story by Mark W. Buyck, III
In the twentieth century, there were four men nominated to the United States Supreme Court who were ultimately rejected by a vote of the United States Senate. I have previously written about Richard Nixon’s 1969 appointment of Clement Haynsworth, a respected justice from Greenville, and the Democrat-controlled Senate’s ultimate rejection of his nomination. Nixon then nominated Harrold Carswell, who was also rejected by the same Senate for the same seat. Ronald Regan nominated Robert Bork in 1987 and the Democrat-controlled Senate rejected Judge Bork’s nomination in what may have been the most contentious nomination in the history of the court.
The fourth rejected nomination was also a Republican nominee. In 1930, President Herbert Hoover nominated Judge John J. Parker to the court. At the time of his nomination, Judge Parker was a justice on the United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. He was a relatively young 44-years old and had been confirmed to the Fourth Circuit by the U.S. Senate in 1925. He was well respected at the time of his nomination.
Judge Parker was a native of Monroe, North Carolina, where he was born in 1885. He worked his way through the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill where he earned an undergraduate and law degree in 1908. One of his contemporaries described his arrival at UNC “a poor boy who didn’t even have a trunk, but he graduated with a trunk full of medals.” After graduating from law school, he returned to Monroe, established a private practice of law, and became involved in Republican politics. In 1910, at the age of 24, he was the Republican candidate for the United States House of Representatives. In 1916, he was the Republican nominee for N.C. Attorney General. In 1920, he was the Republican nominee for Governor of North Carolina. While South Carolina was solidly Democrat during this time period, North Carolina, particularly western North Carolina and the Charlotte and Winston-Salem areas, had a vital Republican party. Several North Carolina U.S. House Districts were competitive and occasionally elected Republicans. Although Judge Parker lost all three of these elections, he did get 230,000 (43%) of the votes in the gubernatorial race of 1920. In the governor’s race, North Carolina Democrats suggested that Parker and the Republicans were encouraging African-Americans to participate in the election. Parker thought it necessary to address these charges and declared, “The Republican Party of North Carolina does not desire … the Negro as a class to enter politics.”
Although Parker was unsuccessful in these political campaigns, he did attract the notice of prominent Washington Republicans. President Calvin Coolidge nominated Parker to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1925 and he was approved by the Senate without controversy. Parker replaced Judge Charles A. Wood, a Pee Dee native who had recently died in Florence. Parker developed a strong reputation on the Appellate Bench both for his opinions as well as his prodigious workload. As the confirmation process unfolded, opposition began developing. Like Clement Haynsworth’s failed nomination 40 years later, most of the opposition came from organized labor. West Virginia is one of the states which make up the Fourth Circuit and Judge Parker had written several opinions regarding West Virginia coal mines which the labor unions objected to. The NAACP also opposed Parker’s nomination once the quote from the Governor’s race was discovered. Just prior to the Senate’s vote on the nomination, the NAACP sent letters to every Senator up for election that year threatening to actively oppose them if the Senator voted to confirm Parker. Judge Parker’s nomination was defeated in a 41 to 39 vote.
Judge Parker continued to serve on the Fourth Circuit Bench until his death on March 17, 1958. He upheld New Deal legislation and struck down racially discriminatory zoning ordinances. He also served as a judge during the Allied Tribunal in Nuremberg following World War II. Those who have studied his opinions note that there was never any evidence of racism in his interpretation and application of the law. His defenders also note that while his early opinions may be considered “anti-union” they were in conformity with existing United States Supreme Court precedent.