Presidents and the Supreme Court

Which president selected the most Supreme Court justices?  It should come as no surprise that President Washington, being the first President, had the opportunity to select every justice on the original court.  However, he only just surpassed another president.  Let's see which presidents had the most judicial picks and those with the fewest.

There have been 116 justices, 17 of whom were Chief Justices.  It is worth noting that the Court began with only 6 justices, before expanding to 7, 9, 10, and then shrinking to the current 9.

Four presidents did not select any justices.  William Henry Harrison (9) died only 1 month into office.  Zachary Taylor (12) died 16 months into office.  The Congress changed the law in order to prevent Andrew Johnson (17) from having an opportunity to select a justice.  Of note, the Court had 10 justices at the time and was slated to shrink to 7.  With Johnson's departure, the Court was restored to 9 justices.  Lastly, Jimmy Carter (39) didn't get to select a justice.

James Monroe (5), John Quincy Adams (6), John Tyler (10), Millard Fillmore (13), Franklin Pierce (14), James Buchanan (15), James Garfield (20), William McKinley (25), Calvin Coolidge (30), Gerald Ford (38), and Joe Biden (46) each selected one justice for the Court.

James Madison (4), Martin Van Buren (8), James K Polk (11), Rutherford B Hayes (19), Chester Arthur (21), JFK (35), LBJ (36), George HW Bush (41), Bill Clinton (42), George W Bush (43), and Barack Obama (44) each selected 2 new justices to the Court.  However, George W Bush had the opportunity to select the 17th Chief Justice, John Roberts.

John Adams (2), Thomas Jefferson (3), Theodore Roosevelt (26), Woodrow Wilson (28), Herbert Hoover (31), and Donald Trump (45) selected three each.  John Adams chose the longest-serving Chief Justice, John Marshall.  Of note, Marshall was the 4th Chief Justice despite being chosen by only the 2nd president.  Hoover selected Charles Evans Hughes for Chief Justice; Hughes had been an associate justice and was Chief Justice William Howard Taft's chosen successor.

Ulysses Grant (18), Grover Cleveland (22 & 24), Benjamin Harrison (23), Warren Harding (29), Harry Truman (33), Richard Nixon (37), and Ronald Regan (40) selected 4 justices for the Court.  Most of these presidents also selected a new Chief Justice among the four picks.  Grant chose Marrison Waite, Cleveland selected Melville Fuller, Harding installed former President William Howard Taft, Truman picked Fred Vinson, Nixon chose Warren Burger, and Reagan elevated William Rehnquist (Rehnquist had been one of Nixon's Associate Justice picks).

Abraham Lincoln (16) and Dwight Eisenhower (34) each had 5 Court picks.  Lincoln chose Salmon Chase as the Chief Justice.  Eisenhower selected Earl Warren to be Chief Justice.

Andrew Jackson (7) and William Howard Taft (27) selected 6 justices for the Court.  Jackson replaced John Marshall with Roger Taney, the Chief Justice who is forever stained with the Dredd Scott decision.  Taft, who would later be appointed Chief Justice, elevated Edward D White to be Chief Justice.  He would replace White only a decade later.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (32) chose 9 justices during his three terms as president.  He elevated Harlan F Stone, an associate justice, to be the Chief Justice.

George Washington (1) selected 10 justices for the Court.  Though there were only 6 justices at the time, the turnover was higher.  In these early days, the Court didn't possess the prestige or power that it would gain in later years.  For the first Chief Justice, he chose John Jay.  Jay stayed in the position for 5 years before resigning to run for governor of New York (he won).  Washington next chose John Rutledge.  Rutledge had been rejected for associate justice by the Senate in 1789 and, when the Senate was again in session, he was rejected for Chief Justice as well.  He served about 5 months as Chief Justice.  Thus, Washington chose the 3rd Chief Justice, Oliver Ellsworth.

Supreme Court rules 9 - 0 in favor of Trump

The Supreme Court has struck down Colorado's effort to remove Donald Trump from the ballot on account of a 14th Amendment violation (i.e., engaging in insurrection).  Even the liberal justices on the court (Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson) found the arguments presented unconvincing.  Those who hold to Colorado's (and Maine's and Illinois') arguments for removing Trump are clearly suffering Trump Derangement Syndrome.  They are so anti-Trump, they will embrace lunacy to oppose him.  If you think SCOTUS ruled incorrectly in this case, you need to do some self-reflection.

Much as various apparatchiks around the country have sought to disqualify Trump from running for office again, deep staters have used lawfare to attack him.  With a bipartisan consensus on the court against the first group, how confident are Democrat partisans that the deep staters are honestly pursuing Trump for crimes rather than just abusing their power?  Clearly, SCOTUS has ruled that Colorado abused its power.

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Lord Acton

Thus Spoke SCOTUS

As it did last year, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has handed down controversial rulings.

1. Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard ruled that the current use of race to determine admission to the university was unconstitutional, violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  Essentially, affirmative action has suffered a blow.  This change is long overdue.  That a less qualified applicant should be chosen on account of race is just racism.  Yes, at one time it may have been necessary to amend for wrongs of the past but it has been half a century.  Those who are 'paying' for this new form of discrimination have mostly been of Asian ancestry.  Let us judge applicants on their merit, not their melanin.  Of note, in the case of Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), the court had upheld affirmative action, though Justice Sandra Day O'Connor had suggested that it would no longer be needed in another 25 years.  She was only off by 5 years.

2. Biden v. Nebraska ruled that the President cannot forgive student loans.  The court even offered a quote from Speaker Nancy Pelosi who had stated that only the Congress could forgive loans.  The ruling so obvious that it should never have gotten this far.  Congress allocates money, not the president.  It is so clear in the Constitution that one should be concerned that it was a 6-3 ruling.  Of course, President Biden knew - in his lucid moments - that this wouldn't fly but it was a good campaign issue.  All those young voters might gamble on voting Biden/Democrat in order to escape college debt.  Instead, it turns out of if you agree to a loan, you need to repay the loan.  However, colleges should take some responsibility for the ballooning student debt.  One might say they defrauded the student by convincing them that their degree would get them a high paying career rather than a job as a Starbuck's barista.

3. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis held that a website designer was not obligated to design wedding announcements that were contrary to her Christian faith.  This is a repeat of the cake case and also comes from Colorado.  Businesses should have the right to refuse service.  It is curious how these cases are always filed against Christians but never Muslims.  During the cake case, a YouTuber had gone to several Muslim bakeries and was always refused when asking for a LBGT cake.  Why no lawsuit?  That the same case has repeated only for a different product means that there will be more of them.  Christian florists, Christian DJs, Christian venues, and many others will be targeted.  The point may not be to get all the way to the Supreme Court but merely to bankrupt businesses with legal costs.

That the court has made a decided shift to Originalist thinking has triggered the call for packing the court.  Add another 4 justices and we will have 7-6 rulings with the 'correct' outcome.  The court is far too important because the Congress has outsourced its authority to the court and the bureaucracy.  The government is too big, too intrusive, and unaccountable for failures.