cliff comes to us from

georgetown university law center. he in all three branches of government and he's argued, remember, number of cases before the united states supreme court. so he brings a really ce, diverse set of experiences to a era. cliff also has worked with the washington post compan and. he has gosh, you've written extensively in the media about court related issues and and other issues so welcome cliff stone. well thank you so much, you.

an for here. and i just want to say it is an honor and a pleasure for me to ■mhe, and espe as bill was saying, the publication date is this is really the first official■xift■? launch of the b. and this is such a special place to have it and it's so meaningful me, because i spent many days researching at the 7íwonder library here with, the very helpful perel and so it's just terrific to be here. and i really appreciate it. well, that's great. let's just launch right in. as i was saying before, i think nderful how the this roosevelt court and a period of time aligned themselves so personalities involved here to give a discussion of the court t what what led you to write about

this period andn people of gread personalities as the members of the court at the time well the and started working on the book is you men positions and in 2013 and 2014 i was the envoy for guantanamo closure. and in connectioth that position and that work i was reading the supreme court's detention cases and that included the infamous shameful korematsu decision. and i read a case that preceded korematsu by a year. was the 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 de 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 n west public schools. in this famous eloquent opinion by justice robert jackson. and it really struck me that within week, the supreme issued history and one of the worst civil liberties decisions in ih. and so i got very interested reading about th court this period and learning about and i ■ñrld war two as a subject asn d i'm sure you all know, there's a ton written about fdb;■ar battls with the court in the 1930s and the famous failed court packing plan and the switch in time that saved nine where one justice

changed his vote and then they started upholding newhen there't written on the warren court very written and the supreme and world war two. so i really digging i it turns out to be quite a story dominated everything for the justices. whether they were directly related to the war or dominateds off of the co brief anecdotes that i think really kind ofand the first was a gentleman who just turned 100 years old and prlhe was 18 yeard he an aide at the supreme court in library. after pearl harbor day on december 8th, 1941, he was■< doi what a

library aide does dropping off books, picking upl of a sudden t door, he saw all of these u.s. army soldiers come with their weapons drawn and take positions at the windows and the roof all around the court. and the reason was because at noon that day fdr was going to be at the capitol, right across the street from the supreme court. that's where he gave his famous day of infamythat december 7th e 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 ■vg surprise attack in pearl harbor. but what you see ishe war, the t prison of the supreme court. and the second anecdote was chrd

winston surprise by his visit to■(ngton earlier in the week. and he was addressing a joint cor 26, 1941. and he gives this rousing eloquent churchillian speech. and again, the justices are in the row and at the churchill d and, lifts his fingers in his famous vfront row very promy justice harlan fiske stone lifts hisctory sign in response, and that exchange was prominently reported in newspapers throughout the was clear the court was in the fight. and so the war really dominated everything for the justices. but the franklin roosevelt justices, too, didn't he?h

he he let's talk about a few of th personalities talk about that shift in the from the court packing that disaster all the way throh inhe nt years how sudt turned over and you've got a new largely new set of personalities there. it's remarkable story. and■ actually, it's one that i think is under appreciate it. you kneverybody knows about the failed court packing plan, but not as many people realize that by the summer of 1941, due wave resignations and deaths, fdr had appointed some seven of the nine justices and he had elevate an eight to be chief justice. positions to fdr. it wasy the biggest impact on the supreme court of any president since george washington. andst the number of

justices. they were all extremely to fdr in some instances too closeclose personal relationships. and just to kind of briefly get the players on the table, they sort groups, four of the jcey well known, hugo black,frankfurter, , 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 wasos because in the fall of 1942, fdr to him come work with me in the white house. you'll be the assistant president overseeing the domestic economy and burns left the supreme to join fdr in the white and the fourth justice in

this category of lesser kjustics was wiy rutledge, who was appointed to be burns's replacement. and then the tjustices who werey appoted fdr and are only two in this category. one of them was harlan fiske üstone, who had been appointed n 1925 by calvin coolidge, his amherst college buddy, and as i mentioned, fdr elevated him to be chief jusce summer of 1941. and it's very clear that fdr d e 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, the country very divided in 1941. and there was a strong wanted to send signals of bipartisan

sonship. and so he loved the idea of elevatingnevk this republican appointee, this coolidge appointee. he had done the same thing the naming prominent republicans to be secretary, war andectary othe nl justice in this od owen roberts, who was appointed to the court, herbert roberts, theo had the famouse. he was perceived as flipping his vote so that the supreme court now was upholding new deal programs instead of striking them down, but was just a tremendous impact. fdr had, both in terms the number of justices andwe relationships with them. and those close relationships just of a personal nature, preceded his presidency. they were political relationships in many cases,pol.

