Wikipedia:Peer review/Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937/archive2

Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

1. It's an important event in U.S. history, both in respect to government and law.
2. It would be nice if people understood this event better, as the conventional account most people learn in high school is grossly oversimplified and inaccurate.
3. We sort of quickly pushed through the first peer review in hopes of getting the article up to FA by the event's anniversary (Feb. 5), only to get ruthlessly gunned down on a few minor things (mainly prose). :)

So, give a hand and pitch in some advice about how we can round out the article so it's better prepared for Round Two with the FA review group.

Thanks, Foofighter20x (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Unresolved from prior PR

1. The para about the Justice department after 1933 was a bit confused so I have reordered it in a way that I hope makes it a bit clearer along thematic/chronological lines. I think it would be good if we could find an additional source to complement McKenna for this section. Any ideas? Did White address the J.D. issue? Eusebeus (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

McKenna's text speacks of the opinion of Senator Joseph O'Mahoney, stating DoJ didn't do its homework, but she doesn't cite anything. In her footnote on Hughes's opinion, she cites William Swindler, Court and Constitution in the Twentieth Century: The new Legality, 1932-1968, Vol. 2, pp. 72-73. White's focus was primarily on shattering the conservative/liberal dichotomy of the conventional narrative, and thus focused on lines of jurisprudential thought. He didn't mention the Justice Department at all. Don't have too many other ideas on where to look. Foofighter20x (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, McKenna is in part Schlesinger rehash, so I'll add in AMS directly and see if I can find other stuff to round it out. Eusebeus (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Found a related cite... Who killed Lochner?. Check it out when you can. It's sort of a review analysis of White's book, and may have a few good items in it. Foofighter20x (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

2. Some of this is redundant to the above, but I think it useful to centralise our discussion of the bias/perspectives of the principal sources. I'll throw my comments in and I hope others will do the same. As a general point, I would suggest that where possible no section be single-sourced, given the various biases that exist in the literature (as noted by FF above). Eusebeus (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• McKenna

I checked the literature and her book is suspiciously light on reviews (I found 2 - google scholar gives up the goods -, compared to a dozen + for Leuchtenburg, who is admittedly a Big Deal in the field). At any event, that doesn't mean the book is not valuable as a source, especially since both reviews (AHR 2003 & JAH 2003) are favourable. However, I think the following criticism of McKenna is entirely valid and we should be mindful of it in using her as a source:

"In her book on the Court-packing plan, McKenna argues that most analyses of the Supreme Court's devastation of the New Deal and Roosevelt's subsequent battle with the Court have misplaced blame and praise. But if past studies erred in excoriating the Court and exonerating the president, this book errs in the opposite direction. For instance, often the author uses personal papers, biographies and autobiographies to reveal decision and tactics, and she is quick to dismiss Roosevelt's and his allies' justifications as disingenuous while accepting the stated motivations of the president's opponents.

... despite its problems, this is an important study that makes a definitive contribution. But it should be read in conjunction with one of the many studies that takes a more favorable view of Roosevelt as a means of achieving some balance."

-RICHARD L. PACELLE, JR., AHR 103:2003, 866-7

So I see an issue with using McKenna as an exclusive source for material in the article as we will end up following her bias. I have already amended the Reaction section to include the National Committee (an elision noted by Best, JAH, 2003). This is not to diminish McKenna, but simply to agree with Pacelle's point.

Thus, a phrase like The public, having seen through Roosevelt's subterfuge, refused to rally behind the President sourced from McKenna will prove hardly credible in its current form once this goes up to FAC (=reflects her POV). Either we refer back to her sources to provide much more direct evidence for such a claim, or else I think we need to moderate this kind of language and get wider input from other material. Eusebeus (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think McKenna could attack the administration's stance due to the prolific amounts of documents, journals, news articles, and statements made by all the people on the administration's side: altogether, you can see through the pretenses... On the other hand, claiming she's defended the justices is sort of unfounded as there's not a whole lot of stuff on them other than their case decisions and what little they wrote or said about the incident. You've got boatloads of people versus nine men. Judges, let alone Supreme Court justices, keep pretty mum, so you have to keep the criticism in perspective. Foofighter20x (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but what I am saying is more procedural really. At FAC we are likely to get objections if we follow too closely only one author's line, especially where other major figures in the field disagree (as noted in the AHR review). So to get through FA, I think we need either to moderate or else contextualise these kind of claims. However, there's still a lot of work to do before we have to worry about this. Eusebeus (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Another point you might not get without reading McKenna in full:

1. McKenna had Schlesinger review her book before publication (at least, she says as much in the intro to the book).
2. She relied on additional documents that weren't previously avaiable to scholars, namely Homer Cummings secret diary, which would explain why her narrative differs in certain areas from established scholarship.

-- 03:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Leuchtenburg

More extensively and favourably reviewed than McKenna, this book is of course a compendium of previously published essays. Reviews at:

• 1. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2169829
  2. http://www.jstor.org/stable/845577
  3. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2945385
  4. http://www.jstor.org/stable/744341
  5. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1123220
  6. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1289954

I generally don't see an issue with using Leuchtenburg as either a factual or interpretative source (but again, as above, balanced out). Eusebeus (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• White

3. Can you explain this sentence for me? 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. I thought the Supreme Court controlled its own docket, so a bit more explanation here would be fruitful. How did the administration manage the delay? Eusebeus (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Basically, Roosevelt was saavy enough to presage his coming conflict with the court. However, many people doubted the constitutionality of his programs. As such, he attempted to squeeze out some time before they would face a USSC hearin on their consitutionality by not appealing adverse decisions. Typically the USSC will hear a case if the Solicitor General brings it forth, but if or when the SG brings it forth is still subject to administration control, as the SG is the chief lawyer for the administration (which used to be the AG's job, until he sort of became the chief law enforcement officer). Foofighter20x (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ill try to amplify to make that point a bit clearer. Eusebeus (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

4. It is often noted that Black Monday's NRA decision was the most important strike against the New Deal and what really got Roosevelt's blood up; I wonder if it should be mentioned in the lede. Eusebeus (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I simply followed the Leuchtenburg and McKenna narratives, which told the story chronologically. The order of the cases in the article is same in which the court announced them that day... Foofighter20x (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)