ago
When The Chappells Disgraced Cricket With The Infamous Under-Arm Delivery - Indiatimes, 1 month ago
81 images for greg chappell
Pakistan Great Zaheer Abbas Appointed New ICC President
Zaheer Abbas, seen here with Hanif Mohammad, Greg Chappel, Sachin Tendulkar and Sourav Ganguly, will take over the duties of the ICC president Reuters Pakistan legend Zaheer Abbas was named the new president of the International Cricket Council. ...International Business Times India, 1 week ago Did Rahul Dravid stay out of BCCI's advisory panel because of Sourav... Hindustan Times, 1 month ago Did Ganguly's presence keep Dravid away from BCCI advisory panel? Deccan Chronicle, 1 month ago Did Rahul Dravid reject advisory committee role because of Sourav Ganguly? DNA India, 1 month ago
Why the Dravid-Chappell combo deserves …
Some of the criticism that Rahul Dravid and Greg Chappell got was way over the top The period between late 2005 and mid-2007 holds tremendous significance in the history of Indian cricket. Not only did it manage to create a furore on an ...Yahoo! India, 3 weeks ago Rahul Dravid Needed for Restructuring Indian Cricket: Jagmohan Dalmiya NDTV, 1 month ago Chappell admits deserved berating he got from Benaud during infamous underarm 1981 incident Business Standard, 2 months ago Forget Conspiracy Theories and Ego Clashes, Rahul Dravid is The Perfect Man to be Team India Boss NDTV, 1 month ago
'Captain Cool' Dhoni running out of elbow room?
MIRPUR: The pressure is telling on Mahendra Singh Dhoni. The fearless fighter that Greg Chappell had trained to be India's 'Rambo' is beginning to feel the heat. Ten years of international cricket, the last seven as India's captain is enough to ...Times of India, 2 weeks ago Captain Cool running out of elbow room? Cricbuzz.com, 2 weeks ago
Sachins claims untrue Chappell
Provided by Wisden Greg Chappell denies claims that he had wanted Sachin Tendulkar to replace Rahul Dravid as captain in the lead-up to the 2007 World Cup. Greg Chappell, the former India coach, has denied claims that he had wanted Sachin ...MSN News US, 2 months ago The worst dressing room Ive been in was 2006 Laxman MSN News US, 2 months ago Dravid could not control Chappell Ganguly MSN News US, 2 months ago
Ramesh Powar talks about Ravi Shastri and Greg Chappell's coaching styles
Shastri was appointed as Team Director for the first time in 2007 after the World … Indian teammates congratulate Ramesh Powar during a match in 2006 Former India off spinner and two-Test star Ramesh Powar opened up about the golden memories ...Yahoo! India, 1 month ago Super Deluxe Coach New Indian Express, 1 week ago No time for blame game, with or without MS Dhoni Deccan Chronicle, 1 week ago Bangladesh memories: Sachin, cricket and varan bhat Economic Times, 2 weeks ago
More from: Jagran Post, ABP Live...and 38 other sources
More to Chappell era than meets the eye
Provided by Wisden During Greg Chappell's stint, India won seven of 18 Tests, with four defeats and seven draws. It's the bugbear that never seems to disappear entirely, and it's back again. This time, via excerpts of Sachin Tendulkar's ...MSN News US, 2 months ago Chappell said I would never play for India Zaheer MSN News US, 2 months ago
I didn't take much notice of Sachin's criticism: Greg Chappell
In an exclusive interview, Greg Chappell says he didn't take too much notice of Tendulkar's criticism. He also explains how India can do better overseas.Times of India, 2 months ago
Vettori-like talent found
Cricket Australia national talent manager Greg Chappell believes a new young spinner from Canberra could emulate New Zealand great Daniel Vettori. Teenage talent Ben Taylor has been bowling spin for just three and a half years, but the Australia ...The Press NZ, 1 week ago Greg Chappell backs Canberra spinner Ben Taylor to become all-rounder Sydney Morning Herald, 1 week ago Come in spinner: Taylor named on Australian tour of England Canberra Times, 1 week ago Yoga has excellent mental benefits:Greg Chappell Pakistan Observer, 2 weeks ago
First footage of Waugh's son in action
STEVE Waugh's son is in contention for national under-age honours, according to former Australia captain Greg Chappell. Austin Waugh made headlines earlier this week after putting in an eye-catching performance for New South Wales at the School ...FoxSports.com.au, 2 weeks ago First Waugh, now Healy's son gets call up Brisbane Courier-Mail, 1 week ago Another Waugh picked for Australia Herald Sun, 2 weeks ago Waugh junior named in Aus U-16s Northern Territory News, 2 weeks ago
Realtime News
on your WebpageAdd Widget >Get your members hooked!


text:
Ring of Honor Star Appears on RAW, Ryback Attacks Justin Gabriel at RAW, WWE App News
by Amish Patel - July 09, 2013
– Ring of Honor star Rhett Titus appeared in a backstage segment with Vickie Guerrero, Vince McMahon and Brad Maddox on last night's RAW. Here is a screencap:
– It was noted during last night's RAW that the WWE App set a new record for most votes in a poll for the Vickie Guerrero job evaluation. WWE noted that nearly 300,000 votes were counted for Vickie.
– There was a WWE App segment last night where Tony Dawson talked to Justin Gabriel about the Ryback vs. Chris Jericho match at Money in the Bank. Gabriel was talking about his recent match with Ryback when Ryback attacked him from behind. Ryback said he's not a whiner and not a complainer, and "Cryback" isn't his name before walking off.
The Hottest WWE news, photos and videos delivered to your inbox in one convenient newsletter. Sign up now and give it a try!
|Doink The Clown's Mother Suing WWE For Wrongful Death, Fraud, And Negligence
|What Main Events Is WWE Planning To Do At WrestleMania 32?
|The WWE 2K16 Video Game Cover To Be Revealed During This Monday's Episode Of RAW
|Vince Russo Posts A New Blog About The Original Plans For Chris Jericho's WWF Debut
|The Very Latest On Dolph Ziggler Re-Signing With WWE


text:
2006 Volvo S40 Q&A
2006 Volvo S40 Question: where is the drain line for a 2006 S40 Volvo located?
Could someone tell me where to locate the air conditioner drain line for a 2006 S40 Volvo - Visitor
Answer 1
There is no drain line, but a high and low pressure side with their service port. You can't legally just drain the refrigerant from an A/C system, it against some federal EPA laws, the gas has to be evacuated with a proper recovery machine. Zee Another thought. Are you talking about the evaporator housing drain? What's the problem exactly? If you give us some more info we might be able to help. - ZeeTech
Related Content
1. pushrod
2. stevieray1
3. globalhelper
4. Shivers
5. csubak30
6. ziptie12
7. Hal...
8. IsraelS
9. goodguy
10. BrianLankford


text:
If the game freezes, just click inside it (games can get unresponsive if you click elsewhere on the page).
An amazing platform/puzzler game based on the hugely successful Intel The Chase video. Playing as Eva, you need to protect the package from the bad guys as you race across the world of your PC. Yup that's right you are playing in a world of browsers, windows, desktops, games and there is even a bit of ASCII art thrown in.
Left / Right Arrow Keys - Move.
Up Arrow Key - Jump.
Down Arrow Key - Duck.
Spacebar - Kick.