and frankly, this something that today's eyes and ears is really kind of astoug. it's something that i really learned about in in working and and the book is let me y of ex. so jimmy bnes mentioned he was d been senat fm south carolina and he was the one who left in the fall■n 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 that legislation had go through. jimmy he's a sitting frequentlyg 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 really remarkable. and as i say, sort of astonished by today's standards that here you have a justice working 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 so then there was the question of who is going to be his who was in wallace successor, an fdr running mate, andmuch 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. do part his poker circle. he loved the way douglas told

good stories, said and this was very, very important to said that douglas made the best martinis of anybody in washington, but he also douglas would have great political appeal because of his background, his sort of modest, hu northwest. he, douglas, also appealed to kind of liberal constituency, was very much backing wallace en said that the the way douglas is hairbe a very appealing political figure. but political pros around him, the head of the dnc and suspici. douglas he had never run for political office and the head of the dnc was from missouri and was very and so the political pros were pushing for truman and ultimately the convention fdr said he was going tochoice up tt

he released a saying that he would be very happy to run with either harry truman or william douglas. e were the only two people he mentioned. and there were people at democratic convention in chicago. and behalf working hard to get him the nomination douglas convention, but they had been in close touchhey were working very hard to get him the nomination. and douglas was viewed as elite contender right until the final day of the convention. so here you have a sitting justice who comes very, very close to being fdr, his runng mate. and of course, he would have been president the following when fdr died. but are only two examples. there are a lot of other examples we could go through each of the justices and talk about the informal and policy

related missions and assignments that fdr gave to them. and we have these there these policies in personal retionships. but what we also have is the usual with not a lot of it's a very, very striking contrast to today's supreme court. so the justices that fdr appointed, had lived public lives. you had rmer senators, former governor, former us genera 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 had had very limited as local ir political offices, murphy had been mayor of detroit and

governor of michigan, in addition to other positioninclu, and, of course, black had been a senator from alabama. today's supreme contrast, all except one been federal appellate judges. and dramatic and striking contrast. and■m there's a lot of discussin among people who follow the supreme court and think about the supreme court about the (sdifferent in that kind background compared to the background of today's justices. well, when you think about some of the cases momentarily which become sstrikingly contradict in ways you mentioned one it's it's interesting to wonder about what that experience brought as well their very large personality is of some ofhem i think it's

interesting you put the four in the and the four because there seemthe ones who are very quiet, you don't see in the news and then the ones who are at least engage in sort of, say, rivalries. well, that's a very, very interesting point about the fdr justices. so we were talking about the number that he had appointed, you know, seven of the nine eight elevated to chief justice. and at the=4 time that the roosevelt court really shape in the many observers and predicted that the justices were going to march in lockstep were you know, they were all very close to fdr or hadxtensive relationships with them. and so people thought they were going to, you know, act in unity and very quickly that that did not happen at all. they tended to split into

different blocs. one of them was and of them wasy know, part of it was substantive. black in his plain meaning rehe constitution he gave an expansive ierto constitd conscases, and frankfurter on te ot pre 1937 court striking economic and social legislation at the federal state levels tended to have more a hands off view across board for the for the justices for the federal judiciary. now these blocks weren't set in stone. i mean in in my opinion they you we think of with today's

super majority and the three liberals they weren't as fixed as that but the generalization did hold true in a number cases and very importantly that's how it was perc the public. and that's how it was perceived by the juss and harlan fiske sto back and forth between two blocks. now he mentioned that some of it was substantive,utome was very . and biou were making about their difference in becausethose justices and the current justices large livesach of the justices felt he could andhe court and true of felix frankfurter. he had devoted his life to studying the supreme court

