conditioning of army troops cannot be put a last minute attention. there may not be time for nstantly 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 thecliff

comes to us fr georgetown university law center. he has served in all three branches of government and he's argued, remember, the number of the united states supreme court. so he brings a really nice diverse set of experiences to a book. the court during this with the washington post company and. he has gosh, you've written extensively in the media aut court related issues and and other issues so i'd like to welcome cliff stone. well thank you so much bill thank you. and thank you all and i just want to say it is an to here, and especiallyion date is this is really official launch of the book. and this is such a special place to have it and it's so meaningful me, because i spent many days researching at the

wonder library here with, the very helpful personnelst terrific to be here. and i really appreciate it. well, that's great. in. as i was saying before, i think it's wonderful how thehis roosevelt court and a period of time aligned themselves so perfectly world war two and the personalities involved here to give a perfect natural framework for a discussion of the court at war. what what led you to write about this period and an assemblage of people of great and varied personalities as the members of the court at the the way that i got interested in it and started working on the book is you mentioned i've had different government positions and in 2013 and 2014 i was the special envoy for guantanamo closure. and in connection with that position and that work i was reading the supreme cou's cases and that included the infam decision. and i read a case that preceded

korematsu by a year. it was thethese terrible anti-japanese decisions called it was about a curfew targeted at japanese-amer noticed that exactly seven days before the hirabayashi decision exactly o supreme issued its famous opinion in west virginia board of education versus barnett striking down a the height of world war two a mandatory salute in west public schools. in this fams eloquent onion by justice robert jackson. and itwithin week, the greatest civil liberties decisions in its history and one of the worst civil liberties decisions in its history. and so i got very interested reading about the couperiod and learning about and i discovered that there's very written about the court and

world war two as aject as i'm sure you all know, there's a ton written about fdr battles with in the 1930s and the and the switch in time that saved nine where one justice changed his vote and then they started upholding new deal programs and then there's lot written on the warren court beginning the 1950s. but there was very written and the supreme and world war two. so i really digging into it and it turns out toe a story because the war dominated everything for the justices. it dominated all of their cases, related to the war or not, and 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 told to me by a gentleman who justd 100 years old and pearl harbor day, he was 18 years old and. he was working ast in library.

and so the day after pearl harbor day on december 8th 1941, he was doing what a library aide does dropping off books, picking up books. and all of a sudden the front door, he saw all of these u.s. olqcome with their weapons drawn and take positions at the windows and the roof all around the court. reason was because at noon that day fdr was going to be at the capitol, right across the street from the supreme court. 's where he gave his famous day of infamy speech. r 7th is a date which will live in infamy. and in fact, the justices adjourned early. so that they could go there and be there. and the soldiers were there as part of an expanded security was just one day after this devastating surprise attack 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 winston churchill had made this dramatic surprise by his visit to washington earlier in the week.and he was addressing a joint session of congress and december 26, 1941. and he gives this rousing eloquent churchillian speech. and again, the justices are in the row and at the churchill pauses and looks out at the crowd and, lifts his fingers in his famous v for sign and in the front row very prominently justice harlan fiske stone lifts his fingers in a v for victory sign in response, and that exchange was prominently ughout the country. and the meaning of it was clear the court was in the fight. and so the war really dominated everything for the justices. but the franklin roosevelt dominated things for all of the justices, too, didn't he? he he let's talk about a few of

the the from the court packing that disaster all the way through in the next few years how suddenly the court turned over and you've got a new set of personalities or a set of personalities there. it's remarkable story. andll think is under appreciate it. you know, everybody knows about the failed court packing plan, but not as many people the summer of 1941, due to adeaths, fdr had appointed some seven of the nine justices and he had elevate an eight toe chief justice. eight of the nine owed their positions to fdr. it was by the biggest impact on the supreme court of any president since george gton. and it wasn't just the number of justices. they were all extremely to fdr in some instances too close to they had very, very close personal relationships. and just to kind of briefly get

