", minute attention. there may not be time fo physical. must be constantly maintained maintained. when. forces can be airlifted to part of the world within a single day. today's soldiers had better physically prepared to meet the challenge before he gets there. ■ ■q■8■djfcliff comes to us from

georgetown university law center. he has served in all three branches of government and he's argued, remember, the mb cases before the united states supreme court. so he brings a really ni,diversa book. the court during this era. cliff also has worked with the washington post company and. he has gosh, you've written extensively in t media about court related issues and and other issues sow- i'd like to welcome cliff stone. well thank you so much, bill thank you. and th■#ank u all for here. and i just want to say it is an honor and a pleasure for me to here, d as bill was

saying, the publication date is the first officialb" special place to have it and it's so ny days researching at the wonder library here with, the very helpful perso and so it's just terrific to be here. and i really appreciate it. we, that'let's just launch righ. as i was saying before, i think e this roosevelttime aligned themselveo perfectly world war two and the personalities involved here to give a perfect natural framework for a discussion of the court at hat led you to write about this period and an aspeople of d the court at the time well theak

is you mentioned i've had posits and in 2013 and 2014 i was the special envoy for guantanamo closure. and in connectn that position and that work i was reading the supreme court's detention cases and that included the infamous shameful korematsu decision. and icase that preceded korematsu by a year. it■c first of these terrible anti-japanese decisions called it was about a curfew targeted at japanese-american citizens. and i noticed that exactly seven days before the hirabayashi deci exactly one week before it, the supreme issued its famous opinion in west virginia board of education versus barnett, striking down at the height of world war two a mandatory salute in west public

schools. in this famous eloquent opinion by justice robert jackson. and really struck me that within week, the supreme issued one of the greatest civil history and one of the worst civil liberties decisions in its history. and so i got very interested reading about the period and learning about and i discovered that there's very written about the court and a subject as i'm sure you all know, there's a ton writted4n ab the court in td the famous failed court packing plan and the switch in timeéw tt saved nine where one justice changed his vote and then they started upholding news a lot written on the warren court beginning the 1950s. but there was very written and the supreme and world war two. out toy

beca dominated everything for the justices. itwhether they were directly related to the war or not, an it also dominated their lives off of the court. the let me just tell you two brief anecdotes that i think really kind of illustrate point. and the first was tntleman who 0 years oldnd pearl hhe was 18 yed was working as an aide at the supreme court in liar after peal harbor day on december 8th, 1941, he was doing what a library aide does dropping off books, picking up sudden the frt door, he saw all of these u.s. army soldiers come with their weapons drawn ande positions at the windows and the roof all

around the court. and the reason was because at noon that at the capitol, rights the street from the supreme that's where he gave his famous day of infamy speech. that december 7th is a date which will live in infamy. and in fact, the justices adjourned early. so that they could go there and there. and the soldiers were there as part of an expanded security perimeter. this was just one day after this ack in pearl harbor. but what you see is quite literally, the war, the quiet prison of the supreme court. and the second anecdote was the day after christmas, 1941, and winstonrchill had made this dramatic surprise by his visit to washington earlier in the week. and he was addressing a joint session of and december

26, 1941. and he gives this eloquent churchillian speech. and again, the justices are in the churchill pauses and looks out at the crowd and, lifts his fingers in his famous v■ for sign and in te front row veryly justice harlan fiske stone lifts hisctory sign in response, and that reported in newspapers throughout the was clear the court was in the dominated everything for theces. but the franklin roosevelt dominated things for a otoo, d'? he he let's talk abo a f o perst that shift in the from the court packing that disaster all the way thyears how suddenly the cot turned over and you've got a new

sergely new set of personalities there. it's remarkable story. actually, it's one that i think is under appreciate it. you kn, everybody knows about the failed court packing plan, but not as my realize that by the summer of 1941, dued deaths, fdr had appoind some seven of the nine justices and he hadeight to be chief justice. positions to fdr. it was impact on the supreme court of any e george washington. andof justices. personal relationships.stances u and just to kind of briefly get the players on the table, they