had close to these judicial icons like oliver wendell holmes and louis brandeis. and he thought was his natural fate. and destiny to lead the court fall line behind him and the other justices didn't quite see it that way, and that really bothered frankfurter. he was very about it. and in fact, during the war during some of the war years, he kept a journal and a diary. and in it he recorded every grievance and perceivedhi insul. and he was very, very unhappy it and he eve calling the other justices bla a rutledge te axis. now is at the height of world war two when we're fighting the axis enemies, you know. it's as if after 911 when justice started calling another group of justices al qaida. but it also was not

street. for example, there are from ug murphy this period where he r■er führer and the li. sohere's all of personal ■ and. what i find interesting with that, too, and then i' focus to some of the cases in what's going on, both in terms of the war and in terms of domestic affairs. but it 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 very political. again this is remarkable and this is part of their allegiance to fdr. but again, in 1941,ally sort ofe was strong isolationist just about every one of the justices delivers, a very public

speeches, strongly supporting fdr his war preparation and 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 at that s of columbus and and he about the fact that, you know, the soviet union had recently entered joined forces withtabecause, as, invaded soviet union. but but the catholic in the u.s. were very with, the soviet unio, because it was so anti-religious. and so murphy goes to the knights of columbus and 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 the white house and fdr lets him know afterwards that he was, quote,ath by his 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, you know, 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 louis, whoprivate in

the army. and so in this wonderful exhibit, you have an african-american kins in civil rights. 's a picture of joe louis 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 beenayor of detroit and governor of michigan, go to detroit and examine the state of readiness with the automotive industry there, becausecritical vehiclesd

jeeps. and so murphy very does this inspection tour and then goes on national radio reporting on his findings and saying that we actually have too much more in terms of preparedness. and helso publicly. murphy also very publicly called on management and labor to you know both be0 working together o supportive the war effort and these are just some examples there were v you say, very extensive public speeches by the justices during period on policy related issues. and so the war and what i find found fascinating running throughout it is questions of which isn't necessarily rtime of civil liberties, but also how those overlap rights. and so we have some directly related to actions because of the war and then we have others

that have been■h percolating around to an end. it's thinking of ourgarding thef individuals within this country. and rights. early on, they were casesnvolvi, domestic civil rights. how did a couple of those lay the groundwork for what, later? contrast? some of the decisions that were related around the war. a big apologies, but about let's lay down that work. absolutely. so really, you know, as i as i was indicating the beginning, it's really a tale. two courts during world■b war. it's the best of court and the worst of course and and the best of courts as you're it, bill, there's a series of decisions in the war where in

contrast to the tally that we were fighting to the fashion to the authoritarians to the nazis in very self-conscious the supreme court recognized and protect it and constitute national rights and civild so to give a f those in versus oklahoma in 1942 at the supremewn an oklw sterilizing zation of people who had been convicted of three or more crimes of moral tpiand thel turpitude was interpreted very , everyday crimes, burglary and robbery. compulsory sterilization law. and as the court was considering the case as it made its way to

ey much part of context was the awareness that hitler and the nazis had engaged and a massive program, coul sterilization in the interest of racial purity and racial supremacy. and, you know, example, the prisoners in oklahoma who were facing forced steriliti attackiw and saying it represented to the hitler possession of american law. and it very much is part of the context. an down, douglas says that in evil or reckless hands, compulsory sterilization can be used to eliminate entire■a@ó categoriesf people. and everybody knew. exactly who and what he talking about. and so the war context played a very important that i mentioned at the beginning the

west virginia board of■] educatn compulsory flag salute case. and again this is this famous by 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 jehovah's witness children were refusing to salute the flag,and justice n famouslystar in our constitutiol constellation. but again, the war context is very important for the here in the opinion jackson explicitly totalitarian enemies. we don't their obvious sense to, you know, a particular creed. and he even in theow the flag salute that issue, which required the children to stand like this to the flag i have a picture of it in the b

