Talk:William O. Douglas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Living Person?[edit]

At the top of the article, there is a warning, dated April 2013, that includes the following:

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful."

As noted in the article, Douglas has been dead for over 30 years. Why the concern?

John Paul Parks (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

As a person who actually heard and saw Douglas on the Court during his tenure. I was an early fan of his. However, in looking at his background as a mature person, it became clear that my view of Douglas, like that of the article, was more hero worship than reality. Biographers of Douglas say he lied in a series of self-promotional autobiogs. He claimed to have graduated second in his law school class but was apparently fifth. He claimed to have been in WW I, but apparently only spent 2 mos in a student officer training class. Anyhow, I won't attempt to edit the article, but somebody should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.20.187 (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from article body, due to obvious POV:

Douglas was a flagrant womanizer and alcoholic. He once was having sex with his young mistress (and future third wife) in his Supreme Court office and had to hide her in the closet to avoid discovery by his second wife. Douglas was widely known for treating his law clerks terribly, calling them the "lowest form of human life."

Please document these three items before returnig them to the article body. -- llywrch 17:09, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • The entire incident proved a preshadowing of the more recent battles over Supreme Court nomineees.

This is an unsourced POV assertion. We need to attribute conclusions like this to someone. -Willmcw 06:31, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • You know, I'm not sure I understand how this is POV or partisan, which is why I reverted it. Unless you can either argue:
  1.  The Court nomination process is non partisan (which I doubt anyone would agree to)
  2.  There were routine severe partisan battles over Supreme Court nominees prior
  to 1970 (which the historical record doesn't support - close votes for nominees
  prior to that date did not split strictly via party lines, and the entire process
  often took place within a week, although there were instances (Harlan II) where it
  was a bit longer, but then again he prevailed 71-11.)

the writer has a pretty solid historical point, not a POV or opinion. I tend to think the objection raised over this is in fact partisan-based, as the whole "well you Republicans filibustered Fortas back in 1968" has become the argument du jour. By my reading, that's not what is being argued here whatsoever.

That said, what is probably a better way to make this point would be to say:

"The 1968-1970 struggles over Supreme Court nominations and impeachment efforts marked the beginning of the modern era of more partisan battles over Supreme Court nominees."

Unless you can argue otherwise, I will add this point. Old64mb 17:13, August 2, 2005.

That is a much better wording. In general, drawing conclusions of our own, however well-founded, is original research. Cheers, -Willmcw 18:05, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Adding back to article above (with slight wording change to make it flow better with the preceding paragraph) "This effort and the struggles over the Fortas, Haynesworth, and Carswell nominations marked the beginning of the modern era of more partisan battles over Supreme Court nominees." -Old64mb

IRS[edit]

According to http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#incomedef, "In addition, there are known examples of judges being biased against the IRS. The most extreme case was Justice William O. Douglas. During his many years on the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Douglas voted against the IRS at almost every opportunity, frequently dissenting (without opinion) from otherwise unanimous decisions. The accepted explanation of this odd voting record is that he was still angry at having been audited once by the IRS. Justice Douglas was a very strong-willed, outspoken man, and if the IRS has ever taken any other actions against him, he would have let us know about it." Anyone know if this is true or not? Amcfreely 03:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting site, but that's a definite POV interpretation of his voting record (although probably an accurate POV guess as to the writing he'd have done if in fact he'd been audited). Especially in his later years, Douglas was the sole vote against so many unanimous decisions (Vietnam especially but a whole bunch of other things too) that one of the biographers reported the clerks would often joke the vote was "8 to Douglas," so not just the IRS he was mad at. (Pity he didn't follow the Harlan example of eloquence in them.) IIRC, Douglas actually never got openly audited by the IRS per se - the Nixon admin had the IRS go through his returns pre-impeachment attempt but the actual audit-type questions were asked to Douglas' attorneys by the staff of the special committee Celler set up. - Old64mb
The quotations are effective in demonstrating that Douglas was an able judicial polemicist and had the good sense to write his own opinions rather than rely on law clerks, even if they are not really the lowest form of human life. Still, taken as a whole, Douglas's judicial oeuvre is slipshod and slapdash. Here are typical criticisms, none of them by conservatives. "His opinions were not models; they appear to be hastily written; and they are easy to ignore" (Lucas Powe). Their carelessness is rooted in "indifference to the texture of legal analysis, which arises from an exclusively political conception of the judicial role" (Yosal Rogat). "Douglas was the foremost anti-judge of his time" (G. Edward White). A careful study of his tax opinions by Bernard Wolfman and others has documented Douglas's unreasoning hostility to the Internal Revenue Service and accuses him of "refusing to judge in tax cases."

from http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/posner-antihero.html Amcfreely 05:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Douglas was not only critical of the IRS, but of the U.S. tax system in general. See his dissenting opinion in Commissioner v. Idaho Power Co., 418 U.S. 1 (1974).


