President Obama and the Tea Party

Gerard Magliocca

Gerard N. Magliocca is the Samuel R. Rosen Professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. Professor Magliocca is the author of three books and over twenty articles on constitutional law and intellectual property. He received his undergraduate degree from Stanford, his law degree from Yale, and joined the faculty after two years as an attorney at Covington and Burling and one year as a law clerk for Judge Guido Calabresi on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Professor Magliocca has received the Best New Professor Award and the Black Cane (Most Outstanding Professor) from the student body, and in 2008 held the Fulbright-Dow Distinguished Research Chair of the Roosevelt Study Center in Middelburg, The Netherlands. He was elected to the American Law Institute (ALI) in 2013.

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. “The result was a backlash against his policies that reset the constitutional baseline in a totally different direction (Jim Crow, liberty of contract, etc.)”

    Jim Crow? So the Democratic stronghold that was the South backlashed – with Jim Crow – against the policies of the three-time Democratic-nominee…and, I’m guessing, just to cover their tracks, also by providing most of the votes for that same three-time Democratic-nominee?

    As to Liberty of Contract, I would think Lochner would be the poster case for this and of that 5-4 decision – three of the 4 dissenters were appointed by Republicans (and they include 2 of the 3 that were appointed after 1896). Possibly Mr. Bryan would have selected that 5th vote (instead of Justice McKenna) but there is no guarantee he would have won re-election and then picked the likes of Justice Holmes (or Day).

  2. Gerard Magliocca says:

    You’ll have to buy the book to learn the answer. It’ll be an excellent Xmas gift. :)

    More seriously, the argument is that Bryan’s defeat undermined Southern Populists, who were opposed to the Democracy there and took a (relatively) more tolerant position on racial issues. It’s a long story, though, that I can’t possibly due full justice to here.

  3. I’ll wait then…although intuitively the idea that the Democratic nominee (and, had he been elected, he would have continue to identify himself as a Democrat vice Populist) would have been a boon to southern Populists unhappy with Southern Democrats just doesn’t fit. If anything, I would think a Bryan victory would have strengthened the hand of Southern Democrats, to the detriment of fellow citizens who didn’t see things their way.