text:
VIEWS: 193 PAGES: 19 POSTED ON: 5/26/2009 Public Domain
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 more justices to the Supreme Court proposed by U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt shortly after his victory in the 1936 presidential election. Although the bill aimed generally to overhaul and modernize all of the federal court system, its most important provision would have granted the President power to appoint an additional Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court for every sitting member over the age of 70½, up to a maximum of six. During Roosevelt's first term in office,[2] the Supreme Court had struck down several prominent New Deal measures designed to bolster economic recovery during the Great Depression, leading to charges that a narrow majority faction of the court was obstructionist and political. Since the U.S. Constitution does not limit the size of the Supreme Court, Roosevelt, having won an expanded electoral mandate in his reelection, sought to counter this entrenched opposition to his political agenda by expanding the number of justices to create a pro-New Deal majority on the bench.[3] Opponents viewed the legislation as an attempt to stack the court leading to the name "Court-packing Plan".[1] The legislation was unveiled on February 5, 1937. Several weeks later the Supreme Court upheld a Washington minimum wage law in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish[4] by a 5–4 ruling, after Associate Justice Owen Roberts joined with the wing of the bench more sympathetic to the New Deal. Because Roberts had previously ruled against most New Deal legislation, his apparent about-face was widely interpreted by contemporaries as an effort to maintain the Court's judicial independence by alleviating the political pressure to create a court more friendly to the New Deal. His dramatic move came to be known as "the switch in time that saved nine". However, this interpretation of Roberts's action has been called into question as an anachronistic "winner's history"[5] since Roberts's decision predated the introduction of the 1937 bill.[6] Ultimately, Roosevelt's proposed legislation failed when the U.S. Senate voted 70–20 to recommit the bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee following the sudden death of The Hughes Court, 1932–1937. Front row: Justices Brandeis and Van Devanter, Chief Justice Hughes, and Justices McReynolds and Sutherland. Back row: Justices Roberts, Butler, Stone, and Cardozo. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. His dissatisfaction over Supreme Court decisions holding the New Deal unconstitutional prompted him to seek out methods to change the way the court functioned. The Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, frequently called the Court-packing plan,[1] was a legislative initiative to add 1 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Senate Majority Leader Joseph T. Robinson, whose efforts would have been essential to the bill's passage. In recommitting the bill, the Senate explicitly instructed the Judiciary Committee to strip the bill of its court-packing provisions. The entire episode garnered several negative consequences for Roosevelt that lasted through the rest of his administration, leading many scholars to conclude the President's victory was a pyrrhic one.[7] Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 Background New Deal Following the Wall Street Crash of 1929, the onset of the Great Depression and the inability of the Hoover administration to respond to the financial crisis, Franklin Delano Roosevelt won the 1932 presidential election on a promise to give America a "New Deal" to promote national economic recovery. The 1932 election also saw a new Democratic majority sweep into both houses of Congress, giving Roosevelt legislative support for his reform platform. Both Roosevelt and the 73rd Congress called for greater governmental involvement in the economy as a way to end the depression.[8] During the president's first term, a series of successful constitutional challenges to various New Deal programs were launched in Federal Courts. A minor aspect of Roosevelt's New Deal agenda may have itself directly precipitated the showdown between the Roosevelt administration and the Supreme Court. Shortly after Roosevelt's inauguration, Congress passed the Economy Act, a provision of which cut many government salaries, including the pensions of retired Supreme Court justices. Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who had retired in 1932, saw his pension halved from $20,000 to $10,000 per year. The serious cut to pensions appears to have dissuaded at least two older Justices, Willis Van Devanter and George Sutherland, from retirement.[9] Both would later find many aspects of the New Deal unconstitutional. Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. The loss of half his pension pay due to New Deal legislation after Holmes's 1932 retirement is believed to have dissuaded Justices Van Devanter and Sutherland from departing the bench. opposed to the New Deal and failed to influence either the drafting or reviewing of much of the White House's New Deal legislation.[11] The ensuing struggle over ideological identity increased the ineffectiveness of the Justice Department. As Interior Secretary Harold Ickes complained, Attorney General Homer Cummings had "simply loaded it [the Justice Department] with political appointees" at a time when it would be responsible for litigating the flood of cases arising from New Deal legal challenges.[12] Roosevelt's Solicitor General, James Crawford Biggs, was a patronage appointment chosen by Cummings. While congenial, Biggs proved to be an ineffective advocate for the legislative initiatives of the New Deal.[13] Biggs resigned in early 1935, but his successor Stanley Forman Reed proved to be little better. This disarray at the Justice Department meant that the government's lawyers often failed to foster viable test cases and arguments for their defense, subsequently Roosevelt's Justice Department The flurry of new law in the wake of Roosevelt's first hundred days swamped the Justice Department with more responsibilities than it could manage.[10] Many Justice Department lawyers were ideologically 2 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia handicapping them before the courts.[11] As Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes would later note, it was because much of the New Deal legislation was so poorly drafted and defended that the court did not uphold it.[11] Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 implicated a changing but still-persistent view of constitutional jurisprudence which sees the U.S. Constitution as a static, universal, and general document which was not designed to change over time. Under this judicial philosophy, case resolution required a simple restatement of the applicable principles which were then extended to a case's facts in order to resolve the controversy.[18] This earlier judicial attitude came into direct conflict with the legislative reach of much of Roosevelt's New Deal legislation. Examples include: • the early-American fear of centralized authority which necessitated an unequivocal distinction between national powers and reserved state powers; • the clear delineation between public and private spheres of commercial activity susceptible to legislative regulation; and • the corresponding separation of public and private contractual interactions based upon "free labor" ideology and Lockean property rights.[19] At the same time, developing modernist ideas regarding politics and the role of government placed the role of the judiciary into flux. The intellectual trajectory of this emerging view led away from what has been called "guardian review"—in which judges defended the line between appropriate legislative advances and encroachments into the private sphere of life—toward a stance of "bifurcated review". This latter view sorted laws into categories that demanded deference toward other branches of government in the economic sphere, but aggressively heightened scrutiny with respect to fundamental civil and political liberties.[20] The slow transformation away from the "guardian review" role of the judiciary brought about the ideological—and, to a degree, generational—rift in the 1930s judiciary. With his Judiciary Bill, Roosevelt sought to accelerate this judicial evolution by in effect neutralizing an older generation of judges that remained attached to an earlier mode of American jurisprudence.[19][21] Jurisprudential debate See also: History of the Supreme Court of the United States Traditionally, the portrayal of Roosevelt's struggle with the Supreme Court has been painted along starkly ideological lines, with the liberal or progressive wing of the court pitted against a conservative or reactionary one. It is true that in many of their rulings the Supreme Court of the 1930s was deeply divided: four justices on each side, with Justice Roberts as the typical swing vote. However, the ideological divide between a so-called progressive and reactionary wing is misleading insofar as these terms suggest political and not jurisprudential differences. More recent scholarship has focused on the larger debate in U.S. jurisprudence regarding the role of the judiciary, the meaning of the Constitution, and the respective rights and prerogatives of the different branches of government in shaping the judicial outlook of the Court.