Reply #67: I don't know what kind of historian you are, but constitutional historians [View All]

[onenote]

are united in their agreement that Roberts first cast his vote in the Parrish case (the so called "switch in time.." case) in December 1936, well before the announcement of the court packing plan. If you can cite to any reputable historian (or any historian at all) who disputes that this is what actually happened, please do so.

It is true that debate continues among historians as to whether and to what degree Roberts "shift" was really a shift and to what extent, if any, it was influenced by political factors (such as the election in 1936). Some historians (and Roberts himself, along with Justice Frankfurter) argue that Roberts' position in Parrish can be reconciled with his earlier decisions, particularly when one considers his decision in Nebbia. These historians contend that the court packing plan was already a dead letter at the time most of the post-Parrish decisions upholding New Deal programs came out, so it hardly could have been the cause. Others concede that the packing plan itself wasn't the cause of the switch, but argue that Roberts (and Hughes) were influenced by the political winds and thus shifted their jurisprudence.

But if you can find a scholar that today accepts the pure "switch in time" story -- that Roberts joined with the liberals on the Court in the Parrish case in reaction to the court packing plan -- please cite to that scholar.