Extrajudicial Writings of Supreme Court Justices

Miriam Ching

Extrajudicial writings of Supreme Court Justices have taken a wide variety of forms over the past two hundred years. In general, anything a Justice wrote and published before, during, or after coming on the Supreme Court outside of usual adjudicative proceedings can be called extrajudicial. Under that definition, all the Justices have recorded something of a "personal" nature that has become public material.

Less personal writings usually consisted of lectures on legal issues,[1] which in the twentieth century mostly covered interpretations of the Constitution. Some judges wrote monographs with a professional audience in mind, such as Benjamin Curtis's Jurisdiction. Practice and Peculiar Jurisprudence of the Courts of the United States, Henry Baldwin's A General View of the Origin and Nature of the Constitution and Government of the United States, Harlan Stone's Law and its Administration, and Robert Jackson's The Supreme Court in the American System of Government. Others aimed to educate the general public about the judicial branch--William Brennan's An Affair with Freedom being a notable example.

Still other writings have taken on the combined form of an autobiography followed by a monograph. This type tended to consist of an account of a few important years in a Justice's life or a short narrative of his personal experiences, followed by chapters on constitutional interpretation or case analysis. Wiley Rutledge's A Declaration of Legal Faith is a good example of this format.

The vast majority of Justices who have written about their personal and professional lives followed a standard model, giving detailed accounts of family, childhood influences, schooling and career. Those who have written in this third style include John Marshall, Joseph Story, Roger Taney, Stephen Field, Henry Brown, Joseph Bradley, Charles Evans Hughes, Felix Frankfurter, James Byrnes, William 0. Douglas, Hugo Black, Earl Warren and William Rehnquist. Typically, they prefaced their work by protesting that modesty made them hesitate to write such a self-centered work.

Due to the autobiography's ease of comprehension and purpose, in contrast to a monograph on a specialized area of the law, this paper will focus principally on this third type of detailed, personal account published in book form, rather than analyze the numerous legal treatises, private papers, correspondences, and interview available. Autobiographies are a useful tool to enlarge the study of an individual Justice beyond his case opinions, to witness a Justice's personal dialogue, and to understand past generations' legal customs.

John Marshall set the nineteenth-century style for autobiographies with his passive, non-political vignette covering only his family lineage and pre-Court years. The style of judicial autobiographies changed in the twentieth century due to influences within and upon the Court. Innovators such as Oliver Wendell Holmes and Benjamin Cardozo became widely acknowledged for their groundbreaking, non-biographical writings on scholarly legal subjects. Extroverts such as Felix Frankfurter and William 0. Douglas wrote longer, more detailed, and admittedly political autobiographies for the general public to read. How and why have judicial autobiographies changed in the past two hundred years?

Nineteenth and twentieth century extrajudicial writings reflected the Court's image of itself. The individual Justice responded to the environment in which he functioned.[2] The early Court carried less prestige and power than it did in later decades. During George Washington's Administration, the Court was not equal in stature to the Presidency or to Congress. President Washington experienced a hard time filling the Bench, with five candidates declining appointment. John Jay, the first Chief Justice, resigned after five years due to disillusionment with the office. Some Justices did not feel that they gained prominent status through their occupation, and appointments to the Court were considerably less coveted than they are now. In the public's mind, who sat on the Court did not matter as much as it would later.[3]

In the early days, the majority of Justices were politically active before their elevation to the Court, and were often political on the Court.[4] During the Marshall Court era, however, the Court spoke as a body, and if it or its individual members acted politically, no Justice said so. Instead, they claimed to discover the law. Marshall said that judges did not give effect to their own will, but to the will of the legislature and of the law.[5] As Chief Justice, he instituted the non-seriatim Court opinion, whereby the individual Justices no longer expected their own writings of the case to be distinguished from a single Court opinion, as English cases were written. The Marshall Court spoke in unison in the majority of cases.

Since the nineteenth-century Supreme Court often acted as a group and considered itself or desired others to consider it the least dangerous branch,[6] the public showed little interest in the lives of the individual Court members. From without, the public did not expect or request judicial biographies, let alone autobiographies. From within, the Justice sought to convey a modest, unobtrusive appearance. Thus, those few Justices who wrote autobiographies did so only for their family or friends to read. This explains why the autobiographies of Marshall, Story, and Taney are now difficult for the general reader to obtain, and similarly why the memoirs of nineteenth-century Justices Samuel Miller, Joseph Bradley and Henry Brown are found only in depositories for rare books. An autobiographical sketch that Justice James Wayne wrote for his children, if still in existence, remains undiscovered.[7]