the players on the table, they sort of into three groups, four of the justices were very well known, hugo black, felix frankfurter, william robert jackson. those are the four very well known ones. then there are four who were not very well, stanley reed, frank murphy, james burnsnd you know, burns had been a senator from south carolina and he was only on the courtbecause in the fall of 1942, fdr to him come work with me in the white house. you'llpresident overseeing the domestic economy and burns lef supreme to join fdr in the white and the fourth justice in this category of lesser known justices in the fdr appointees was wiley rutledge was appointed to be burns's replacement. and then the third group is the justices who were not initially appointed by fdr 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 justice in 1941. in the summer of 1941. and it's very clear that fdr did so because he was a single mindedly focusedwar, 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 vervi 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 previous summer inblicans to be secretary, war and secretary of the final justice in this period was owen roberts, who was appointed to the court, herbert hoover, in

1930, and roberts, the one who had the famous switch in time 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 and in terms of his very, very close relationships with them. and those close relationships just of a pers nature, preceded his presidency. they were political relationships in many cases, and they continued on the court and policy relationships. and frankly, this something that today's eyes and ears is really kind of astounding. it's something that i really learned about book is let me give you a couple of examples. so jimmy byrnes, as i just mentioned he was the justice had been a senator from south carolina and he was the one who left in the fall of 1942 to go

to the white house. but while he was on the supreme court while he was a sitthkg justice after pearl harbor, fdr made clear to everybody in his administration that any related legislation go through. 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 legislaticourt. and so it's really remarkable. and as i say, sort of astonished by today's standards that here you have a justice working out of the white house and the administration legislation another very conspicuousll example, in 1944, when fdr was running for his fourth term and had decided that he was not going to run again with

cumbent 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 f very much drawn to william douglas to be his running mate. as infatuated with withthey had a very close relationship. douglas was 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 heo douglas would have great political appeal because ofnd his sort of modest, humble backgroundnorthwest. he, dos,ugla to kind of liberal constituency, was very much backing wallace and fdr even said that the the way douglas is hair blue in the wind, he thought he would bevery 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 was from missouri and was very close harry truman. and so the political pros were pushing for truman and ultimately the convention fdr said he was going to leave the convention, but he released a he would be very happy totruman or william douglas. and those were mentioned. and there were people at democratic convention in chicago. and behalf worki him the nomination douglas himself didn't attend the convention, but they had been in close touch with. douglas, and they were working very hard to get him the nomination. and douglas was viewed as right until the final day of the conve sitting justice who comes very, very close to being fdr, his running

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 different kind of fo informal and policy related fdr gave to them. and we have these there these policies in personal relationships. but what we also have is the usual with not a lot of experience, the bench itself it's a very, very striking contrast to today's supreme court. so you had almost all of the justices that fdr appointed, had lived public lives. you had former senators, former governor, former us general, the former exchange commission, a former leading public intellectual, only one of them, wileytledge, had been a federal judge and hugo black and limited as

local political offices, murphy had been mayor of detroit and governor of michigan, in addition to other positions, course, black had been a senator from alabama. today's supreme court, all except one justice, were had previously been federal appellate judges. and so a very, very dramatic and striking contrast. and there's a lot of people who follow the suprt the supreme court about the different in that kind background compared to the background oes. well, when you think about some of the cases we'll momentarily which become so strikingly contradict in ways you mentioned one it'itwonder about what that experience brought as well their very large personality is of some of them i think it's

interesting you put the four in the and the four because there seem to the onesho are very quiet, you don't see in the news and then the ones who are constantly in the press engage in sort of, say well, that's a very, very interesting point about fso we were talking about the nu appointed you know, seven of the nine appointed and eight elevated to chief justice. and at the time that the t court really shape in the summer of 1941, many observers and predicted that the justices were going to march in lockstep. and again, they were you know they were all very close to fdr or had extensiveelationships 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 intoerent blocs. one of them was headed by hugo black and of them was headed by

felix frankfurter. and, you know, part of it was substantive. meaning reading of the constitution he gave an expansive interpretation to constitutional provisions and constitutional rights in many cases, and frankfurter on the other scarred by the pre 1937 court striking down lots of economic and social legislation at the tended to have more a hands off view the for the justices for the federal judiciary. now these blocks weren't 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 in a number cases and very importantly that's how it was