resemblance to the nazi flag salute so again the contrast with enemies was veryout with civil. so in 1944, the premcodecides c. all right, it's victory, a case that he argues in the supreme court. and it strikes down the all white democratic primary in texas. and throughout south. a very in south linaj■r too right where the justice. burns yes. yes yes, yes, absolutely. and yet all of the southern states basically had and everybody knew the ptias texas,y knew that it was going to have implications. 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 to the supreme court. and it was at a time of great l in, the country african-american community had embraced what it called the double the campaign victory over fascism abroad and racism at home. and there were civil rights demonstrations and also the dislike haitians of the warecone being in theaway opened up indud positions that had previously ■f■9be excluded for two african americans. and this led to a very ugly white in some instances, there were what was called hate s, where whites walked off the job in response.

r of 1943, there was a lot of violence against blacks in a loof white riots. and so this was all part of the context of smith versus. all right and the importance of again drawing a contrast between our constitutional democracy as the court says in that opinion and th a were fighting abroad and it was very erceived that way in the kind of reaction and the public coverage of the case when it was decided. and certainly black americans, you can see■k■% i it's itself a. i mean,ft the injustice of the distinct that we're being drawn. and yet now we can lookt japanese-americans and americans of descent, some of whom were also born japa citizes regardless, frankly, whether american cizpresent the worst

momenton the worst moments of the roosevelt years. and inin the court, ultimately, unfortunately, played a role in those as. right. so is the worst of courts and as say well a %@f tra shameful history by the supreme and and president and the roosevelt administration, by 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 and carceration of american citizens of japanese descent, as well as lawful japanese nonresidents for ancestry of pa. in the case japaneseand or the e

an shame episodand th justices this hugo black who in other contextd well hardships are part of war e what was presented to them as the exigencies of w.now has alsn that the roosevelt administration what the justice anth department were extremely deceitful and sl presentation to the supreme court. they therez■=d claims of national security but there also wasndermined and the claim that this was necessary from a security perspective and they deliberately 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 truly shameful, a truly shameful decision as three justices recoe time, but legacy, or maybe especially from this worst of legacies, i think there are 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 inflated here we coul that tager hoover not exactly known as a great defender of civil this country knew that there was no hoover was very much against the incarcerate in the fbi. there were voices within federal government. hoover the best known you, the attorney general, francis biddle, initially was opposed

it, and he had a couple of young aides whoer it bitterly at a certain pitulated and was sort of tried to wash his hands of it and never toldt it would be unconstitutional. and so terms of the the kind of security perspective, you're absolutely right. j edgar hoover was very strongly against it. and there was other evidence. you know, the waraim there had g toand that they were probably fm japanese. showed the dangers and the federal communication commission told the justice departmenterly this false. we have extensive records of this. this simply did not that the war department relied upon. bu the second lesson that i

think is also very important to take away from this is that when you look at the best 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 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 do with korematsu. and i that's an especially korematsu to give a little background to what the basis that cas was. well, the court what that case in the supreme court upheld incarceration of an american citizen of japaneseeason other t that his parents had been from japan. that's that's what the korematsu

case itself is. and it's up there, you know, worst opinions.one of t the supreme court had ever issued, probably along with plessy versus upholding jim crow as well. but that's that's the korematsu deci■7sis.■xbut and but that the failure, the unwillingness to cross the pat who had appointed them, who is their politicalthat resulted in a judl disaster and a judicial catastrophe. and that is an especially lesson today at a time when the votes of the justices quarrel, date with the preferences of the political party of the president who appointed them more than at history. so it's a very, very important

lesson about the need fojusticeg to stand up to the president who appointed them and to the political patrons and backers of president and e that them now,t have been influencing. what personal relationships, but also by the elective office within the recent past of several of the justices who were perhaps more attuned to public opinion than what we might potentially justices are. how do you think that way did were the justices at it what the general attitude was in the country and trying to reflect or or not or did that not play into their. well, you know, i think my own view as a general matte this is true of every age. itould be overly think justicese

notff 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 madison supreme court decision and decision is so grounded in the political setting of the earl180's really a kind of tale of washington d.c. and that all. at the same time, i also think w simplistic to say that's the only thing justices care about. i mean, i think justices bring theioujudicial philosophy to wo, you know, can kind of vary at different times. but absolutely the justices are part of the times that they're 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 know five of the justices had sons who were military. a sixth had a son in law who was serving in the military. and and iti qj8specially really affected hugo black. they were obviously all concerned about theirlitary. black had two sons in the military and it took a terrible toll. and his wife, she suffered ad psychological breakdown during this period was confin 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, but they had a couple english children or three english children period of time. they were the children ofrankfu.