sort of into three groups, four known, hugo black, felix frankfurter, william douglas, robert jackson. those are the four very well known ones. then there are four who were not very well, stanley reed, frank murphy, james burns and you know, burns had been a senator from south carolina and he was only on the court for 14 months because in the fall of 1942, fdr to him come work with me in the you'll be the assistant president overseeing the domestic economy and burns left the supreme to join fdr in the the fourth justice in this category of ssjustices in s wiley rutledge, who was appointed to be burns's replacement. and ts the justices who were not initially

appointed and are only two in this category. one of them was harlan fiske stone, who had been appointed in 1925 by calvin coolidge, his amherst college buddy, and as i mentioned, fdr elevated him to be chief justi in 1941. in the summer of 1941. and it's very clear thdrso becae mindedly focused and preparing the country for war, which thought was inevitable and. so he was trying to project by part us and shape as much as possible as, i'm sure you know, they divided in 1941. and there was a strong isolation in the sentiment and he wanted to send signals of bipartisan sonship. and so he loved the idea of elevating stone this republican appointee, this coolidge appointee. he had done the same thing the g prominent republicans to be

secretary, wndthe navy and thenl justice this period was owen roberts, who was appointed to the court, herbert roberts, theo had the famous switch in time that saved nine. he was perceived as flipping his so that the supreme court now was upholding new deal programs instead of striking them down, but was just a tremendous terms the number of justices and in terms of his very, very close relationships with them. and those close relationships just of a personal nature, preceded his pdency. they were political relationships in many cases, and they continued on the court and policy relationships. and frankly,hisomething that today's eyes and ears is really kind of anding. it's something that i really learned abou in in working and and theoois l of examples.

so jimmy byrnes, as i just mentioned he was the justice had from south carolina and he was the one who left in the fl of 1942 to go to the white house. but while he was on the supreme court while he was a sitting justice after pearl harbor, fdr made clear to everybody in his administration thatslation had . jimmy byrnes and again, this is while he's a sitting justice and byrnes was frequently working out of the white house and he became a chief intermediary between the white house and the administration and congress. and, of course, this legislation could come before the supreme court. and so it's remarkable. and as i say, sort ofstonished by today's standards that here you have a justice working out

of the white house and the administration legislation, another very conspicuous example, in 1944, when fdr was running for his fourth term and had decided that he was not going to run again with incumbent vice president henry wallace, whom this building is named after. and so then there was the question of who is going to be his who was going to be wallace successor, an fdr running mate, and fdr very much drawn to william douglas to be his running mate. he was kind of infatuated with with douglas frizzell personally. they had a very close relationship. part his poker circle. he loved the way douglas told good stories, said and this was very, very important to fdr. he said that douglas made the best martinis of anybody in washington, but he also douglas would have great politicalecauss

background, his sort of modest,c northwest. ■■ñhe, douglas, also appealed to kind of liberal constituency, was very much backing wallace the the way douglas is hair blue in the wind, he thought he would be a very appealing political figure. but political pros around him, the head of the dnc and others were very suspicious. douglas he had never run for political office and the head of the dnc was from missouri and was veryd so the political prose pushing for convention fdr said he was going tohe conventit he released a letter publicly saying that he would be very happy to run with either harry truman or willm dos.

and those were the only two people he mentioned. and there were people at democratic convention in chicago. and behalfd to get him the nomination douglas convention, but they had been in close touch with. douglas, and they were working very hard to get him the nomination. and douglas was view as elite contender right until the final day of the convention. so here you have a sitting justice whme very, very close to being fhimate. and of course, he would have been president the when fdr died. but are only two examples. there are a lot of oth examples we could go through each of the justices and talk about the different kind of formal and informal and policy related missions and assignments that fdr gave to them. and we have these there these policies in personal

la usual with not a lot of experience, the bench itself, it's a very, very striking contrast to today's supreme court. you had almost all of the justices that fdaplived public . senators, former governor, formers general, the former head, the securities and exchange commission, a former leading public intellectual, only one of them, wiley rutledge, had been a federal judge and hugo black and frank had had very limited as local judges, in addition to their political offices, murphy had been mayorf detroit and governor of michigan, in addition theincluding u.s. atto, and, of course, black had been a from alabama. today's suprementrast, all excee