perceived byw it was perceived by the justices themselves. and harlan fiske stone tended to back and forth between two blocks. now he mentioned that some of it was substantive, but some of it was very much personal. and bill, this relates to the point that their difference in because the in background between those justices and the current justices because that they had all had these large lives each of the justices felt he could and should be leading the court and this was especially true of felix frankfurter. he had devoted his life to studying the supreme court writing about it. he had close to these judicial icons like oliver wendell holmes ands. and he thought was his natural fate. and destiny to lead the court and for the other justices to fall line behind him and the other justices didn't quite see

it that really bothered frankfurter. he was. and in fact, during the war years, during some of the war years, he kept a journal and a diary. and in it he recorded every grievance and perceived unhappy it and he even took to calling the other justices black and douglas and murphy and rutledge the axis. now is at the height of world war two when we're fighting the axis enemies, you know. 1 when justice started calling another group of justices al qaida. but it also was not a one way street. for example, there are from douglass toeriod where he refers to frankfurter as der führer and the little --. so there's all of personal enmity then among the justand. what i find interesting with that, too, and then i'll focus to some of the cases in what's going on, both inand in terms of domestic

affairs. 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 very political. you know remarkable and this is part of their allegiance to fdr. but again, in 1941,e was strong isolationist sentiment. just about delivers, a very public speeches strongly supporting fdr his war preparation and talking how important itd some of these were explicitly with frank murphy was the only catholic on the court at that tiof columbus and and he about e fact that, you know, the soviet union had recently entered joined forces with britain because, as you all know

because germany had invaded soviet union. but but the catholic in the u.s. were very skeptical of an with, the soviet union, because it was so -rel 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 n in this fight. and and he coordinates thatd fdr lets him know afterwards that he was, quote, speech. but even when they weren't explicit coordinating, they knew this fdr, his highest priory. and they were giving all sorts of speeches, supporting it. and then, you know after the war, they were giving hugo black attended this massive i am an american rally in in central park with the boxer, joe louis, who was then a private in the army. and so in this wonderful exhibit, you have an

african-american kins in civil rights. there's a picture of they appear and it's to rally support for the war effort in war bonds. fdr h frank murphy at one point, who again had been mayor of detroit and govermichigan, go to detroit and examine the state with the automotive industry there, because they critical vehicles and machinery for the war effort tanks and jeeps. and so murphy 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 on you know both be working together to so that they would be more supportive the war effort and these are just some examples there were very extensive as you say, very extensive public speeches by the justices during

this period on policy related issues. and so the war and what i find found fascinating running throughout of which isn't necessarily l liberties, but also how those overlap and intermingled with questions of civil rights. and so we have some directly related to actions because of the war and then we have others that have beencolating around to an end. it's thinking of our exhibit re individuals within this country. and there and their constitues rights. early on, they were cases affairs domestic civilhow did a couple of those cases lay the groundwork for what, later? and how did they set up a sharp contrast? some of the decisions that were related around the war. a big apologies but about let's lay down that absolutely. sos indicating the beginning,

it's reall tale. two courts during world war. it's thworst of course and and the bestourts as you're it, bill, there's a whocisions in the war where in self conscious contrast to the ing to the fashion to the authoritarians to the nazis in very self-conscious the supreme protect it and expanded constitute national rights and civil liberties. and so to ve a few examples of those in skinner versus oklahoma in 1942 at the supreme court an oklahoma law that called for the compulsory sterilizing zation of people whoof three or more crimes of moral turpitude and the crimes of moral turpitude was interpreted very broadly to include, you know crimes, burglary and robbery. it strikes down this compulsory

sterilization law. and as the court was considering the case as it made its way to the of context washitler and the nazis had engaged and a massive program compulsory sterilization in the interest of racial purity and racial supremacy. and, you know, example, the prisoners in oklahoma who were facing forced sterilization action were attacking the law and saying it represented to the hitler possession of american and it very much is part of the context. and indown, douglas says tt in evil or reckless hands, compulsory ation can be used to eliminate entire categorpeople. and everybody knew. exactly who and what about. and so the war context played a very important role inioned at the beginning the west virginia board of education 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 they had a 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 here in the opinion jackson explicitly draws a contrast with our totalitarian enemies. we don't force to give their obvious sense to, you know, a particular particular creed. and he even in the course of the opinion, talks about how the flag salute that issue, which required t flag i have a picture of it in the book had a resemblance to the nazi flag salute so again the contrawith enemies was very important.