he was a professor at harvard law s 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 murphy, all better. he actuallynl summer of 1942, when the supreme court was in ■krecess. he got a special assigned out in th. and there would be newsreels in, movie theaters showing him in his uniform in, tanks doing military maneuvers during the day and. at night, he'd be sitting in the barracks going through supreme court filings, know requests for supreme court kind of thing. and just the only one other point out the war dominating justices personal lives is that they bazaar

byzantine world of rationing and controls and■ wage controls that everybody else in the lived in. you know, i have■$ a picture in the book of justice wiley rutledge's rationing card. he had a ration incurred just like everybody else. there are letters from harlan fiske stone. one is to a friend where he talks about how cold it is in the house because of the rationing of of home heating oil. he and his wife go to local civil defense meetings where they're where the local neighborhood warden them what to do in thebing 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 that he sees that's going to do anything. and there's actually, you know, there were ind other major cities to try to make bombing raids more

all the government buildings, including the supreme court, wer night. the monuments were blacked out, the prive buildings were blacked out. and so there are newspaper articles that tell people what to do if. they're out during a blackout and they everybody to have a lit cbcigaret at their lips so thatf somebody is walking by, they'll know there's a■/u. but so, i mean, it was just the war absolutely pervaded every aspect of their daily lives. well,'s about legacy as think about heading towards this curious assemblage of people with in some cases radically different personathe caught wh'u hear that expressing is very often how quickly that that death and what be in the long term is some of the yoow impacts of that court. so first of all you're you're

1wabsolutely right, bill, that e war really the time of the pure evelt court because very after thejustices die or resign. stone himself dies suddenly 1946, while he's on the 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 justice in he was only there about five years. truman had appointed four justices, almost half the court. so world war corresponds the time of the rooseveltt some of the roosevelt justices, ofou douglas, you kno, served for a considerable perioy great turnover, very ickly,

the legacy of the court. on the other hand, in my view was very long and all, you know, thewhere the supreme court recognized protected constitutional rights in self conscious contrast to our very cornerstones of the supreme court's jurisprudence for many decades so skinner versus oklahe compulsoryit was the first timee supreme court recognized a cndamental liberty interest in the decision about whether to a and it became a very influential opinion. it is cited in versus wade and other reproductive cases. and of course now we have dobbs and the dissent turns in dobbs and dobbs decision that overruroe versus wade. the dissenters in dobbs

specifically point to skinner, oklahoma, as one of the opinions that they think is very much threatened by the logic in the framework of dobbs. but it had important implications other areas also skinner is cited and reliedame y the supreme court, and it's interim in the interracial ímarriage case by the supreme court. so again, had a long lasting impact. and it in many ways it seems to be under fire. the smith all right. the voting rights casth impact,e historians believe, that rights. the culminated versus board of education and it had a voting. now, full voting rights wouldn't be secured until the courageous of many citizens.

the passage of the voting rights act in 1965. but smith versus. all right. was a very important foundation for represents a door opening and. of course, many the many of the decisions of the supreme t, including the shelby county decn from 2013 that struck down a part of the voting act of 1965. so critics, the current court, think it reflects door closing approach to voting rights. inthere's one other area that we haven't touched on that was thad the other was the need for the federal government as well as state governments authority in tackling problems,l

problems, that was the sort of fundamental■k the pd that was really and the supreme courtar two upheld these very extensive rationg■?nd prcice control and other government along those lines and that governed the that we had for the next quarters of a there are many doctrines that are in play now that the court is supporting that would dramatically themj ability of government to respond to complex problems and novel crise one is the what's called the brand new major questions ctrine which the current supreme court has invoked to

iatives on. issues ranging from and anothern interest on the part of many of the current justices in reviving aggressive non delegation doctrine that would have limits on the power that congress can delegate the executive branch. and that was a kind of hallmark the pre 1937 court. so the short answer your question, bill, terms of the lega■ocy in the law is that many these decisions int# world war o were very fundamental cases for many decades and to some extent they're very under fire right now. do we have any questions from the audience? yes, i see. please come to the microphone if you do. and we may have some from our virtualnce.

