No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Arthur J. Goldberg — In Memoriam
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 February 2016
Extract
The “Jewish Seat” on the Supreme Court of the United States of America, which had been occupied by Justices Brandeis, Cardozo and Frankfurter, was after the tatter's retirement in 1962 offered to Arthur Joseph Goldberg. He was not the only Jewish candidate whom President Kennedy considered for nomination: the other was Paul Freund, Frankfurter's successor on the faculty of Harvard Law School and his intimate friend. Opinions were divided whether Freund's candidature was eliminated because of Goldberg's superior merit, or because the President nourished a grudge against him for having twice refused appointment as solicitor-general, or perhaps because there were already two many Harvard men in high office — a fact which had aroused criticism in some quarters. Goldberg had, for about one year, been Secretary of Labor in Kennedy's cabinet: though his actual successes in ameliorating strike-ridden labor relations were (to say the least) doubtful, the President and his aides at any rate had ample opportunity to acquaint themselves with his personal and professional qualities; and if an assumption of mutuality is in order, Goldberg on his part admired and revered the President well nigh unreservedly. Goldberg's reputation also outside the White House must have been well established: he was the only Jewish candidate for the Supreme Court whose nomination was unopposed and approved after a perfunctory hearing. The opposition to previous Jewish nominations, even to that of Cardozo who was otherwise uncontested, had always had antisemitic undertones which were absent (or suppressed) in Goldberg's case. It was suggested that had Kennedy survived there might have been yet another Jewish appointment to the Supreme Court: not so much because being himself the first Catholic to be elected President, he was particularly sensitive to religious discrimination, as because of his celebrated meritocracy, determined to recruit the best man available for every office.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1990
References
1 Karfunkel, T. and Ryley, T. W., The Jewish Seat — Antisemitism and the Appointment of Jews to the Supreme Court (New York, 1978) 130Google Scholar.
2 Schlesinger, Arthur M., A Thousand Days (Boston, 1965) 698Google Scholar.
3 Hertzberg, Arthur, The Jews in America (New York, 1989) 347Google Scholar.
4 Moynihan, DP., (ed.), The Defense of Freedom — The Public Papers of Arthur J. Goldberg (New York, 1966) xiiGoogle Scholar.
5 Ibid., at 131-132.
6 Halberstam, D., The Best and the Brightest (New York, 1973) 76Google Scholar.
7 Karfunkel and Ryley, supra n. 1, at 131.
8 Moynihan, supra n. 4, at xv.
9 Abraham, H., Justices and Presidents (New York, 1974) 259Google Scholar.
10 Karfunkel and Ryley, supra n. 1, at 134.
11 Hertzberg, supra n. 3, at 297.
12 Moynihan, supra n. 4, at 25, 56, 57.
13 Ibid., at 57.
14 Ibid., at 67.
15 Escobedo v. Illinois 378 U.S. 478 (1964).
16 Massiah v. United States 377 U.S. 201 (1963).
17 Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigating Committee 372 U.S. 539 (1963).
18 Aptheker v. Secretary of State 378 U.S. 500 (1964).
19 Kent v. Dulles 367 U.S. 116 (1958).
20 Kennedy v. Mendoza — Martinez, and Rusk v. Cort 372 U.S. 144 (1962). In Schneider v. Rusk 377 U.S. 136 (1964) it was held that there was not for this purpose any difference between native-born and naturalized citizens.
21 Cox v. Louisiana 379 U.S. 536 (1965).
22 This is a quotation from Justice Goldberg's opinion in Watson v. Memphis 373 U.S. 526 (1963).
23 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
24 Swain v. Alabama 376 U.S. 650 (1965).
25 Hamilton v. Alabama 376 U.S. 650 (1964).
26 Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
27 The “fears” here referred to were voiced by Alexander Hamilton and are set out by Justice Goldberg in a footnote. Hamilton's paper in full is reprinted in Fairfield, (ed.), The Federalist Papers (New York, 1961) 259–269Google Scholar. His arguments very much resemble those voiced time and again in Israel against having Bills of Rights: they are not only unnecessary, he wrote, “but would even be dangerous”. The inclusion of one right may be interpreted as the exclusion of another right which might or should have been included, too. More importantly, “they would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted, and on this very account would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted … [they] would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power”.
28 School District of Abington v. Schempp 374 U.S. 203 (1963).
29 Moynihan, supra n. 4, at 49-50.