[14] The clash over the constitutionality of the New Deal initiatives was thus tied to divergent legal philosophies gradually coming into competition with each other: legal formalism and legal realism.[15] During the period ca. 1900 – ca. 1920, the formalist and realist camps clashed over the nature and legitimacy of judicial authority in common law, given the lack of a central, governing authority in those legal fields other than the precedent established by case law—i.e., the aggregate of earlier judicial decisions.[15] This debate spilled over into the realm of constitutional law,[15] where realist legal scholars and judges argued that the constitution should be interpreted flexibly and judges should not use the Constitution to impede legislative experimentation. One the most famous proponents of this concept, known as Living Constitution, was U.S. Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who said in Missouri v. Holland[16] that the "case before us must be considered in the light of our whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a hundred years ago".[17] The conflict between formalists and realists New Deal goes to court Roosevelt was wary of the Supreme Court early in his first term, and his administration was slow to bring constitutional challenges of New Deal legislation before the court.[22] However, early wins for New Deal supporters came in Home Building & Loan Association v. 3 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 distinction between the "public" and "private" spheres of economic activity.[21] This one principle was a central nexus to the court's approach to its state police power analysis.[21] The effect of this decision then radiated outward, affecting other doctrinal methods of analysis in wage regulation, labor, and Congress's commerce power.[19][21] Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan The first major test of New Deal legislation came in Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan,[27] announced January 7, 1935. Contested in this case was the National Industrial Recovery Act, Section 9(c), in which Congress had delegated to the President authority "to prohibit the transportation in interstate and foreign commerce of petroleum ... produced or withdrawn from storage in excess of the amount permitted ... by any State law".[28] The NIRA passed in June 1933, and Roosevelt moved quickly to file executive orders to regulate the oil industry. Two small, independent oil producers, Panama Refining Co. and Amazon Petroleum Co. filed suit for an injunction to halt enforcement, arguing that the law exceeded Congress's interstate commerce power and improperly delegated authority to the President. The Supreme Court agreed with the oil companies, holding that Congress had inappropriately delegated its regulatory power without both a clear statement of policy and an establishment of a specific set of standards by which the President was to act. Although a loss for the Roosevelt administration and New Deal supporters, it was mitigated by the narrowness of the court's opinion, which did not deny Congress's authority to regulate interstate oil commerce.[29] Chief Justice Hughes had indicated a ready fix for Congress in simply adding procedural safeguards.[30] Associate Justice Owen J. Roberts. The balance of the Supreme Court in 1935 caused the Roosevelt administration much concern over how Roberts would adjudicate New Deal challenges. Blaisdell[23] and Nebbia v. New York[24] at the start of 1934. At issue in each case were state laws relating to economic regulation. Blaisdell concerned the temporary suspension of creditor's remedies by Minnesota in order to combat mortgage foreclosures, finding that temporal relief did not, in fact, impair the obligation of a contract. Nebbia held that New York could implement price controls on milk, in accordance with the state's police power. While not tests of New Deal legislation themselves, the cases gave cause for relief of administration concerns about Associate Justice Owen Roberts, who voted with the majority in both cases.[25] Roberts's opinion for the court in Nebbia was also encouraging for the administration:[22] [T]his court from the early days affirmed that the power to promote the general welfare is inherent in government.[26] Nebbia also holds a particular significance: it is viewed to be the one case in which the Court abandoned its jurisprudential Gold Clause Cases Economic regulation again appeared before the Supreme Court in the Gold Clause Cases.[31] Within the first week of holding office, Roosevelt closed the nation's banks, fearing gold hording and international speculation posed a danger to the national monetary system, basing his actions on the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917.[32] Congress quickly ratified Roosevelt's action with the 4 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Emergency Banking Act. The President soon afterward issued Executive Order 6102, confiscating all gold coins, bullion, and certificates, requiring they be surrendered to the government by May 1, 1933 in exchange for currency. Congress also passed a joint resolution cancelling all gold clauses in public and private contracts, stating such clauses interfered with the Congress's power to regulate U.S. currency. While the Roosevelt administration waited for the court to return its judgment, contingency plans were made for an unfavorable ruling.[33] Ideas floated about the White House to withdraw the right to sue the government to enforce gold clauses.[33] Attorney General Cummings opined the court should be immediately packed to ensure a favorable ruling.[33] Roosevelt himself ordered the Treasury to manipulate the market as to make it appear in turmoil, though Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau refused.[33] Roosevelt also drew up executive orders to close all stock exchanges and prepared a radio address to the public.[33] All three cases were announced on February 18, 1935, and all in favor of the government's position by a narrow 5–4 majority.[33] Chief Justice Hughes wrote the opinion for each case, finding the government's power to regulate money plenary. As such, the abrogation of contractual gold clauses, both public and private, were within the reach of congressional authority when such clauses presented a threat to Congress's control of the monetary system.[33] Of note was Hughes's opinion in the Perry case: in a judicial tongue-lashing not seen since Marbury v. Madison,[34] Hughes chided Congress for its immoral—though legal—act.[29] However, Hughes ultimately found the plaintiff had no cause of action, and thus no standing to sue the government.[35] Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 the railroad pension was to encourage older railworkers to retire, creating jobs for younger railroaders desperately in need of work; ostensibly, Congress justified the pension on grounds that its operation would increase safety on the railways.[37] Challenges to the law came in droves to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, and were sustained with injunctions issued on grounds that the law was an unconstitutional regulation of an activity not in interstate commerce.[37] The Supreme Court took the case without waiting for an appeal to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.[38] On May 6, 1935, Justice Roberts's 5–4 opinion for the Court scoffed at the government's position, dismissing the purported effect on railway safety as "without support in reason or common sense".[37] Further, Roberts took issue with a provision of the act which awarded pension computation credit to former railworkers, regardless of when they last worked in the industry.[37] Roberts characterized that section "a naked appropriation of private property"—taking the belongings "of one and bestowing it upon another"—and violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.[37] Black Monday Still reeling from the defeat of the railroad pension case, the Roosevelt administration suffered its most severe setback just three weeks after the Alton case, on May 27, 1935: "Black Monday".[39] Chief Justice Hughes arranged for the decisions announced from the bench that day to be read in order of increasing importance.[39] The second case announced was the first of three unanimous holdings of the court, and all three defeats for the Roosevelt administration.[39] Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co. While not itself a part of the New Deal, the Roosevelt administration kept a close eye on the challenge to the 1934 Railroad Retirement Act, Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co.;[36] its resemblance to the Social Security Act meant the test of the railroad pension would serve as a bellwether to the Court's potential opinion of Roosevelt's pet retirement program.[37] The idea behind Humphrey's Executor v. United States The first of the three read was Humphrey's Executor v. United States.[40] Associate Justice George Sutherland read the court's opinion, holding that Roosevelt had acted outside of his authority when he fired William Humphrey from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), stating that Congress had intended regulatory commissions such as the FTC to be independent of executive influence.[41] 5 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford Next announced was Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford.[45] The 1934 FrazierLemke Emergency Farm Mortgage Act was designed to give aid to debt-ridden farmers, allowing them to reacquire farms they had lost from foreclosure, or to petition the Bankruptcy Court within their district to suspend foreclosure proceedings.