john on the bench in 1955, william brennan in 1956. eventually potter stewart as well making for five justices that ike put on the court. despite those new members, the changes in membership, the court was steadfast in insistence that in demanding the end of the jim you. despite the comfort of what the speed was moving, they reenforced the work, and the appointments to district courts provided the bull work of the jew dish ri's brave attempt to fashion brown into a working doctrine at the school distribute level. ike was capable of a crude remark and also noble work. by 1957, though, ike had another reason to be unhappy with his appointees on the court. it was that summer a host of cases involving the rights of legislators and law enforcement officials to investigate communism were handed down by the warren court, first coming on june 3, 1957. it involved a union president claimed clinton janx, found good many of lying to investigators filing paperwork indicating he had never been 5 communist. the lawyer asked to see the statements by

in 1956 when he went to choose, when he chose william brennan he was in the middle of his re-election campaign. he fared well with almost every demographic in 1952 but he asked brownell and naked political terms to find a moderate democrat who was a catholic ideally something -- sitting on the northeastern bench somewhere and that was sure a one electro- weakness he had. he got most of what he wanted there and he got a democrat from the northeast. he did not get a moderate. three out of four. you know, i think that the best example of a kind of justice he probably would have liked more was an extraordinarily gifted very principled conservative justice for the court. on the issue of warren and i will just conclude with this, i get why he had some reason to be disappointed with one. he had no right to be disappointed with brennan and i think the notion that brennan and let him down in some way is silly. in the case of warren, i think they misunderstood. ike misunderstood a certain aspect of warren. warren. he saw worn and believed he saw something of himself, a republican moderate who s

justice william brennan observed, "availability of a trial transcript is no substitute for a public presence at the trial itself. as any experienced appellate judge can attest, the cold record is a very imperfect reproduction of events that transpired in the courtroom." i could not agree more. while justice brennan was talking about actual attendance, i think his argument is just as persuasive with respect to allowing cameras. although the supreme court is open to all americans in theory, the reality is that public access is significantly restricted. there are only a few hundred seats available, some of which are reserved for specific individuals. that means visitors often get just three minutes of observation time before they have to give up their seats to the next person in line. those friends of mine that have attended when their spouses or colleagues were arguing before the supreme court said it is an amazing experience and we do not in any way want to lessen that experience. we just want to expand it to other people. over nine in 10% of americans do not live in washington, d.c., and the