well, we have. this is from mary on youtube a watching on youtube. did fdr his personal relationship with justices break tradition is another president same. who i can think of a couple of personal relationships maybe in the johnson era but maybe not to there are examples both before and after and certainly you know lbj■kfá s bill was saying you only know se relation ship with justice abe fortas had been somewhat problematic. yes yes, it was. and it became problematic when it all came to light. and as you may know, there w financial issues related to fortas that ultimately led to him resigning from the supreme court.

advising lbj on a lot of issues and became very while was on the court. and that became very controversial when it when it came out. so i think there are other examples both before and after. i do think one of the things that is this era is the pervasiveness of it because fdr had so many close relationships with so many these justices. so it it wasn't this sort of one off, you know, with abe fortas. i it to many of the justices. and, you know, the other point is that justamples doesn't necey mean it's and i just want to highlight, you know, we talked about g as, a possible vice presidential candidate in 1944. there have been examples of.

who were very interested in the political arena. inconceivable to us now there would be a kind of active candidate, but for example, in 1881 of thstices was very actively campaigning for the nomination. but are counterexamplesf6 also n 1876,he chief justice morris and wait there was an effort to draftcandidate and he very firmy d justices should stay far the political whirlpool andrscores for me ands 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 that and i think, you know, the fact this these issues came up with the roosevelt appointees and you mentioned the lbj appointee, abe fortas highlights. this i't . it's not it should be approached on a bipartisan and a nonpartisan basis because seen these issues come up with justices appointed by presidents of both parties, these a sets that because that was the argument with and jackson i know we time to get into that became very personal and public vitriolic. there's a question here i don't know if you'll be it. i can't. well, i think i know the awes ae who stole the 42 frank? further diaries. i'm sure you did research and yeah in those diaries i'm notvs aware of. no, no, no, no.

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 reference to is there are you know frankfurter records and a part of thed to have been stolen at some point and there's a diary diary i was referring to from from 1942, 1943, which it wa published by joseph lasch. so so there is so we do, we do have a diary of frankfurter from that period that survives. but there conspicuous in the frankfurter records the of course to our archival holdings that we have to protect them so carefully because history can be changed. the record is incomplete. but one thing i think of when a looking at the court, we bring this conversatn to a close. unfortunately is when a

president picks a justice. he thinks knows what he's getting but he ultimately really knows what he has. so kw, d■,id fdr he thinking long term or just ■ i'm about to say it accomplished a few political things to secure some of the his agenda at the time. do y long term legacy? i as everybody here knows i'm sure you know, one of the fascinating things about franklin roosevelt is thatis siy operating at severalcalled his . and so with the justices, i think there were many things going on when he appointed them. now, first in form, most he absolutely to make sure that it it wasn't going to be a justice 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. i that was kind of first anmoste was very interes■@ted generallyn his personal relationships with we and when even when they were on the court he didn't view they tower never to be talked to again. so he it was all part of them being part his team even on the e court. and third, i think he did think there were things, you know, i mentioned with harlan fiske stone he liked the idea of elevating a republican and thought that would help wihe ald been one of the justices who had been programs, but it was

definitely very m bipartisanshie days, ggrhi was very important and so at the , douglas was appointed, he wa interested in appointing a westerner. and, you know, douglas had grown in washington state. now he, had spent his professional career and the east coast. and, you know,uring this period, douglas had some of supporters work with some and reporters to kind of really highlight his western ros.rn ser that came out very publicly and said we see douglas as a westerner like us, and that was very importa so there were those kinds of political concerns as well. well, cliff, we could keep because i would love to just dig into the material, douglas, or k and his background certainly wouldn't seem to lend se civil rights later.

but we're out of+h time. but what i do would like is the book, the courtwadr■, justices and the world made i think this is a great read byo't 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