[46] The legislation's ultimate goal was to help those farmers scale down their mortgages.[46] The opinion of the court, read by Justice Louis Brandeis, struck down the act on Fifth Amendment Takings Clause grounds. The court found the act stripped the creditor of property which was held before the passage of the act, without any form of compensation, and bestowed the property upon the debtor.[41] Further, the act allowed the debtor to remain on the mortgaged property for up to five years after declaring bankruptcy, giving the creditor no opportunity to immediately foreclose.[41] While the states could not impair contract obligations, the federal government could—but it could not take property in such a manner without compensating the creditor.[41] Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes. Hughes believed the primary objection of the Supreme Court to the New Deal was its poorly drafted legislation. Humphrey, a Republican appointed to a six-year term on the Commission in 1931, was thought at odds with the New Deal. Upon writing Humphrey in August 1933 to request his resignation, Roosevelt blundered, unwittingly admitting his reason for attempting to oust Humphrey. Roosevelt's letter stated, "I did not feel that your mind and my mind go along together."[42] Once Roosevelt felt he could not persuade Humphrey to resign, he dispatched an October 7 letter stating: "Effective as of this date you are hereby removed from the office of Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission."[43] Humphrey filed suit to return to his appointed office and collect backpay. The basis for his suit was the 1914 Federal Trade Commission Act, which specified that the President was only authorized to remove a FTC commissioner "for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office".[44] Humphrey died on February 14, 1934 and his suit was carried on by his wife—as executor of his estate—for backpay up to the date of his death, with interest. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States The final blow for the President on Black Monday fell with the reading of Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States,[47] which revisited the National Industrial Recovery Act, invalidating the NIRA in its entirety. Under Section 3 of the NIRA, the President had promulgated the Live Poultry Code to regulate the New York poultry market. The Schechter brothers had been charged with criminal violations of the code and were convicted, whereupon they appealed on grounds that the NIRA was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the executive, the NIRA sought to regulate business which was not engaged in interstate commerce, and that certain sections violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Chief Justice Hughes delivered the opinion of the unanimous court, holding that Congress had delegated too much lawmaking authority to the President without any clear guidelines or standards.[48] Section 3 granted either trade associations or the President 6 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia authority to draft "codes of fair competition", which amounted to a capitulation of congressional legislative authority.[48] The arrangement presented the danger that private entities, and not government officials, could engage in creating codes of law enforceable upon the public.[48] Justice Benjamin Cardozo, who had been the lone dissent in the similar Panama case, agreed with the majority. In his concurring opinion, Cardozo described Section 3 as "delegation run riot".[48] Hughes also renewed an old method of jurispudence concerning the "current of commerce" theory of the Commerce Clause as expounded by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Swift v. United States.[49][50] Hughes determined the poultry at issue in the case, though purchased for slaughter interstate, were not intended for any further interstate transactions after Schecter slaughtered them. Thus, the poultry were outside of Congress's authoritative reach unless Schecter's business had a direct and logical connection to interestate commerce, per the Shreveport Rate Case.[51] Hughes used a direct/indirect effect analysis to determine the Schechters' business was not within the reach of congressional regulation.[50] Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 Further setbacks Roosevelt reacts Upon learning of the unanimity of the three court decisions, Roosevelt became distressed and irritable, regarding the opinions as personal attacks.[52] The Supreme Court's decision in Humphrey's Ex. particularly stunned the administration.[53] Only nine years earlier, in Myers v. United States,[54] the Taft Court had held the President's power to remove executive officials was plenary. Roosevelt and his entourage viewed Sutherland's particularly vicious criticism as an attempt to publicly shame the President and paint him as having purposefully violated the Constitution.[53] After the decisions came down, Roosevelt remarked at a May 31 press conference that the Schechter decision had "relegated [the nation] to a horse and buggy definition of interstate commerce".[55] The comment lit a fire under the media and indignated the public.[56] Scorned for the perceived attack on the court, Roosevelt assumed a diplomatic silence toward the court and waited for a better opportunity to press his cause with the public.[56] Attorney General Homer Stillé Cummings. His failure to prevent poorly-drafted New Deal legislation from reaching Congress is considered his greatest shortcoming as Attorney General.[11] With several cases laying forth the criteria necessary to respect the due process and property rights of individuals, and statements of what constituted an appropriate delegation of legislative powers to the President, Congress quickly revised the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA).[57] However, New Deal supporters still wondered how the AAA would fare against Chief Justice Hughes's restrictive view of the Commerce Clause from the Schechter decision. United States v. Butler The AAA received its trial in the case of United States v. Butler,[58] announced January 6, 1936. The AAA had created an agricultural regulatory program with a supporting processing tax; the revenue raised was then specifically used to pay farmers to reduce their acreage and production, which would in turn reduce surplus harvest yields and increase 7 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia prices. Officials of the Hoosac Mills Corp. argued that the AAA was as unconstitutional as the National Industrial Recovery Act, attempting to regulate activity not in interstate commerce. Specifically attacked was the use of Congress's Taxing and Spending power undergirding the program.[57] Associate Justice Roberts again delivered the opinion of a divided court, agreeing with those challenging the tax. Regarding agriculture as an essentially local activity, the court invalidated the AAA as a violation of the powers reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment.[57] The court also used the occasion to settle a dispute over the General Welfare Clause stemming back to the administration of George Washington, holding Congress possessed a power to tax and spend for the general welfare.[57] Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 an important attempt among New Deal supporters to overturn a prior Supreme Court decision prohibiting wage price controls, Adkins v. Children's Hospital.[66] Felix Frankfurter had worked to carefully craft the law for the New York legislature so it would stand up to challenges based upon the Adkins opinion. The case resulted from the indictment of a Brooklyn laundry owner John Tipaldo, who had not paid his female employees the $12.40 per week, and kept false books indicating he had.[67] Tipaldo contested the law under which he was charged as unconstitutional and filed for habeas corpus relief. The New York Court of Appeals found itself in agreement with Tipaldo, being unable to find any substantial difference between the New York law and the Washington, D.C. law overturned in Adkins.[67] How the court split its vote in this case is supportive of challenges to the "switch in time" narrative. Justices Brandeis, Stone, and Cardozo each thought Adkins was incorrectly decided and desired to overturn; Chief Justice Hughes believed the New York law differed from the law in Adkins and wanted to uphold the New York statute; Justices Van Devanter, McReynolds, Sutherland, and Butler found no distinctions and voted to uphold the habeas corpus petition; the outcome of the Tipaldo case thus hung in the balance of Justices Roberts's vote.[67] Roberts could find no distinction in the two minimum wage laws, but appears to have been inclined to support an overturning of Adkins anyway.[68] However, there was a problem: the appellant had not taken issue with the Adkins precedent and failed to challenge it.[69][70] Having no "case or controversy" legs upon which to stand, Roberts deferred to the Adkins precedent.[70] Roosevelt broke his year-long silence on Supreme Court issues to comment on the Tipaldo opinion: It seems to be very clear, as a result of this decision and former decisions, using this question of minimum wage as an example, that the "no man's land" where no government—state or federal—can function is being more clearly defined. A state cannot do it and the federal government cannot do it.