Judicial autobiographies stayed short and unpretentious throughout the nineteenth century. Roger Taney began his autobiography hesitantly: "I may not live to finish it, and, if finished, it may not be thought worthy of publication."[8] Justice Joseph Bradley wrote in 1883 of his collateral ancestors and early life. He deemed such coverage uninteresting to everybody but himself, but could not refrain from writing it down for the perusal of his children.[9] Stephen Field said that he composed "at the request of a few friends, [who] have an interest which they could not excite in others."[10] After submitting to the persuasion of his friend Charles Kent, Henry Billings Brown, whose career bridged the twentieth century, set down what he called a skeletonized, simple affair to assist "anyone who may feel sufficient interest to write a brief memorial, I am not ambitious for a regular biography."[11]

Joseph Story, writing for his son, said that he would:

Story's autobiography does not convey vainglorious pretension, for he wrote it in much the same expository style that he wrote the case

of Martin v. Hunter's Lessee.[13] It compares in literary importance to the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin; its portrayal of early American life and emphasis on praising worthy men and ideas as a means of giving moral lessons are all depicted in an artistic, idealistic way that is similar to Franklin's.

Through much of the nineteenth century the Justices remained relatively unknown as individuals, except for the Chief Justices, although even they did not seek public recognition. Marshall set the trend for modesty and discretion when he opened his autobiography by saying:

Marshall did not overcome this difficulty until, in one account, his highly valued friend Joseph Delaplaine requested he write an autobiographical sketch in 1818 for a serial publication titled Repository of the Lives and Portraits of Distinguished American Characters. In other accounts, the request came in the summer of 1827 from a different friend, Joseph Story, who desired it for his review called History of the Colonies.[16]

Following Marshall's lead, Chief Justices Salmon Chase, Morrison Waite, and Melville Fuller displayed modesty in their writings and did not try to boost their reputations by publishing memoirs. Although Chief Justice Roger Taney did publish an autobiography, he refrained from writing about his role in the infamous Dred Scott[17] decision, and covered only his early life and education from the years 1777 to 1801, before he came to the Court.

In their autobiographies, Story and Marshall omitted what nineteenth century Justices usually included--highlights of their family lineage and judicial career. Story did not give a bloodline analysis of whether it was William of Ipswich or Elisha of Boston who first came to America among his ancestors. Marshall did not mention his family lineage at all, though his father distinguished himself as a surveyor for George Washington, and acted as vestryman and member of the House of Burgesses.

Of all the judicial autobiographies, Marshall's showed the most reserve in all areas of family accounts, childhood influences, schooling and career. In introducing Marshall's sketch, John Stokes Adams said:

Marshall wrote that he felt repugnant "to anything which may be construed into an evidence of that paltry vanity which, if I know myself, forms no part of my character."[19]

Marshall revealed his unwillingness to write by depersonalizing the sketch with colorless chronological events. He found no pleasure in writing about the places he visited or the people who influenced him, and refrained from defending or denouncing persons and positions. Grudging even the few pages he did write, Marshall concluded with an apology for what he called the minute and tedious details of the sketch. Characteristically, when Marshall wrote a defense of McCulloch v. Maryland[20] for the press, he did so using a pseudonym.[21] For admirers of Marshall, such diffidence merely adds to his veneration, though it does limit the sources available to students seeking to understand the man from what he wrote.

Justice Stephen J. Field's Personal Reminiscences of Early Days in California remains the unique exception to both century's judicial autobiography format. Field's personality stands out, as does his inflexible, almost dogmatic interpretation of the Constitution,[22] in his digressive, colorful autobiography. In Field's pre-Court years as a California state judge, he had been accused by California Judge William Turner of provoking a mob to threaten his life.[23] Turner and California Supreme Court Justice David Terry[24] subsequently tried to defame Field. In order to redeem his reputation and honor, the future Justice wrote a detailed and humorous autobiography covering these unusual and highly controversial pre-Court experiences.

Field's biographer, Carl Swisher, uses Field's autobiography to confuse the incident further by making unfounded conclusions about the California judge's personality before Turner, also a judge and therefore a threat, arrived in the same town. He claims that Field had "perfect confidence in himself," felt "extremely proud," and became a "bit intoxicated by his rise in position from obscurity in his brother's office to czardom in a frontier town," but that "with deepest satisfaction he looked upon his work and saw that it was good." Swisher wrote that after Turner came to town Field showed his hot temper and became "jealous because of the loss of his own prerogatives in the town."[25]

In fairness to Field, readers of his autobiography would probably arrive at a more favorable impression of the author. Swisher, again citing Field's Personal Reminiscences, confused the incident of the crowd cheering Field in a pre-trial mob scene by claiming that the crowd saved three cheers for Field and three groans for Turner. In his autobiography, however, Field stated that the people cheered him enthusiastically and that in a later scene at Turner's house, the mob gave Turner three groans. Such a mistake in research puts Field in an undeservedly negative light. Yet even Personal Reminiscences cannot be entirely relied upon because it contains biased denunciations such as Field's passing accusation that Terry exhibited the virtues and prejudices of men of the extreme south.

