Those who remain juggernaut full#

During his 34 years on the court (the same number of years that Marshall served!), he argued for a robust interpretation of the 14th Amendment, pioneered the idea that the Bill of Rights applies to the states, and wrote the sole dissent in Plessy v. Madison вЂ“ established the court as a formidable organ of government, on par with (and in some ways more powerful than) the other two branches. But Marshall вЂ“ through seminal opinions like Marbury v. Before his appointment as chief in 1801, the Supreme Court was a fledgling and modest institution. And 144 years after that, he finds himself in SCOTUS bracketology, facing off against the man for whom he was named. Forty-four years later, that newborn boy вЂ“ John Marshall Harlan I вЂ“ is himself appointed to the Supreme Court. He decides to name him after the chief justice, whom he admires. And in central Kentucky, a prominent lawyer and politician named James Harlan has a newborn boy. John Marshall is in his fourth decade as chief justice of the United States. Voting for this round will remain open until midnight on Sunday, March 28. In any event, this yearвЂ™s title remains up for grabs, and itвЂ™s up to you to decide who should advance to the Final Four. Perhaps they are like Duke and Kentucky вЂ“ longstanding powerhouses who simply have to wait until next yearвЂ™s Big Dance. What can we say? We agree that Douglas and Jackson were tough exclusions вЂ“ neither would be out of place in this tournament. But the preponderance of complaints centered on the selection committeeвЂ™s omission of two justices: Justice William Douglas (whose snub inspired an impassioned Twitter thread on DouglasвЂ™ greatness) and Justice Robert Jackson (whose gorgeous prose, we readily admit, is even prettier than Corey KispertвЂ™s jump shot). Even the institute named for Justice James Wilson chimed in. Fans of Chief Justice William Howard Taft and Justices Harry Blackmun, Benjamin Cardozo and John Paul Stevens were among those who registered their displeasure. We invited feedback on our seeding and selection criteria вЂ“ and like any good March Madness debate, there was no shortage of quibbling.

Those who remain juggernaut full#

The full first-round results are here.ДЄs a reminder, we chose 16 former justices to start the tournament (no current justices were included). But a couple of contests did end in virtual buzzer beaters, and now only eight justices remain. There were no stunning upsets of juggernaut justices and no magical runs from measly 15-seeds. The first round of SCOTUS bracketology вЂ“ our unofficial tournament to allow readers to choose the greatest Supreme Court justice вЂ“ wasnвЂ™t as chaotic as the first weekend of the NCAA tournament.