[71] Carter v. Carter Coal Co. Following the undoing of the National Recovery Administration by the Schechter decision, Congress attempted to salvage the coal industry code promulgated under the National Industrial Recovery Act in the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935.[59] The act, closely following the criteria of the Schechter ruling, declared a public interest in coal production and found it so integrated into interstate commerce as to warrant federal regulation.[59] The code subjected the coal industry to labor, price, and practice regulations, levying a 15 percent tax on all producers with a provision to refund a significant portion of the tax for those adhering to the legislation's dictates.[60] James Carter, shareholder and president of the Carter Coal Co., filed suit against the board of directors when they voted to pay the tax.[61] On May 18, 1936, Associate Justice Sutherland read the Carter v. Carter Coal Company[62] opinion, striking down the coal act in its entirety, citing the Schechter decision. Most surprising in the opinion was reliance on 19th-century cases legal scholars had thought long repudiated: Kidd v. Pearson[63] and United States v. E. C. Knight Co.[64] Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo The final provocation for New Deal supporters came in the overturning of a New York minimum wage statute on June 1, 1936. Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo[65] was 8 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 Plather Fletcher expressed his concern: "[A]n administration as fully in control as this one can pack it [the Supreme Court] as easily as an English government can pack the House of Lords."[72] Roosevelt plans his assault Searching out solutions As early as the autumn 1933, Roosevelt had begun anticipation of reforming a federal judiciary composed of a stark majority of Republican appointees at all levels.[73] Roosevelt tasked Attorney General Homer Cummings with a year-long "legislative project of great importance".[74] Justice Department lawyers then commenced research on the "secret project", with Cummings devoting what time he could.[74] The focus of the research was directed at restricting or removing the Supreme Court's power of judicial review.[74] However, an autumn 1935 Gallup Poll had returned a majority disapproval of attempts to limit the Supreme Court's power to declare acts unconstitutional.[75] For the time being, Roosevelt stepped back to watch and wait.[76] Other alternatives were also sought: Roosevelt inquired about the rate at which the Supreme Court denied certiorari, hoping to attack the Court for the small number of cases it heard annually. He also asked about the case of Ex parte McCardle, which limited the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, wondering if Congress could strip the Court's power to adjudicate constitutional questions.[74] The span of possible options even included constitutional amendments; however, Roosevelt soured to this idea, citing the requirement of three-fourths of state legislatures needed to ratify, and that an opposition wealthy enough could too easily defeat an amendment.[77] Further, Roosevelt deemed the amendment process in itself too slow when time was a scarce commodity.[78] Associate Justice James Clark McReynolds. An opinion offered by McReynolds in 1914, as Attorney General, is the most probable source for Roosevelt's court reform plan. The coming conflict with the court was foreshadowed by a campaign statement Roosevelt had made in 1932: After March 4, 1929, the Republican party was in complete control of all branches of the government—the legislature, with the Senate and Congress; and the executive departments; and I may add, for full measure, to make it complete, the United States Supreme Court as well.[72] An April 1933 letter to the president offered the idea of packing the Court: "If the Supreme Court's membership could be increased to twelve, without too much trouble, perhaps the Constitution would be found to be quite elastic."[72] The next month, soon-tobe Republican National Chairman Henry Unexpected answer Attorney General Cummings received novel advice from Princeton University professor Edward S. Corwin in a December 16, 1936 letter. Corwin had relayed an idea from Harvard University professor Arthur Holcombe, suggesting that Cummings tie the size of the Supreme Court's bench to the age of the justices since the popular view of the Court was critical of their age.[79] However, another related idea fortuitously presented itself to 9 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Cummings as he and his assistant Carl McFarland were finishing their collaborative history of the Justice Department, Federal Justice. An opinion written by Associate Justice McReynolds—one of Cumming's predecessors as Attorney General, under Woodrow Wilson—had made a proposal in 1914 which was highly relevant to Roosevelt's current Supreme Court troubles: Judges of the United States Courts, at the age of 70, after having served 10 years, may retire upon full pay. In the past, many judges have availed themselves of this privilege. Some, however, have remained upon the bench long beyond the time that they are able to adequately discharge their duties, and in consequence the administration of justice has suffered. I suggest an act providing that when any judge of a federal court below the Supreme Court fails to avail himself of the privilege of retiring now granted by law, that the President be required, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint another judge, who would preside over the affairs of the court and have precedence over the older one. This will insure at all times the presence of a judge sufficiently active to discharge promptly and adequately the duties of the court.[80] The content of McReynolds's proposal and the bill later submitted by Roosevelt were so similar to each other that it is thought the most probable source of the idea.[81] Roosevelt and Cummings also relished the opportunity to hoist McReynolds by his own petard.[82] McReynolds, having been born in 1862,[83] had been in his early fifties when he wrote his 1914 proposal, but was well over seventy when Roosevelt's plan was set forth. Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 within six months after reaching the age of 70 years; • limitations upon the number of judges the President could appoint: no more than six Supreme Court justices, and no more than two on any lower federal court, with a maximum allocation between the two of 50 new judges; • that lower-level judges be able to float, roving to district courts with exceptionally busy or backlogged dockets; and • lower courts be administered by the Supreme Court through newly created "proctors".[84] The latter provisions were co-opted from the lobbying of Judge William Denman of the Ninth Circuit Court, who believed the lower courts were in a state of disarray and felt the unnecessary delays in the lower courts affected the appropriate administration of justice.[85] Roosevelt and Cummings authored accompanying messages to send to Congress along with the proposed legislation, hoping to couch the debate in terms of the need for judicial efficiency and relieving the backlogged workload of elderly judges.[86] The choice of date as to launch the plan appears to have been influenced by other sensitive events taking place: Roosevelt desired to present the legislation before the Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments on the Wagner Act cases, scheduled to commence February 8, 1937; however, Roosevelt also did not want to present the legislation before the annual White House dinner for the Supreme Court, scheduled for February 2.[87] With a Senate recess of February 3–5, and a weekend of February 6–7, Roosevelt's had to settle for February 5.[87] Also present were other pragmatic concerns, such as presenting the bill early enough in the Congressional session to make sure it passed before the summer recess, and if successful, to leave time for nominations to any newly-created bench seats.[87] Bill Contents The provisions of the bill adhered to four central principles: • allowing the President to appoint new judges for each federal judge with 10 years service who did not retire or resign Reaction After the proposed legislation was announced, much public reaction was hostile since the Supreme Court was generally conflated with the U.S. Constitution itself.[88] The assault against the Court brushed up against this wider public reverence.[89] Letters flooded into the offices of representatives in both houses of Congress, with opinion 10 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia tallying against the bill nine-to-one; the reaction in the press was similar. Bar associations nationwide followed suit as well, lining up in opposition to the bill.[90] Roosevelt's own Vice President John Nance Garner expressed disapproval of the bill, holding his nose and giving a thumbs down from the rear of the Senate chamber.[91] William Allen White, a renowned editorialist, concluded in a column he wrote on February 6: "Because he [Roosevelt] is adroit and not forthright, he arouses irritating suspicions, probably needlessly, about his ultimate intentions as the leader of his party and the head of government."