and then you were talking civil. so in 1944, the supreme court decides case smith versus. all right, it's thurgood victory, a case that he argues in the down the all white democratic throughout south. a very in south carolina too right where the justice. burns yes. yes yes, yes, absolutely. and yet all of the southern states basically had and everybody knew the particular case knew that it was going to have other southern states and. d u$ very a part of the kind of the of the case that we were fighting a regimeal supremacy. and here this very blatant discrimination in votingeme court. and it was at a time of great ci in, the country connected to the community had embraced what it called the

hk victory over fascism abroad and racism at home. and there were civil rights demonstrations and also the dislike haitians of the war economy, with so many people being in the military and being away opened up industries and positions that had previously been excluded for two african americans. and this led to a very ugly wh se instances, there were what was called hate strikes, where whites walked off the job in response. and and in theere was a lot of violence against blacks in a lot of cities. there. white riots. and so this was all part of the all right and the importance contrast between our constitutional democracy as the court says in that opinion and then and the regimes we were fighting abroad and it was very the kind of reaction and the publicdecided.

and certainly black americans, you can see this in the exhibit i it's itself apparent. i mean it's the injustice of the distinct that we're being drawn. and yet now we can look at japanese-americans and americans of japanese descent, some of whom were also born japan. but all american citizens regardless, frankly, whether american citizens, the cases the worst moment, one of the worst moments ofhe roosevelt years. and in american in the court ultimately, unfortunately, played a role in those as. right. well, this is so is the worst of courts and as say well a truth a shameful history by the supreme and and by president and the roosevelt administration, by the congress across the board. but definitely among the has ever issued, you know,

upholding, as you all this very ant discrimination that led to the persecute and of american citizens of japanese descent, as well as lawful japanese nonresidents for no other reason than the ancestry of parents. in the case of many of the americans of japanese descent and or the that they had come and just a kind of truly shame episode and the justices this hugo black who in other contexts was a civil libertarian said well hardships are part of war and they were deferring to the what was presented to them as the exigencies of war. now has also come out since then that the roosevelt administration what the justice and the war department were extremely deceitful and

misleading in their presentation to the supreme court. they there were wildly inflated claims of national security but there also was evide 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 supremert all i mean, based on what was before it it were trulyful decision as three justices to, their credit recognized at the time, but even i think from this kind of worst of legacy, or maybe especially from this worst of legacie 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 could add to that tager hoover not exactly known as a great defender of civil

country knew that there was no evidence. j j edgar hoover was very much against the incarcerate 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 who were fighting very hard aga it bitterly at a certain capitulated and was sort of tried to wash his hands of it and never told 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 waren been signaling to shore from ships which showed and that they were probably from japanese. and this showed the dangers and the federal communication commission told the justice department very explicitly this false. we have extensive records of this. this simply did not happen.

and yet it was one of the thgs that the war department relied upon. but the second lesson that i think is also very important to take away from this is that when you look at the best a major difference, if not the fundamental, is that for issues like the compulsory sterilization or the flag salute code or the all primary ind not have to fdr and they related issue. and they would have had to do with korematsu. and i that's an especially important today. and korematsu to give a little background to what the basis that case was. well, the court what that case inhe supreme court upheld an american citizen of japanese than the fact that his parents had been from pan. korematsu

case itself is. dreads as one of the very worst opinions. the supreme court had ever issued, probably along with plessy versus upholding jim crow as well. but that's that's the korematsu decision is. and but that the failure, thenwillingness to cross the preserve that who had inted them, who is their political patron. and that resulted in a judicial disaster and a judicial catastrophe. and that is an especially lesson today at a time when the votes of the justices with the preferences of the political party of the president who appointed them more than at any time in our history. so important lesson about the need for justices to be able and willing to stand up to the president who