In summary, most nineteenth-century Justices believed moderation and non-obtrusive political attachment to be the desired judicial temperament Dissents were not welcome.[26] Justices refrained from deprecating each other, and the direction of the Court was not openly displayed. Because the Justices did not publicly criticize each other, autobiography was not a necessary or desired medium in which to reply to a slight, or to set the story straight. Some observers also claim that the professional and personal writing style of this period was so murky that the Justices found autobiography more difficult to write than in the next century. After reading the autobiographies from the nineteenth century, however, one can say that they displayed as much precision and command of language as those of the next century.

A gradual change in judicial autobiography occurred around the turn of the century. Influence came from within and without the Court. The Court matured and grew in prestige.[27] Legal supremacy became a reality with the evolution of organizational and ideological support for judicial claims over politics.[28] At the same time, the twentieth century brought a rise in leisure and popular culture. Society began wondering about its leaders on the decisive social, cultural and commercial fronts. The public became regular observers and saw the Supreme Court Justices as more than just decision makers of cases. With the coming of mass culture and the extension of educational opportunity, popular culture began to "complement the more formal social institutions through which values are instilled."[29] Some psychologists suggest that interest in autobiographies arose in part from readers who compared their own lives with those about whom they read, and sought encouragement from stories of the struggles of successful people.[30]

The trend flowered in the 1970s when legal historians began producing innovative works that increased public inquisitiveness about the Justices. In that decade members of the Court finally became objects of attention in American culture,[31] reaching new levels of visibility. An indication of the growing popularity of individual Justices occurred in 1969 when Hugo Black's television interview "Justice Black and the Bill of Rights" won an award for the best cultural documentary of the year.[32] Beginning in the late 1970s, The Supreme Court Historical Society Yearbook ran a series of biographical articles titled "My Father the Chief Justice." Written by children of Chief Justices Hughes, Stone, and Warren, these articles recalled personal incidents in the Justices' private and Court lives.[33]

By the 1980s, commentary on the Justices in the form of opinions and personality profiles increasingly became increasingly available through the mass media. In the space of six years, the New York Times Magazine published feature articles on "The Supreme Court: A Decade of Constitutional Revision," November 11, 1979; "A Candid Talk with Justice Blackmun," February 20, 1983; "The Partisan:

A Talk with Justice Rehnquist," March 3, 1985; "A Life on the Court: A Conversation with Justice Brennan," October 5, 1986.[34]

Contributing to this popularization of the personalities of the Justices, was the change in the way they interpreted law. At the turn of the century, Court jurists discarded their mechanistic role of oracling the law. Judges realized that they could not find the rule of law in the "brooding omnipresence in the sky."[35] This realization caused an era of sustained judicial activism from 1890 to 1930. When the Justices discarded the nineteenth century cult of the robe, and its surrounding mantel, their individual identities as political actors became more widely acknowledged.[36] As their identities became more public, so did their philosophies of law based on life experiences.

The twentieth-century trend toward publicly esteemed extrajudicial works most likely originated with the highly acclaimed jurisprudential writings of Justices Holmes, Cardozo, and Taft. Not since Joseph Story's treatises had Court members received such recognition for their scholarly works. Holmes established himself as a leading judicial philosopher before becoming a United States Supreme Court Justice. In The Common Law, published in 1881, he claimed that "the life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience." His idea became widely accepted, even among his brethren. Justice Brewer wrote in 1898 that the Supreme Court was not beyond criticism:

As Dean of the Columbia University Law School, in 1915 Harlan Stone, echoing Holmes, lectured to his students that logic must necessarily yield to the test of experience.[38] But Holmes had not only changed the way Justices interpret the law, he had also set a new standard of professional legal competence.[39] After Holmes resigned from the highest Court, there was pressure to fill his vacancy with a similarly acclaimed scholar--Benjamin Cardozo.[40] Before being appointed to the Supreme Court, Cardozo achieved fame for his innovative work on the New York bench and for his 1921 study The Nature of the Judicial Process--considered as classic as Holmes's The Common Law.[41] Cardozo further amplified his views in The Growth of the Law, Paradoxes of Legal Science, and Law and Literature.