[92] Reaction against the bill also spawned the National Committee to Uphold Constitutional Government, which was launched in February 1937 by three leading opponents of the New Deal. Frank E. Gannett, a newspaper magnate, provided both money and publicity. Two other founders, Amos Pinchot, a prominent lawyer from New York, and Edward Rumely had both been Roosevelt supporters who had soured on the President's agenda. Rumely directed an effective and intensive mailing campaign to drum up public opposition to the measure. Among the original members of the Committee were James Truslow Adams, Charles Coburn, John Haynes Holmes, Dorothy Thompson, Samuel S. McClure, Mary Dimmick Harrison, and Frank A. Vanderlip. The Committee's membership reflected the bipartisan opposition to the bill, especially among better educated and wealthier constituencies.[93] As Gannett explained, "we were careful not to include anyone who had been prominent in party politics, particularly in the Republican camp. We preferred to have the Committee made up of liberals and Democrats, so that we would not be charged with having partisan motives."[94] The Committee made a determined stand against the Judiciary bill. It distributed more than 15 million letters condemning the plan. They targeted specific constituencies: farm organization, editors of agricultural publications, and individual farmers. They also distributed material to 161,000 lawyers, 121,000 doctors, 68,000 business leaders, and 137,000 clergymen. Pamphleteering, press releases and trenchantly worded radio editorials condemning the bill also formed part of the onslaught in the public arena.[95] Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 Still confident that he could win the public's backing despite opinion polls that indicated majority opposition, Roosevelt ignored much of the criticism. House action Traditionally, legislation proposed by the administration first goes before the House of Representatives. However, Roosevelt failed to consult Congressional leaders before announcing the bill, which stopped cold any chance of passing the bill in the House.[96] House Judiciary Committee chairman Hatton W. Sumners refused to endorse the bill, actively chopping it up within his committee in order to block the bill's chief effect of Supreme Court expansion.[96] Finding such stiff opposition within the House, the administration arranged for the bill to be taken up in the Senate.[96] Congressional Republicans deftly decided to remain silent on the matter, denying congressional Democrats the opportunity to use them as a unifying force.[97] Republicans then watched from the sidelines as the Democratic party split itself in the ensuing Senate fight. Fireside Chat No. 9 With the vociferous public reaction, lone administration dissenter Robert H. Jackson encouraged Roosevelt to end his silence and address the public, and to end his pretense of "old-age and overworked justices".[98] Roosevelt made his appeal to the public on March 9, 1937 in his ninth fireside chat.[99] In his address, Roosevelt decried the Supreme Court's majority for "reading into the Constitution words and implications which are not there, and which were never intended to be there".[100] He also acknowledged his real motivation for introducing the bill, stating the nation had reached a point where it "must take action to save the Constitution from the Court, and the Court from itself".[100] The public, having seen through Roosevelt's subterfuge, refused to rally behind the President.[99] Senate hearings The administration made its case before the Senate Judiciary Committee beginning on March 10, 1937. Attorney General Cummings 11 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 administration's witnesses had been called.[101] Exasperated by the stall tactics they were meeting on the committee, administration officials decided to call no further witnesses; it later proved to be a tactical blunder, allowing the opposition to indefinitely drag-on the committee hearings.[101] Further setbacks for the administration occurred in the failure of farm and labor interests to align with the administration.[102] However, once the bill's opposition had gained the floor, it pressed its upper hand, continuing hearings as long as public sentiment against the bill remained in doubt.[103] Of note for the opposition was the testimony of Harvard University law professor Erwin Griswold.[104] Specifically attacked by Griswold's testimony was the claim made by the administration that Roosevelt's court expansion plan had precedent in U.S. history and law.[104] While it was true the size of the Supreme Court had been expanded since the founding in 1789, it had never been done for reasons similar to Roosevelt's.[104] The following table lists all the expansions of the court: Another event damaging to the administration's case was a letter authored by Chief Justice Hughes to Senator Burton Wheeler, which directly contradicted Roosevelt's claim of an overworked Supreme Court turning down over 85 percent of certiorari petitions in an attempt to keep up with their docket.[106] The truth of the matter, according to Hughes, was that rejections typically resulted from the defective nature of the petition, not due to the court's docket load.[106] Senate Majority Leader Joseph T. Robinson. Entrusted by President Roosevelt to secure the court reform bill's passage, his unexpected death spelled out a doomed end for the proposed legislation. rested his testimony upon four complaints of the administration: • reckless use of injunctions by the courts to preempt the operation of New Deal legislation; • aged and infirm judges who declined to retire; • crowded dockets at all levels of the federal court system; and • the need for a reform which would infuse "new blood" in the federal court system.[101] Cummings based his testimony on hard numbers: in the 1935 term, the court had over 344,000 pages of material submitted for review.[101] Cummings testimony, however, was not well received and rang hollow.[101] Administration advisor Robert H. Jackson testified next, attacking the Supreme Court's use of it power of judicial review and the Court's majority for its ideological views.[101] Further administration witnesses were grilled by the committee, so much so that after two weeks less than half the White Monday On March 29, 1937, the court handed down three decisions upholding New Deal legislation, two of them unanimous: West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish,[107] Wright v. Vinton Branch,[108] and Virginia Railway v. Federation.[109][110] The Wright case upheld a new Frazier-Lemke Act which had been redrafted to meet the Court's objections in the Radford case; similarly, Virginia Railway case upheld labor regulations for the railroad industry, and is particularly notable for its foreshadowing of how the Wagner Act cases would be decided as the National Labor Relations Board was modeled on the Railway Labor Act contested in the case.[110] 12 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Year Size Enacting Legislation 1789 6 1801 5 Judiciary Act of 1789 Judiciary Act of 1801 Comments Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 Original court with Chief Justice & five associate justices; two justices for each of the three circuit courts. (1 Stat. 73) Lameduck Federalists, at end of President John Adams's administration, greatly expand federal courts and reduce the number of associate justices¹ to four in order to dominate the judiciary and hinder judicial appointments by incoming President Thomas Jefferson.[105] (2 Stat. 89) Judiciary Act of 1801 repealed by Democratic-Republicans; no seat on the court actually abolished. (2 Stat. 132) Created a new circuit court for OH, KY, & TN; Jefferson appoints the new associate justice. (2 Stat. 420) Signed by President Andrew Jackson on his last full day in office; Jackson nominates two associate justices, both confirmed; one declines appointment. New President Martin Van Buren then appoints the second. (5 Stat. 176) Created Tenth Circuit to serve CA and OR; added associate justice to serve it. (12 Stat. 794) Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase lobbied for this reduction.¹ The Radical Republican Congress took the occasion to overhaul the courts to reduce the influence of former Confederate States. (14 Stat. 209) Set Court at current size, reduced burden of riding circuit by introducing intermediary circuit court justices. (16 Stat. 44) 1802 6 1807 7 1837 9 Judiciary Repeal of 1802 Seventh Circuit Act Eighth & Ninth Circuits Act 1863 10 1866 7 Tenth Circuit Act Judicial Circuits Act 1869 9 Notes Judiciary Act of 1869 1. Because federal justices serve during "good behavior", reductions in a federal court's size are accomplished only through either abolishing the court or attrition—i.e., a seat is abolished only when it becomes vacant. However, the Supreme Court cannot be abolished. As such, the actual size of the Supreme Court during a contraction may remain larger than the law provides until well after that law's enactment. However, the Parrish case received the most attention, and later became an integral part of the "switch in time" narrative of conventional history.[111] In the case, the court divided along the same lines it had in the Tipaldo case, only this time around Roberts voted to overrule the Adkins precedent as the case brief specifically asked the court to reconsider its prior decision. Further, the decision worked to hinder Roosevelt's push for the court reform bill, further reducing what little public support there was for change in the Supreme Court.[110] Failure Van Devanter retires May 18, 1937, witnessed a double blow to the administration. First, Associate Justice Willis Van Devanter announced his intent to retire on June 2, 1937, the end of the term.[112] This undercut one of Roosevelt's chief complaints against the court—he hadn't had an opportunity in the entirety of his first term[2] to make an appointment, let alone a nomination, to the high court.