appointed them and to the political patrons and backers of president and the political party that them now, could that have been influencing. whats, 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 neral attitude was in the country and trying to reflect from their experience or or not or did that not play into their. well, you knowhink my own view as a general matter and this is true of every age. it would be overly simple mistake to think justices are not affected by the environment that they live in and to think that they're not part of times that they' previously wrote a book and the marbury versus

madison supreme court decision on is so grounded in 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 think justices bring their, you know, sort of judicial philosophy to bear. woven 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, much a part of the war. as i mentioned before every aspect of their personal liv know five of the justices had sons who were serving in the military. a sixth had a son in law who was military. and and it especially really affected hugo black. they were obviously all concerned about their sons in the military. black had two sons in the

military and it took a terrible toll. and his wife she suffered breakdown during this period was confined and months on end and much of it was about her sons, the felix frankfurter his wife, didn't have children but they had a couple english children or three english children staying them during a significant period of time. they were the children of, a lawyer who had been a prote offrankfurter. he was a professor at harvard law school. and the frankfurter took them in because their parents were concerned about the bombin 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, who was a bachelor, went them all better. he actually enlisted in the military i summer of 1942, when the supreme court was in pecial assigned out in the army, and he was uniform. 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 gh supreme court filings, know requests for supreme courtng. and just the only one other point about the war justices personal lives is that they lived the same bazaar byzantine world of rationing and controls and wage controls t everybody else in the lived in. you know, i have of justice wiley rutledge's rationing card. he had aust like everybody else. there arerlan fiske stone. one is to a friend where he talks about how cold it is in the house rationing of of home heati oil. he and his wife go to local civil defenseere they're where the local neighborhood warden them what to do in the event ad 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 bs that he sees that's going to do anything. and there's actually, you know there were in washington and other jor cities to try to make bombing raids more difficult. and so all the government buildings, including the supreme court, were blacked out at night. the monuments were blacked out the private buildings were blked 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 walking by, they'll know there's a person and they won't bump into you. but so, i mean, it was just the tely pervaded every aspect of their daily lives. well as think about heading towards questions how quic this curious assemblage of people with in some cases radically different personalities how quickly this roosevelt cthe caught which you don't you hear that expressing is very

often how quickly that that disappeared fdr death and what be in the long term is some of the you know some of the lasting impacts of that court. so first of all you're you're absolutely right, bill, that the war really the time of the pure very after the warjustices die or resign and. stone himself dies suddenly 1946, while he's on the bench in the course of reading an opinion he's stricken and' right you don't hear about the stone court he had the third shortest tenure of any chief justice in american history. he was only there about five years. truman had appointed four justices, almosthalf the court. so world war two really corresponds the time of the roosevelt court. but some of roosevelt justices, of course, including

douglas, you know served for a considerable period of time. but thers very great turnover very quickly, the legacy of the court. on the other hand, in my view was very long and all, you know, the areas we wereki talwhere the supreme court tected constitutional rights in self conscious contrast to our enemies those became very cornerstones of the suprem for many decades so just as examples skinner versus oklahoma, the compulsoryte time the supreme court recognized a fundamental liberty interest in the decision about whether to a child or not. 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 overruled roe versus the dissenters in dobbs specifically point tooklahoma, as one of the opinions that they think is very much

threatened by the logic in the framework of dobbs. but it had important ther areas also skinner is cited and relied o the supreme court, and it's interim in the interracial marriage case by there again, had a long lasting impact. and it in many ways it seems to be under fire. the t, some historians believe, that launched the trajectory of civilrights. the culminated ten years later in brown versus board of education and it had a tremendous impact on voting. now, full voting rights wouldn't be secured until the courageous of many citizs. the passage of the voting rights act in 1965. but smith versus. all right. waa ve important foundation for that. and it represents a door opening approach to voting rights and.