--Eastlaw 04:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of which must be viewed in light of the fact his own nephew, John P Persons, was the chief counsel for the IRS in Washington DC in 1953 (and for some years after). Persons married Florence, the daughter of Douglas's brother Arthur, in Bronxville New York. Are not judges and justices supposed to recuse themselves in the event of conflict of interest? Still, Douglas often went overboard in reaction when someone asked him to use his high office for their personal gain. Genehisthome (talk) 07:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something isn't clear...[edit]

What does this mean:

While President Gerald Ford was gracious upon Douglas' retirement, the irony is inescapable that his most bitter political enemy was allowed to name his replacement on the Court.

Was Ford his "most bitter political enemy"? It doesn't explain that in the text does it? Thanks!

Re-read the text. Ford, while in Congress, tried to impeach Douglas. -Willmcw 18:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good call, missed that!

I wonder if he is the very William O. Douglas who traveled to Middle East — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esmatly (talk • contribs) 18:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment hearings[edit]

I added some stuff on the 1970 impeachment hearings, which was such an embarrassment to everybody. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ericl (talk • contribs).

Most of the section on the Impeachment Hearings is ridiculously POV. Clearly needs some editing.--Velvet elvis81 21:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually do have a copy of the House report sitting around someplace, I'll make sure to add appropriate cites when I edit it. Old64mb 03:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article says there were three impeachment attempts, but only describes two. Richard75 (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I come back to this - three attempts. In Legal Encyclopedia: Douglas, William Orville: "and he survived three impeachment attempts led by Gerald R. Ford". This was found on-line, http://www.answers.com/topic/william-o-douglas, taken from West's Encyclopedia of American Law, 2nd edition, published by Thomson Gale. The article indicates only two attempts. Can this be cleared up? --67.142.161.22 (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It gets better (if more confusing): The site cited by the article for the number four is a collection of what appears to be newspaper book reviews. One of the reviews says four impeachment efforts, without saying what they were for or how far along any got before dying. Another one says three, and at least offers that "The second impeachment effort was provoked by his sensible if premature suggestion--it was during the Korean War--that the United States should begin to cozy up to Communist China in order to divide it from the Soviet Union". In light of the timing, it is possible that the China issue was one of the issues raised in the Rosenberg impeachment hearings, but how would China be the "second" effort? Clearly, there's a lot of straightening-out to do. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

The article itself does a very poor job of dealing with the burial at Arlington. It is pretty clear that he did not meet the criteria and that, in effect, he was allowed there because of his role as a justice without any real investigation of his "service." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is seriously POV and takes the Douglas line throughout. Read another biography. 129.171.233.29 12:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm flagging the Controversy section (which is basically the Posner review of Wild Bill) for a couple of reasons. First, while Murphy's claims are verifiable - he did a hell of a job spending 10 years ferreting the stuff out - Posner basically just summarizes what Murphy argues. Proper citation should in fact be from Murphy's book, not a secured site containing Posner's review. And second and more importantly, if this is to not be a Posner POV section, competing quotes from other reviews (to paraphrase the former Douglas law clerk who stated something like "He missed one thing...why did we all love the guy even if he was a jerk?") have to be included to bring it to NPOV. Murphy's research deserves a section on this article, but it has to be balanced out. I may take a shot at it a bit later. Old64mb 03:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm just going to move it here until someone (or me) takes a whack at making it NPOV and cites the quotations properly. Old64mb 03:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If a person was bad, saying he was bad is not POV. QED, idiot. 208.111.233.208 20:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a 2003 article published in The New Republic, Judge Richard A. Posner reviewed a biography of Justice Douglas written by Bruce Allen Murphy, entitled "Wild Bill: The Legend and Life of William O. Douglas."[1] In his book review, entitled "The Anti-Hero"[2], Posner reflected on his experiences with the Justice he refers to as "one of the most unwholesome figures in modern American political history, a field with many contenders."[2] Posner's book review includes the following assertions about Justice Douglas:

  • At the time Posner met Douglas (while clerking for Justice William Brennan), Douglas was surreptitiously "having sex with his soon-to-be third wife in his Supreme Court office, that he was being stalked by his justifiably suspicious soon-to-be ex-wife, and that on one occasion he had to hide the wife-to-be in his closet in order to prevent the current wife from discovering her."[2]
  • Posner notes that the biography took fifteen years to complete, partly because "Douglas turned out to be a liar to rival Baron Munchausen."[2]
  • Douglas is memorialized as having overcome polio to enlist in the United States Army to fight in Europe during in World War I; in fact, Douglas never served in the Armed Forces, nor did he ever have polio.[2]
  • Posner summarizes Douglas as "a flagrant liar, . . . a compulsive womanizer, a heavy drinker, a terrible husband to each of his four wives, a terrible father to his two children, and a bored, distracted, uncollegial, irresponsible, and at times unethical Supreme Court justice who regularly left the Court for his summer vacation weeks before the term ended. Rude, ice-cold, hot-tempered, ungrateful, foul-mouthed, self-absorbed, and devoured by ambition, he was also financially reckless--at once a big spender, a tightwad, and a sponge--who, while he was serving as a justice, received a substantial salary from a foundation established and controlled by a shady Las Vegas businessman"[2]
  • Posner points out numerous lies included in Posner's autobiographical writings, including:
    • An assertion that Douglas's "grandfather Orville had fought in Grant's army at Vicksburg, when in fact Orville had deserted from the Union Army twice without ever seeing combat."[2]
    • "Douglas claimed to have grown up in abject poverty. This was another lie: his mother had been left surprisingly well provided for as a widow, and the family, though poor by modern standards (as most people were a century ago), was middle class."[2]
    • Douglas claimed to have lived in a tent during his college years when, in fact, he had resided in a fraternity house (though in hot weather the fraternity brothers sometimes slept in tents).[2]
    • Douglas attended Columbia Law School in New York and "claimed to have arrived in New York, having ridden the brake rods of a train or possibly in an open boxcar, with just six cents in his pocket--all lies. By this time he was married, and his wife, a schoolteacher, was his major support in law school. He concealed this in his autobiography, in part by postdating his marriage by a year, and claimed to have worked his way through law school."[2]
    • Douglas "claimed to have heard Caruso sing at the Metropolitan Opera House, though the tenor died the year before Douglas arrived in New York."[2]
    • Douglas claimed to have graduated second in his law school class, which is untrue.[2]
    • Douglas went on to teach at Columbia and at Yale, representing that he had "been a successful Wall Street lawyer. He also claimed to have practiced law in [his hometown of] Yakima; he had not."[2]

In his book review, Posner asks, "Does any of this matter? It would not--had not Douglas in his autobiographical writings and elsewhere presented his life to the public as exemplary of American individualism and achievement. I cannot begin to imagine his thinking in publishing lies that were readily refutable by documents certain one day to be discovered."[2]

I don't understand what the point of having Posner's view on Douglas is. Posner obviously did not like the guy and has serious disagreement's with the way Douglas wrote decisions. It just doesn't fit in my opinion. --Smvans7 07:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these lies seem trivial to me. Who really cares if he heard Caruso sing or not? Atropos 01:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly; what kind of person would lie about such trivial things? 69.253.222.184 (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Random House; 1st ed edition (March 4, 2003); ISBN: 0394576284
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20030224&s=posner022403 (subscription required to view full text).

Most Dissents?[edit]

Where is the evidence that Douglas wrote the most dissents? Running a LexisNexis search, it appears to me that Douglas dissented 781 times and Thurgood Marshall dissented 2,390 times.

Nightkey 16:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd form for this reference/link[edit]

Following "The William O. Douglas Wilderness, which adjoins Mount Rainier National Park in Washington state, is named in his honor, as Douglas had both an intimate connection to that area and a deep commitment to environmental protection.[1] Douglas Falls in the Appalachian Mountains of North Carolina is also named after him." I note that the exact same info is in the Find a Grave article, which would be a reference. Maybe somebody wants to address this. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Bot-created subpage[edit]

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/William Orville Douglas was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Level of headings[edit]

Apologies to all. I did not realize that those extra '=' made subheadings, and just 'corrected' them all - my fault, and I have learned. Dumarest (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement date[edit]

This article is wrong. Douglas retired Tuesday, November 11, 1975. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.10.227.201 (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to the source cited. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added a See also link[edit]

Added a See also link, to new article, William O. Douglas Prize. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Murphy "Wild Bill" book cites[edit]

The citation form for the Murphy "Wild Bill" book gives the same page citation for all of the refs. But only the first one is correct. The others should ref different pages. What can be done about this? PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The footnotes that follow this post are unrelated to the above post. PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Third wife[edit]

The article refers to her as Cathleen Stone, but her name was Cathleen Heffernan when she married Justice Douglas. Her later, married name seems irrelevant to this article. I suggest she should be referred to by the name she had at the time.Asburyparker (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Italics[edit]

What are all these random italics doing in the lead section? I have tried to removed them, but for some reason cannot. Island Pelican (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Island Pelican:  Fixed. Looks like you introduced the error in Special:Diff/1104934922 by essentially "stealing" the opening italics for Paramount Pictures to use for Skinner. Happens. :) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_O._Douglas&oldid=1204057710"