[112] It also presented Roosevelt with a personal dilemma: he had already long ago promised the first court vacancy to Senate Majority Leader Joseph T. Robinson.[112] As Roosevelt had based his attack of the court upon the ages of the justices, appointing the 65 year old Robinson would belie Roosevelt's stated goal of infusing the court with younger blood.[113] Further, Roosevelt worried about whether Robinson could trusted on the high bench, as Robinson was a conservative Democrat.[113] Committee report The second blow occurred in the Senate Judiciary Committee action that day on 13 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Roosevelt's court reform bill.[114] First, an attempt at a compromise amendment which would have allowed the creation of only two additional seats was defeated 10–8.[114] Next, a motion to report the bill favorably to the floor of the Senate also failed 10–8.[114] Then, a motion to report the bill "without recommendation" failed by the same margin, 10–8.[114] Finally, a vote was taken to report the bill adversely, which passed 10–8.[114] On June 14, the committee issued a scathing report that called FDR's plan "a needless, futile and utterly dangerous abandonment of constitutional principle... without precedent or justification".[115][116] Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 passed the revised legislation a week later, and Roosevelt signed it into law August 26. Consequences A political fight which began as a conflict between the President and the Supreme Court turned into a battle between Roosevelt and the recalcitrant members of his own party in the Congress.[7] The political consequences were wide-reaching, extending beyond the narrow question of judicial reform to implicate the political future of the New Deal itself. Not only was bipartisan support for Roosevelt's agenda largely dissipated by the struggle, the overall loss of political capital in the arena of public opinion was also significant.[7] As Michael Parrish has written, "the protracted legislative battle over the Court-packing bill blunted the momentum for additional reforms, divided the New Deal coalition, squandered the political advantage Roosevelt had gained in the 1936 elections, and gave fresh ammunition to those who accused him of dictatorship, tyranny, and fascism. When the dust settled, FDR had suffered a humiliating political defeat at the hands of Chief Justice [Charles Evans] Hughes and the administration's Congressional opponents."[124][125] With the retirement of Justice Willis Van Devanter, the Court's composition began to move solidly in support of Roosevelt's legislative agenda. By the end of 1941, following the deaths of Justices Cardozo (1938) & Butler (1939), and the retirements of Van Devanter (1937), Sutherland (1938), Brandeis (1939), McReynolds (1941), & Hughes (1941), only two Justices (former Associate Justice, by then promoted to Chief Justice, Stone, and Associate Justice Roberts) remained from the Court Roosevelt inherited in 1933. Floor debate Entrusted with ensuring the bill's passage, Robinson began his attempt to get the votes necessary to pass the bill..[117] In the meantime, he worked to finish another compromise which would abate Democratic opposition to the bill.[118] Ultimately devised was the Hatch-Logan amendment, which resembled Roosevelt's plan, but with changes in some details: the age limit for appointing a new coadjutor was increased to 75, and appointments of such a nature were limited to one per calendar year.[118] The Senate opened debate on the substitute proposal on July 2.[119] Robinson led the charge, holding the floor for two days.[120] Procedural measures were used to limit debate and prevent any potential filibuster.[120] By July 12, Robinson had begun to show signs of strain, leaving the Senate chamber complaining of chest pains.[120] Defeat On July 14, a housemaid found Robinson dead of a heart attack in his apartment, the Congressional Record at his side.[120] With Robinson gone so too were all hopes of the bill's passage.[121] Roosevelt further alienated his party's Senators when he decided not to attend Robinson's funeral in Little Rock, Arkansas. On returning to Washington, D.C., Vice President John Nance Garner informed Roosevelt, "You are beat. You haven't got the votes."[122] On July 22, the Senate voted 70–20 to send the judicial-reform measure back to committee, where the controversial language was stripped.[123] The Senate Timeline References Notes [1] ^ Epstein, at 451. [2] ^ March 4, 1933 – January 20, 1937. For the mismatched start and end dates on the term, see the Twentieth Amendment. 14 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Year Date Case Event Cite Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 Vote Holding Minnesota's suspension of creditor's remedies constitutional New York's regulation of milk prices constitutional National Industrial Recovery Act, §9(c) unconstitutional Gold Clause Cases: Congressional abrogation of contractual gold payment clauses constitutional 1934 Jan 8 Home Building & Loan As- 290 U.S. 5–4 sociation v. Blaisdell 398 (1934) Mar Nebbia v. New York 5 1935 Jan 7 Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan Feb 18 Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. Nortz v. United States Perry v. United States 291 U.S. 5–4 502 (1934) 293 U.S. 8–1 388 (1935) 294 U.S. 5–4 240 (1935) 294 U.S. 5–4 317 (1935) 294 U.S. 5–4 330 (1935) May Railroad Retirement Bd. v. 295 U.S. 5–4 6 Alton R. Co. 330 (1935) May Schechter Poultry Corp. v. 295 U.S. 9–0 27 United States 495 (1935) Louisville Joint Stock Land 295 U.S. 9–0 Bank v. Radford 555 (1935) Humphrey's Executor v. United States 1936 Jan 6 United States v. Butler Feb 17 Apr 6 Ashwander v. TVA Jones v. SEC 295 U.S. 9–0 602 (1935) 297 U.S. 1 6–3 (1936) 297 U.S. 8–1 288 (1936) 298 U.S. 1 6–3 (1936) 298 U.S. 5–4 238 (1936) 298 U.S. 5–4 587 (1936) Railroad Retirement Act unconstitutional National Industrial Recovery Act unconstitutional Frazier-Lemke Act unconstitutional President may not remove FTC commissioner without cause Agricultural Adjustment Act unconstitutional Tennessee Valley Authority constitutional SEC rebuked for "Star Chamber" abuses Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935 unconstitutional New York's minimum wage law unconstitutional May Carter v. Carter Coal 18 Company June Morehead v. New York ex 1 rel. Tipaldo Nov 3 Dec 16 Dec 17 Roosevelt electoral landslide ("As Maine goes, so goes Vermont" - James Farley) West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish argued Associate Justice Owen Roberts indicates his vote to overturn Adkins v. Children's Hospital, upholding Washington's minimum wage statute contested in Parrish 15 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 1937 Feb 5 Feb 8 Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 Final conference vote on West Coast Hotel Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 ("JRB37") announced Supreme Court begins hearing oral arguments on Wagner Act cases Mar "Fireside chat" regarding national reaction to JRB37 9 Mar West Coast Hotel Co. v. 29 Parrish Wright v. Vinton Branch Virginian Railway Co. v. Railway Employees Apr 12 300 U.S. 5–4 379 (1937) 300 U.S. 9–0 440 (1937) 300 U.S. 9–0 515 (1937) Washington's minimum wage law constitutional New Frazier-Lemke Act constitutional Railway Labor Act constitutional National Labor Relations Act constitutional NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin 301 U.S. 1 5–4 Steel Corp. (1937) NLRB v. Fruehauf Trailer Co. NLRB v. Friedman-Harry Marks Clothing Co. Associated Press v. NLRB Washington Coach Co. v. NLRB 301 U.S. 49 (1937) 301 U.S. 58 (1937) 5–4 5–4 301 U.S. 5–4 103 (1937) 301 U.S. 5–4 142 (1937) May "Horseman" Willis Van Devanter announces his intent to retire 18 May Steward Machine Com24 pany v. Davis Helvering v. Davis Jun 2 Jul 14 Jul 22 Aug 19 Van Devanter retires Senate Majority Leader Joseph T. Robinson dies JRB37 referred back to committee by a vote of 70–20 to strip "court packing" provisions Senator Hugo Black sworn in as Associate Justice 301 U.S. 5–4 548 (1937) 301 U.S. 5–4 619 (1937) Social Security tax constitutional [3] Leuchtenburg, at 115ff. [4] 300 U.S. 379 (1937) [5] White, at 308. [6] McKenna, at 413. [7] ^ Leuchtenburg, at 156–61. [8] Epstein, at 440. [9] McKenna, at 35–36, 335–36. [10] McKenna, at 20–21. [11] ^ McKenna, at 24–25. [12] McKenna, at 14–16. [13] Schlesinger, at 261. [14] Leuchtenburg, William E. (June 2005). "Charles Evans Hughes: The Center Holds". North Carolina Law Review 83: 1187–1204. "Some scholars disapprove of the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal,' or 'right, center, and left,' when applied to judges because it may suggest that they are no different from legislators; but the private correspondence of members of the Court makes clear that they thought of themselves as ideological warriors. In the fall of 1929, Taft had 16 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 written one of the Four Horsemen, [34] 5 U.S. 137 (1803) Justice Butler, that his most fervent hope [35] Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330, 354 was for 'continued life of enough of the (1935). "The action is for breach of present membership ... to prevent contract. As a remedy for breach, disastrous reversals of our present plaintiff can recover no more than the attitude. With Van [Devanter] and Mac loss he has suffered and of which he may [McReynolds] and Sutherland and you rightfully complain. He is not entitled to and Sanford, there will be five to steady be enriched." the boat ....' Six counting Taft.". [36] 295 U.S. 330 (1935) [15] ^ White, at 167–70. [37] ^ Leuchtenburg, at 27–39. [16] 252 U.S. 416 (1920) [38] McKenna, at 66–73. [17] Gillman, Howard (2000). "Living [39] ^ McKenna, at 96–103. Constitution". Macmillan Reference USA. [40] 295 U.S. 602 (1935) http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/ [41] ^ Urofsky, at 678–81. eamc_04/eamc_04_01539.html. [42] Leuchtenburg, at 60. Retrieved on January 28, 2009. [43] Leuchtenburg, at 61–62. [18] White, at 204–05. [44] Leuchtenburg, at 69. [19] ^ Cushman, at 5–7. [45] 295 U.S. 555 (1935) [20] White, at 3–4. [46] ^ McKenna, at 100–01. [21] ^ White, at 203–04. [47] 295 U.S. 495 (1935) [22] ^ Leuchtenburg, at 84. [48] ^ White, at 111–14. [23] 290 U.S. 398 (1934) [49] 196 U.S. 375 (1905) [24] 291 U.S. 502 (1934) [50] ^ Urofsky, at 679. [25] Leuchtenburg, at 26. [51] 234 U.S. 342 (1914) [26] Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 524 [52] McKenna, at 104–05. (1934). [53] ^ Leuchtenburg, at 78–81. [27] 293 U.S. 388 (1935) [54] 272 U.S. 52 (1926) [28] "National Industrial Recovery Act". [55] McKenna, at 113. National Archives and Records [56] ^ McKenna, at 114–15. Administration. 