of course, many critics, the the many of the decisions of the supreme court, including the shelby county decision 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. in contrast. smith versus all rigthere's one other area that we haven't touched on that was very 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 econ problems, social problems novel crises that was the sort of fundamental reaction against the pre 1937 court and that was really and the supreme court doing war two upheld these very extensive rationing and

price control and other government along those lines and that governed for the next quarters of a there are many doctrines that are in play now that the court is supporting that would dramatically the ability of gomeveo respond to complex problems and novel crises. he what's called the brand new major questions doctrine which the current supreme court has invoked to strike down govent on. issues ranging from covid to climate change and another is an interest on the part of many of the current justices in reviving an 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 of the pre 1937 court.

so the short answer your question bill, terms of the legacy in many these decisions in world war two were very fundamental cases for many decades and to some extent they're very under fire right do we have any questions from the audience? yes, i see. oh microphone if you do. and we may have some from our virtualwell, we have. this is from mary on a watching on youtube. did fdr his personal relationship with justices break tradition is another president previously whocan think of a couple of personalelationships maybe in the johnson era but maybe not to this. there are examples both befo after and certainly you know lbj is bill was saying you only know president had a very close

relation ship with justice abe fort problematic. yes yes, it was. and it it all came to light. and as you may know, there were also issues, financial issues related to fortas that ultimately led to him resigning from the supreme court. but he was of issues and became very while he was on the court. and that became very controversial when it when it came out. so i think there are other re and after. i do think one of the things that is this era is the so many close relationships with so it it wasn't this sort of one off, you know, with abe fortas. i mean, it really extended to many of the justices. and, you know, the other point is that just because are other examples doesn't necessarily

mean it's to highlight, you know, we talked being very prominent as, a possible vice presidential candidate in 1944. there have been examples of. who were very interested in the political arena. i mean, i now there would be a kind of active candidate, in 1881 of the justices was very ng for the nomination. but are counterexamples also in 1876 the chief justice morris and wait there was an effort to draft him to be the republican candidate and he very firmly rejeould stay far the political whirlpool and and this is also very important at a time whenthe of justice as possible that my opinion it is very important to have a very sort of public binding ethicalustices 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 appointees and you mentioned the lbj appointee, abe fortas highlights. this isn't a partizan issue. 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 are self-regulating it it it sets that because that was the argument with and jackson i know we that became very personal and public vitriolic. there's a question here i don't know if you'll be able answer it. i can't. well, i think i know the answer. has anyone yet discovered the who stole the 42 frank? further diaries. i'm sure you did research and yeah in those diaries i'm not aware of. that. just in terms too of i guess what i find u 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 the diary seemed to have stolen at some point and there's a mystery but there is a"c diary diary i was referring to from 42, 1943 which it wased by joseph lasch. so so there is so wefrankfurter from that period that survives. but there is a very conspicuous in the frankfurter records the of course to our archival gs that we have to protect them so carefully because history can be. the record is incomplete. but one thing i think of when a looking at the court this conversation into to a close. a;ely is when a president picks a justice. he thinks knows what he's getting but he ultimately really knows what has. so know, did fdr, was he thinking long term or just to

accomplish a few? well i mean, as casualties, i'm about to say it accomplished a few political things of the his agenda at the time. do you think he looking longer term at long term legacy? well i as everybody here knows i'mure 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 rk his four track mind. and so with the justices, i think there were many things going on when he appointed them. now, first i 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.n he thought about the supreme getting thought was a nightmare for thent c striking down these innovative approaches i that was kind of first and foremost inondly he

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 team even on the third, i think he did think about political know, i mentioned with harlan fiske stone he republican and thought that would help with the war effort now stone also had 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 geographic diversityas very important and so at the time douglas was appointed, he was very much 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, during this od, douglas had some of

supporters work with reporters to kind of really highlight his western roots. and there was a western senator that came out very publicly and said we see douglas as a westerner like us, and that was very important. 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 or hugo black and his background certainly wouldn't seem to lend itself later. but we're out of time. but what i do would like is the book, the court at war, fdr 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 souj