justice, federal appellate judg. and)a so a very, very dramatic d striking contrast. an there's a lot of discussion among people whow the supreme court and think about the supreme court about the different in that kind background compared to the background of today's justices. well, when you think about some of the cases we'll momentarily which become so strikingly contradict in ways you mentioned one it's it's interesting to wonder about what that experience brought asl their very large personality is of some of it's interesting you put the four in the and the four because there seemre very quiet, you don't see in the news and then the ones who are constantly in the press or at least engage in sortwell, that'y

interesting point about the fdr justices. so we were talking about the number that he had appointed, you know, seven of the nine to chief justice. roosevelt court really shape in the■p many observers a■#■■ predicted that e justices were going to march in lockstep. and again, they were you know, they were all very close to fdr relationships with them. and so people thought they were goingo, unity and very quickly that that did not happen at all. they tended to split different blocs. one of them was headed by hugo black and of them was headed by felix frankfurter. and, you know, part of it was bstantive.

black in his plain meani reading of the constitution he gave anto constitutional provisd cases, and frankfurter on the other scarred by the pre 1937 court striking■m down lots of economic and social legislatio s tended to have more a hands offr th justices for the federal judiciary. now these blockst set in stone. i mean in in my opinion they were not as fixed as you we think of with today's conservative super majority and the three liberals they weren't as fixed as that but the generalization did hold true iny importantly that's how was perceived by the public.

and that's how it was perceived and harlan fiske stone tended to back and forth between two blocks. now he mentioned that some of it was sutawas very much personal. this relates to the point that you were making about their difference in because■" te in background between those justices and the current justices because that they had of the justices felt he could and should be leading the court and true of felix frankfu■$rter he had devoted his life to studying the supremeourt writing about it. he had close to these judicial icons li and louis brandeis. and hehoand destiny to lead thee

other justices di', and that rey bothered frankfurter. as very about it. and in fact, during the war years, during some of the war years, he kept a journal and a y grievance and perceive insult. and he was very, very unhappy it ■and he even took to calling the other justices rutledge the axis. now is at height fighting the axis enemies, you know. it's as if after 911 when justice started calling another grp of justices al qaida. but it also was notstreet. for example, there murphy this d where he führer and the little l

enmity then among the justices and. what i find interesting with that, too, and then i'll focus to some of the cases in what's going on, bh in terms of the war and in terms of domestic affairtms. but it's so much it does play out in public there regularly to groups around the country in what almost seems like very political way. or maybe they are just overtly ry political. you know, again this is remarkable and this is part of their allegiance to fdr. but again, in 1941, when country was really sort of split, there was strong isolationist bout every one of the justices delers, a very public speeches, strongly suppor■.ngfdd talking how important it is. and some of these were explicitly with fdr and the white house.

frank murphy was the only catholic on the court time. and so he speaks to the knights of columbus and and he about the fact that, you know, the soviet union hady entered joinedbecause, as you all know, because germany had invaded soviet union. but but the catholic in the u.s. were very skeptical of an alliance with, the soviet union, because it was so anti-religious. and so murphy goes to the knights of columbus an■óñ gives this speech about how the most thing is defeat hitler and the fascists. and we should welcome the soviet union in this fight. and and he coordinates that with the white house and fdr lets him know afterwards that he was, quote,■:4 tickled to death by hs speech. but even when they weren't explicit coordinating, they knew

this fdr, his highest priority. and they were giving all sorts of speeches, supporting it. and then, u after the war, they were giving speeches hugo black attended this massive i am an american rally in in central park with the boxer, joe loui w was then a private in the army. and so in this wonderful exhibit, you have an african-american kins ure of jos as a private, but they appear and it's to rally support for the war effort in war bonds. fdr has frank murphy at one point, who again had beenmichigd exstate of readiness with the automotive industry e, they supplying critical vehicles and machinery for the war effort, tanks and jeeps. an very does this inspection tour and then goes on

national radio reporting on his findings and saying that we actually have to do much more in terms of preparedness. and he also publicly. murphy also very publicly called management and labor to you know both be working together td say, very extensive public ch period on policy related issues. d so the war and what i find throughout it is questions of which isn't necessarily surprising during wartime of civil liberties, but also how those er and intermingled with questions of civil rights. and so we have somrerelated to f the war and then we have others that h percolating around to an end.

