she said to felix frankfurter why she did it and to me one letter sums up her motivation. supreme court justice felix frankfurter wrote her a letter as she stepped down as secretary of labor. he congratulated her on her successes, and he noted ruefully that she suffered much criticism for doing it. she responded, i came to work for god, fdr and the millions of for gotten, plain, kullman workingmen she told him. the last conversation i had with fdr was of such a nature that i could say my cup runneth over and surely goodness and mercy shall follow me. and i say to frances perkins, amen. and i would be happy to take your questions. [applause]

justice felix frankfurter in 1943 made the following statement. he said the history of liberty is largely due to the history of procedural safeguards. now, madam speaker, i believe that the federal government is too big and spends too much as our leader boehner regularly says. i believe we should have a right to bring about those reductions so we can get our economy back on track to ensure that americans aren't going to lose their jobs, their businesses, and their homes. and we are denied that chance today. but, i want to say to my democratic colleagues and my republican colleagues, madam speaker, we have an opportunity , and it is before us right now. all we need to do is vote no on the previous question and what will happen? we'll be continuing the 220-year tradition of appropriations under an open amendment process. if we can defeat the previous question, i, madam speaker, will offer an amendment that will allow us to do exactly what chairman obey in the year 2000 said needed to be done. we need to allow for a free-flowing, open debate so that

in the same feign, justice felix frankfurter said if the news media would cover the supreme court as thoroughly as it did the world series, it would be very important since public confidence in the judiciary hinges on the public's perception of k. it would certainly comprehend television and modern days and certainly justice frankfurter's use of the term media would include television as well. it is worth noting that justices have been frequently -- have frequently appeared on television. chief justice roberts and justice stevens appeared on "primetime," abc, justice ginsberg was on television, justice meyers participated in "fox news sunday," a debate between justice scalia was available for viewing on the web. there is no doubt of the enormous public interest in what television -- in what the supreme court does when the case of bush v. gore was decided, the block surrounding the supreme court chambers across the green from the senate was loaded with television trucks. although the cameras couldn't get inside, there was tremendous public concern. and the decisions of the court are o

vice presidential candidate, an hugo black had been one of the leading new deal senators and felix frankfurter as chief advisor to roosevelt, and arthur goldberg, secretary general of the afl-cio. i mean, these were people who were in the newspapers, in the press, well-known nationally before they came on the court. now, what difference it makes is the debate. do you want people on the court or not who have a political background? the third string that strikes me about the difference between then and now is the face of the court, the demographic face of the court. an obvious way, for example is we have women on the court. we didn't have them in 1969. we had blackmon and thurgood marshall on the court as black men and we will soon have the first hispanic justice on the court. there have been changes. it is interesting to recall that in 1969, it was exactly one roman catholic on the court, one jewish justice, and all the rest were protestants, mostly press buy tearian and e piss ka pailian and now by contrast, the majority are roman catholic, two jewish justices and once souter leaves the court,

vice-presidential candidate, hugo black who had been one of that leading new deal senators, felix frankfurter as chief adviser to franklin roosevelt, arthur goldberg secretary of labor, secretary general of the ifl-cio.

members of the court did not think that justice vinson was their intellectual equal, many, one was felix frankfurter who have been a harvard professor of law and in the roosevelt administration. so he was a much more down-to-earth kind of person, here is the issue, here is the opinion and didn't read these long floury some of opinions explaining why the court was doing when it was doing. and i thank you had too many piven don is on the court at that time and i'm not sure anybody and i think that sort of a judgment of history is not clear that anybody could have brought the members of the court together. >> does he have a lasting legacy whether it be from his work on the court when different posts within government? >> i think is lasting legacy was in the area of civil rights and i think that he's never been given full credit for that. he wrote one other case in the area of civil rights shelley vs. kramer in which a rule that state courts could not uphold restrictive covenants where people would refuse to sell their houses to summon a particular race. so i think that the court was chipping away at al