1933. [57] ^ Urofsky, at 681–83. http://www.ourdocuments.gov/ [58] 297 U.S. 1 (1936) doc.php?flash=true&doc=66&page=transcript. ^ Urofsky, at 683–84. [59] Retrieved on 2008-12-28. [60] McKenna, at 197–98. [29] ^ Urofsky, at 676–78. [61] McKenna, at 202–03. [30] Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. [62] 298 U.S. 238 (1936) 388, 432 (1935). "If the citizen is to be [63] 128 U.S. 1 (1888) punished for the crime of violating a [64] 156 U.S. 1 (1895) legislative order of an executive officer, [65] 298 U.S. 587 (1936) or of a board or commission, due process [66] 261 U.S. 525 (1923) of law requires that it shall appear that [67] ^ McKenna, at 209–13, 408–12. the order is within the authority of the [68] Urofsky, at 694. officer, board, or commission, and, if that [69] Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo, authority depends on determinations of 298 U.S. 587, 604-05 (1936). "The fact, those determinations must be petition for the writ sought review upon shown." the ground that this case is [31] Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad distinguishable from that one [Adkins]. Co., 294 U.S. 240 (1935); Nortz v. United No application has been made for States, 294 U.S. 317 (1935); Perry v. reconsideration of the constitutional United States, 294 U.S. 330 (1935). question there decided. ... He is not [32] Wilson, Thomas Frederick (1992). The entitled, and does not ask, to be heard Power "to Coin" Money: The Exercise of upon the question whether the Adkins Monetary Powers by the Congress. case should be overruled. He maintains Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. p. 209. that it [the New York minimum wage http://books.google.com/ law] may be distinguished on the ground books?id=VIAbb1cKqp4C. that the statutes are vitally dissimilar." [33] ^ McKenna, at 56–66. [70] ^ Cushman, at 92–104. 17 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [71] Leuchtenburg, at 106. [72] ^ Leuchtenburg, at 83–85. [73] McKenna, at 146. [74] ^ McKenna, at 157–68. [75] Leuchtenburg, at 94. [76] Leuchtenburg, at 98. [77] McKenna, at 169. [78] Leuchtenburg, at 110. [79] Leuchtenburg, at 118–19. [80] Annual Report of the Attorney General (Washington, D.C.: 1913), 10. [81] Leuchtenburg, at 120. [82] McKenna, at 296. [83] McReynolds, James Clark, Federal Judicial Center, visited January 28, 2009. [84] Leuchtenburg, at 124. [85] Leuchtenburg, at 113–14; McKenna, at 155–57. [86] Leuchtenburg, at 125. [87] ^ Leuchtenburg, at 129. [88] Perry, Barbara; Abraham, Henry (2004). "Franklin Roosevelt and the Supreme Court: A New Deal and a New Image". in Shaw, Stephen K.; Pederson, William D.; Williams, Frank J. (in en). Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Transformation of the Supreme Court. London: M.E. Sharpe. pp. 13–35. ISBN 0765610329. [89] Kammen, Michael G. (2006) (in en). A Machine that Would Go of Itself: The Constitution in American Culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. pp. 8–9; 276–281. ISBN 141280583X. [90] McKenna, at 303–14. [91] McKenna, at 285. [92] McKenna, at 324. [93] Richard Polenberg, "The National Committee to Uphold Constitutional Government, 1937–1941", The Journal of American History, Vol. 52, No. 3 (1965-12), at 582–98. [94] Frank Gannett, "History of the Formation of the N.C.U.C.G. and the Supreme Court Fight", August 1937, Frank Gannett Papers, Box 16 (Collection of Regional History, Cornell University). Cited in Polenburg at 583. [95] Polenberg, at 586. [96] ^ McKenna, at 314–17. [97] McKenna, at 320–24. [98] McKenna, at 342. [99] ^ McKenna, at 351–56. [100] "Fireside Chat on Reorganization of ^ the Judiciary". Fireside Chats. 1937-03-09. No. 9. [101] McKenna, at 356–65. ^ Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 [102] cKenna, at 381. M [103] cKenna, at 386–96. M [104] McKenna, at 396–401. ^ [105] ay, Christopher N.; Ides, Allan (2007). M Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism (4th ed.). New York, NY: Aspen Publishers. pp. 8. [106] McKenna, at 367–72. ^ [107] 00 U.S. 379 (1937) 3 [108] 00 U.S. 440 (1937) 3 [109] 00 U.S. 515 (1937) 3 [110] McKenna, at 420–22. ^ [111] urkhauser, Richard V.; Finegan, T. B Aldrich (1989). "The Minimum Wage and the Poor: The End of a Relationship". Journal of Policy Analysis and Management (Bloomington, IN: Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management) 8 (1): 53–71. doi:10.2307/ 3324424. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/ journal/114108757/abstract. Retrieved on 2009-01-03. [112] McKenna, at 453–57. ^ [113] McKenna, at 458. ^ [114] McKenna, at 460–61. ^ [115] cKenna, at 480–87. M [116] enate Committee on the Judiciary, S Reorganization of the Federal Judiciary, S. Rep. No. 711, 75th Congress, 1st Session, 1 (1937). [117] cKenna, at 319. M [118] McKenna, at 486–91. ^ [119] cKenna, at 496. M [120] McKenna, at 498–505. ^ [121] cKenna, at 505. M [122] cKenna, at 516. M [123] cKenna, at 519–21. M [124] arrish, Michael (1983). "The Great P Depression, the New Deal, and the American Legal Order". Washington Law Review 59: 737. [125] cKenna, at 522ff. M Sources • Baker, Leonard (1967). Back to Back: The Duel Between FDR and the Supreme Court. New York, NY: Macmillan. • Cushman, Barry (1998). Rethinking the New Deal Court: The Structure of a Constitutional Revolution. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195115321. • Epstein, Lee; Walker, Thomas G. (2007). Constitutional Law for a Changing 18 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia America: Institutional Powers and Constraints (6th ed.). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. ISBN 9781933116815. Leuchtenburg, William E. (1995). The Supreme Court Reborn: The Constitutional Revolution in the Age of Roosevelt. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195111316. McKenna, Marian C. (2002). Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Constitutional War: The Court-packing Crisis of 1937. New York, NY: Fordham University Press. ISBN 9780823221547. Schlesinger, Arthur M. (2003). The Politics of Upheaval, 1935–1936: 1935–1936, the Age of Roosevelt. 3. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. ISBN 9780618340873. Shaw, Stephen K., et al., eds. (2004). Shaw, Stephen K.; Pederson, William D.; Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 Williams, Frank J.. eds. Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Transformation of the Supreme Court. London: M.E. Sharpe. ISBN 0765610329. • Urofsky, Melvin I.; Finkelman, Paul (2002). A March of Liberty: A Constitutional History of the United States. 2 (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195126372. • White, G. Edward (2000). The Constitution and the New Deal. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674008311. • • • External links • FDR's Fireside Chat on the bill • 1990 Eyewitness Account of Law Clerk Joseph L. Rauh, Jr. (Link live as of September 15, 2008) • Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Reorganization_Bill_of_1937" Categories: 1937 in law, 1937 in the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, History of the Supreme Court of the United States, History of the United States (1918–1945), Legal history of the United States, New Deal, Political history of the United States, Politics of the United States, Supreme Court of the United States, United States presidential history, United States proposed federal legislation This page was last modified on 9 May 2009, at 08:12 (UTC). All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) taxdeductible nonprofit charity. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers 19
Pages to are hidden for
"Judiciary_Reorganization_Bill_of_1937"Please download to view full document


text: No Shoes No Shirt Yoga Mess by chrisbrogan published on 2012/05/28 00:15:32 +0000 This is really just being silly. I mixed a sample of LMFAO Party Rock Anthem with some clips from "Shit Yogis Say." Honestly, this is just to get it out of my head. And into yours. : )


text:
Published on 16th April 2009 by Joe Martin
Nintendo has confirmed that the new MotionPlus Wii remote add-on will not be retro-actively made to fit old games.
You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.
User Name:
Log In
29th June 2015
23rd June 2015
19th June 2015
© Copyright bit-tech