it's thinking of our exhibit regarding the rights of individuals within this country. and there and their constitutional rights. early on, they were in 4142 involving domestic affairs, domestic civil rights. how did a couple of thosethe gr, later? contrast? some of the decisions that were related around the war. a big apologies, but about let'. absolutely. so really, you know, as i as i was indicating the beginning, it's really a tale. it's the best of court and the worst of course and and the of courts as you're it, bill, there's a whole series of decisions in the war where in self conscious contrast to the

totally that we were fighting to the fashion tthe■ authoritarians to the nazis in very self-conscious the supre court recognized and constitutel rights and civil few examples of those in skinner versus oklahoma in 1942 at the supreme court strikes down an oklahoma law that called for the compulsory sterilizing zation of people who had been convicted of three or more crimes of moral of moral turpitude was interpretedeverydd robbery. it strikes down this compulsory sterilization law. as the court was considering the case as ide court very muchf

context was the awareness that hitler and the nazis had engaged and a massive sterilization in e interest of racial purity and racial supremacy. and, you know, example, prisoners in oklahoma who were facing forcedlization action were attacking the law and saying it represented to the hitler possession of american law. and it very much is part of th■ó context. and in the opinion striking it down, douglas says that in evil or reckless hands, compulsory 2wsterilization can be used to eliminate entire people. and everybody knew. exactly who and what he talking about. and so the war context pd in thi mentioned at the b education compulsory flag salute case. fay

justice robert jackson, where he very eloquently says that in this country no government official can tell what you have to think or believe. and so when these jehos childreg to salute the flag, they had a right to do that. and justice robert jackson famously says, that is a fixed star in our constitutional constellation. but again, the war context is very important for the opinion jackson explicitly draws a contrast with our totalitarian enemies. we don't■r force to give their obvious sense to, you know, a particular idea or a particular creed. and he even in the course of the opinion, talks about how the flag salute that issue, which required the children to stand like this to the flag i have a picture of it in theresemblanceg with civil.enemies was very

e supreme court decides case smith versus. all right, it' thurgood marshall's first big victory, a case that he argueinsupreme cou. and it strikes down the all white democratic primary in texas. and throughout too right where the justi. burns yes. yes yes, yes, absolutely. all of the southern states basically had and ever■ybody knew the particular case was texas, but everybody knew that it was g timplication. all of those other southern states and. and again, it's very a part of the kind of the context of the case that we were fighting a regime based on racial supremacy. and here the, you know, this

this very blatant discrimination in voting was presented to the supreme court. and it was at a time of great civil rights, ferment and turmoil in, the country connected to the war know the african-american communityad double the campaign victory over faism abroad and racism at home. and there were civil rigdemonste ■hdislike haitians of the war economy, with so many people being in the military and being away opened industries and positions that had excluded forn americans. and this led to a very ugly ite in some instances, there were what was called hate strikes, where whites walked off the job in response. and and in the summer of 1943, there was a lot of violence ag

cities. there. white riots. and tfncontext of smith versus. all right and the importance of again drawing a contrasbe consts the court says in that opinion and then and the regimes we were fighting abroad and it was very much perceived that way in the kind of reac a public coverage of the case when it was decided. and certainly black ericans, this in the exhibit are i it's itself apparent. it's it's obvious. the the injustice of the inct that we're being drawn. and yet now we can look and ames of japanese descent, some of whom were alsopan. but all american citizens regardless, frankly, cases that come represent the worst

ents of the roosevelt years. and in ultimately, unfortunately, played a role in thosel so is tf courts and as say well a truth a shamul history by the supreme and president and the rooseveltss across the board. but definitely among the very decisions the supreme court has ever issued, you know, upholding, as you all this very blatant discrimination that led to the persecute a incarceration of american citizens of japanese descent, as well as lawful japanese nonresidts no other reason than the ancestry of parents. in the case of many of the americans of japanese the that e

episode and the justices this hugo blackcontexts was a civil libertarian said well hardshipsd they were defers the exigencies of war. now has also come out since root administration what the justice and the war department were extremelynd misleading in their presentation to the supreme court. they there were wildly inflated claims of national security but there also was evidence specifically undermined and the claim th t was necessary from a security perspective and th decided not to present that to the supreme court. now that doesn't excuse the supreme court all i mean, based

on what was before it it were sl decision as three justices to, their credit recognized at the time, but even i think from this kind of worst of legacy, or maybe espealof legacies, i thine important for today. and you one of them is the danger of excessive death to the government's claims of national security for the reasons just said that it was wildly inflae r hoover not exactly known as a great dender o[+f ciliberties. this country knew that there was evidence. j j edgar hoover was very much against the incarcerate in the fbi. there were voices within federal government. you, the attorney general, francis biddle, initially was opposed it, and he had a couple of young aides who■d were fighting very hard against it bitterly at a

certain capitulated and was sort of tried to wash his hands of id be ust but but but in security perspective, you're absolutely right. j edgar hoover was very strongly against it. and there was other evidence. you knowth department claim there had been signaling to shore from ships which showed and that they were probably from and this showed the dangers comn commission told the this false. we havethis. this simply did not happen. and yet it was one of the things that the war department relied on. but the second lesson that i think is al to

take away from this is that when courts and the worst of courts, a major difference, if not the fundamental, is that for issues like the compulsory sterilization or the flag salute code or the all primary in texas, the justices did not have to fdr and they didn't have to cross them on a war related issue. and they would have had to with korematsu. and i that's an especially important today. and korematsu to give a little background to what the was. well, the court what that case in the supreme court upheld■> te incarceration of an american citizen of japanese descent for no reason other than the fact that his parents hadjapan. that's that's what the korematsu case itsf is. and it's up there, you know,

with dreads opinions. the supremeissued, probably aloh plessyholding jim crow as well. but that's■ph's e decision is. but and but this that the unwillingness to cross the appointed them, who is their political patron. and that resulted in a judicial disaster and a judicial catastrophe. today at a time when the votes of the justice■ quarrel, date with the prereof the president who appointed them more than at any time in our history. so it's a very, very important

justices to° be able and willing to stand up to the president who appointed them political patrons and backersd l party that them now, could that have been influencing. what personal relationships, but also by the elective offic recef several of the jticewhperhaps mc inion than what we might potentially justices a how do you think that way did were the justices at it what the general attitude was in the country and trying toé0@xperient or did that not play intoow, i n view as a generaltrue of every . it would be overly think justice

not affected by the environment that they live in and to think that they're not part of times that they're in. you know, i previously wrote a book and the marbury versus and decision iso grounded in the political setting of the early 1800s. and it's really a kind of tale of washington d.c. and that is true. all time. at the same time, i also think it would be overly simplistic to say that's the only thing justices care about. i mean, i think justices bring sort of judicial philosophy to bear. and so how that all gets woven, you know, can kind of vary at different times. but absolutely thee times that'e that living in. and, you know, the justices very, very much a part of the war. as i mentioned before the war dominated every aspect of their

personal lives you know five of the justicesrlh the military. a sixth had a son inaw who was serving in the military. and and itly affected hugo black. they were obviously all concerned about their black had two sons in the terrible toll. and his wife, she suffered terribly had psychological brean during this period was confined to her room for weeks and months on end and much of it was connected to her worry about her sons, the felix frankfurter, his wife, didn't have children, couple english children or three english children staying them during a significant period of time. they were the childrenf, a lawyer who had been a protege of frankfurter. he was a professor at harvard law school. and the frankfurter took them in because their parents were

concerned about the bombing raids in london and throughout england. and the frankfurters adored the children and they would take them to see fdr, who delighted their antics. frank all better. he actually enlisted in the military in the summer of 1942, recess. he got a special■a assigned outn the army, and he was uniform. and there would be newsreels in, movie theaters shong him in his uniform in, tanks doing mitary maneuvers during the day and. at night, oing through supreme court filingsknow reqr supreme court review, that kind of thing. and just ther dominating justices personal lives is thatr byzantin■we world of rationing d

controls androls that everybody else in the lived in. you know, i have a picture in the book of justice wiley rutledge's rationing card. ration incurred just like everybody else. there are letters from harlan fiskeone is to a friend where he talks about how cold it is the house because of the rationing of of home oil. he and his wife go to local civil defense meetings where they're where the local neighborhood warden them what to don event a bombing raid and he comes home and writes his sons that he's convinced that if there is a bombing raid we're just going to have to sit and take because there's no plan that he sees that's going to do . and there's actually, you know, there were inother major citieso make bombing raids more nment buildings, including the supreme

court, were blacked out at night. the monuments were blacked out, the private buildings were blacked out. and so there are newspaper articlha if. they're out during a blackout and they everybody to have a tcf somebody is walking by, they'll know person and they won't bump into you. but so, i mean, it was just the ■awar absolutely pervaded every aspect of their daily lives. well, let's about legacy as think about heading towards questions how quickly this curious assemblage of people with in some cases radically different personalities how quickly this roosevelt caught the caught which you don't you hear that expressing is very often how quickly that that what be in the long term is some of cts of that court. so first of all you're yo'absole

war really the timof tu■he pure roosevelt court because very after the war a number of justices die or resign,6 and. stone himself dies suddenly 1946, while ' bench in the course of reading an opinion he's stricken and you're right you don't hear about the stone court he had the third shortest tenure of any chief american history. he was only there about five years. but by 1949, truman had ces, almost half the court. socorresponds the time of the roosevelt roosevelt justices, of course, including black and douglas, you know, served for a considerable period of time. but there was a sort of very great turnover,ery quickly, the legacy of the court. was very long and all, you know,

the■ areas we were talking about where the supreme court gnized protected constitutional rights in self conscious contrast to our enemies those became very cornerstones of the supreme court's jurisprudence for many decadesjust as examples skinner versus oklahoma, the compulsory sterilizing law. it was the first time the supreme courtberty interest in the decision about whether becal opinion. in versus wade and other repro:6ctive cases. and of course now we have dobbs and the dissent turns in dobbs and d0íobbs decision that overruled roe versus wade. the dissenters in dbs skinner, oklahoma, as one of the opin thh

threatened by the logic in the framework of dobbs. but it had important ications other areas also skinner is cited and relied on in the same sex marriage case by the supreme court, and it' cited and relied on in the interim in the interracial rriage case by the supreme court. so again, had a long lasting many ways it seems to be under smith all right. the voting rights case that had a tremendous impact, some historians believe, that launched the trajectory of civil rights. theten years later in brown versus board of education and it had a tremendous impact on voting. now, full voting rights wouldn't bentil the courageous of manyens. the passage of the voting rights act in 1965. but important foundation

for that. and it represents a door opening approach to voting rights and. of course, many critics, the current court believe that the many of the decisions of include shelby county decision from 2013 that struck down a part of the voting critics, the current cou, think itt5 reflects door closing approach to voting rights. in contrast. smith versus all right and there's one other area that we haven't touched on that was■ vy the issue that perhaps united the post 1937 court more than any other was the need for the federal government as well as state governments to broad authority in tackling complex economic problems, social problems, novel crises that was

the sort of fundamental reaction against the pre 1937 court and that the supreme courtthese very extensive rationing and price control and other ■m■■rgovernment along those lind that governed the that we had for the next quarters of a century and the current court there are are in play now that the court dramatically thevernment to resx one is the what's called the brand new major questions doctrine which the current supreme court has invoked to strike down government initiatives on. issues ranging from covid to

climate change and another is an interest on the the current justices in aggressn doctrine that would have limits on the power that congress delegate the executive branch. and that was a kind of hallmark. answer your question,ill, the law is that my ese decisions in world war two were fundamental cases for many decades and to some extent they're very right now. do we have any questions from the audienoh, please come to the microphone if you do. and we may have some fm audien. well, we do.

let's see what we have. this is from mary on youtube a watching on youtube. did fdr his personal relationship wit justices break tradition is another president previously who did the same. who i can think of a couple of personal relationships maybe in the johnson era but maybe not to this. yeah well you know there are amples both before and after and certainly you know lbj is bill was saying you only know relation ship with justice abe fortas had been somewhat problematic. yes yes, it was. became problematic when it all came to light. also issues, finanal ultimately led to him resigning fromhe advising lbj on a lot of issues was on the court.

and that became very controversial when it en it came out. so i think there are other examples both before and after. i do think one of the things at unique about this era is the pervasiveness of it because fdr had so many close relationsh many these justices. so it it wasn'ts sort of one off, you know, with abe fortas. i mean, it really extended to many of the justices.zs you know, the other point is that just because are other examples doesn't necessarily mean it's okay. and i just want to highlight, about douglas being very prominent as, a possible vice presidential candidate in 1944. there haveples of. who were very interested in the

political arena. i mean, it almost seems inconceivable to us now there would be a kd of activ but for n 1881 of the justices was very actively campaigning for the nomination. but also in 1876, wait there was an effort o draftcandidate and he very firmy rejected it and he said justices should stay far the political whirlpool an so what it underscores for me and this is also very important at a time when we're thinking a lot about the of justice as possible ethical is that it is that my opinion it is very important to have a very sort of public binding ethical codes justices and very strong ethical norms so that there would be a very strong public reaction.

that and i think, you know, the fact this these issues came up with the roosevelt appointees lbj appointee, abe fortas hiliit's not it should be approd on a bipartisan and a no because seen justices appointed by presidents of both parties, self-regulating it it it sets that because that was the argument with and jackson i kn'o that became very personal and public vitriolic. there's a question here i don't kn i can't. well, i think i know thes anyone who stole the 42 frank? further diaries. i'm sure you did research and aware of.hose diaries'no no, no, no, no. that. just in terms too of i guess what i find ultimate li very curious in terms of legacies in

the court sitting outside can i can, i just say one thing to clarify that because there is and what that's a is there are you know frankfurter records and a part of the diary seemed to have been stolen at some point and there's a69 mystery but there is a diary diary i was referring to from the from 1942, 1943,hich it was published by joseph lasch. so so there is so do, we do have a diary of frankfurter from that perd that svives. but there is a very conspicuous in the frankfurter records the of'. coue to our archival holdings that we have to protect them so carefully because historca changed. the record is incomplete. but one thing i think of when a looking at the we bring close. unfortunately is when a he thinks knows what he's

getting but he■%ñ< ultimately ry knows what he has. he thinking long term or accomplish a few? well, i mean, as casualties, i'm about to say it accomplied to se some of the his agenda at the ti. he looking longer term at long term legacy? well i as everybody here knows i'm sure you know, one of the fascinating things about franklin roosevelt is that his mind was very similar, heinously operating at several levels. you know what frances perkins called his four track mind. and soh the justices, i think there were many things goingnow, first in form, most he ly to make sure that it it wasn't going to be atice was going to be striking down new deal programs. i mean when he thought about the

supreme getting away from what he thought was a nightmare for the country. the horse and buggy court striking down these innovative approaches from. a constitutional perspective. i that was kind his now secondle was very interested generally in his personal relationships with the justice as you know and as we and when even when they were on the court he didn't view them as kind of often some ivory tower never to be talked to again. so he it was all part of them being part his teamvesupreme co. and third, i think he did think about political advantage. there were things, you know, i mentioned with harlan fiske liked the idea of also had a republican and been one of the justices who had been voting to uphold the new deal programs, but it was definitely very much on his mind that bipartisanship in those

days,c diversity was very important and so at the time, douglas was interested in appointing a westerner. grown in washington state. now he, had spent his professional career and the east coast. know, during this period, douglas had some of suppters wk with some and reporters to kind of really highlight his western roots. and there was a western senator that came ouvesaid we see dougla westerner like u and tt so there were those kinds of political concerns as well. we, cliff, we could keep because i would love to just dig into the material, douglas, or■t or hugo black and his background certainly wouldn't seem to le itself to decisions relating to civil rights later. but we're out of time. but what i do would like is the

justices and the world made i think this is a great read by cliff sloan it's available out here us in the lobby momentarily. thank you for being here today. we really appreciate thank you. thank all of you. i really appreciate it. thanks so■$ ■world war two begar

1st, 1939, with the german invasion of