Another independent, political Justice with a love for scholarly legal analysis, William Howard Taft, stated outright in his book The Anti-Trust Act and the Supreme Court that judges were mortals whose judicial decisions were affected by the times in which they lived.[42] Taft believed that judges played an active role in changing the law, and, stated to the Court after he became Chief Justice that he planned to overrule a few decisions.[43] In another book, Popular Government. Taft promoted his theory on the judicial process."[44] In practice, his theory translated to the unanimous opinion remaining the norm under the Taft Court. During Harlan Stone's tenure as Chief Justice in the 1940's, the number of dissenting opinions grew, due to his encouragement of a proliferation of opinions.[45]

Primarily as a result of the academic works of Holmes, Cardozo, and Taft, a new type of autobiography suggested itself to later Court members. Extrajudicial writings began to aim at bettering the law and the legal community. Wishing to instruct a wider audience, members of the Court wrote autobiographies intended for the lay public which also included instruction and inspiration for the law community. James Byrnes, who served as a Representative, Senator, Governor and Justice, hoped to persuade his readers in All in One Lifetime of the high satisfaction found in public service.[46] Similarly, Chief Justice Earl Warren thought that because he had spent almost his entire adult life in public service, readers might learn about the benefits and pitfalls of a career as a public official by reading his Memoirs.[47] William 0. Douglas ebulliently wrote to inspire Americans to a new awareness:

William Rehnquist wrote The Supreme Court for the "interested, informed layman, as well as [for] lawyers who do not specialize in constitutional law," in order to convey "a better understanding of the role of the Supreme Court in American government."[49]

Autobiographies giving advice on the study and practice of law abounded. Hughes suggested a poker face as decorous when one listened to the opponent's argument in Court. Douglas wrote that contests in the law should be intellectual rather than emotional.[50]

The year 1956 brought the first volume of what was to become the first multiple autobiography by a Supreme Court Justice. Frankfurter wrote Of Law and Men (1956), Of Law and Life and Other Things That Matter (1965), and was interviewed by H. Phillips in Felix Frankfurter Reminisces (1960). Douglas followed with two standard autobiographical books Go East. Young Man, and The Court Years. 1939-1975, and so many other books on diverse topics that Chief Justice Warren complained that he spent too much time writing books.[51]

Frankfurter, a confirmed, almost compulsive writer,[52] showed himself to be an extraordinarily social creature, an eighteenth-century Enlightenment man in his scope of interests.[53] Gone were the days when Justices sought obscurity and used pseudonyms. Frankfurter wrote numerous letters to judges, lawyers, law professors, politicians, philosophers, and scientists. He broadcast his views on the Court and the nation, often criticizing Warren's activism. He wrote letters to historians concerning events in which he participated in order to have his views recorded for posterity.[54]

The public started perceiving the Supreme Court as a political branch at the time of President Franklin Roosevelt's criticism of its judicial authority. What was recognized by Abraham Lincoln[55]--that when the Supreme Court acted on political issues it was a political institution--became obvious to the public in the 1930s. Critics realized that the ties that bound Justices to their prior experiences and attitudes before coming on the Court were not easily dissolved.[56] The judges emerged from their robes and people widely acknowledged their identity as political actors.[57]

Certain Warren Court Justices' public praise and criticism of their brethren reached unprecedented proportions. Defensive attitudes found their way into autobiographies written for the layperson. Though Frankfurter said that he felt a natural distaste for talking about colleagues,[58] he continued to speak of his disagreements with Warren, Black, and Douglas. Open admission of unpleasant facts of contemporary life exhibited in the Warren Court decisions[59] spilled over into the detailed autobiographies of Douglas, Goldberg, and Warren.

The late 1960s was an era in which Americans thought, spoke, wrote, and associated more freely. Many Warren Court members wrote frankly, not heeding the traditions of juridical autobiography. As a decision-making body, the Warren Court broke with customs and folkways,[60] and used its legal authority in a potent way.[61] In turn, Justices utilized the power of autobiography. Initiative in the courtroom expanded into initiative in the judicial autobiography. Through that medium, Justices described behind the scene events and factors that influenced their behavior.

In contrast to the Justices of this century, Story and Marshall showed regard for the traditional privacy of court deliberations. Story said:

Because of this conviction, Story omitted personal coverage of his difficulties with Thomas Jefferson and of the Taney Court. So too, Marshall elusively wrote a paragraph or two about each year from 1775 to 1800, leaving out his Court years completely.

Chief Justice Warren exemplified a more modern kind of autobiographical style by bringing numerous corrections to light, including minor ones:

He also tackled controversies such as the American Bar Association's denunciations of

the Warren Court at a conference Chief Justice Warren attended in London:

As for the controversial, non-Court situations Douglas addressed, biographer James Simon identified minor discrepancies between Douglas's version of an event and the other party's version.[65] In a job interview with John Foster Dulles, Douglas claimed to have tipped Dulles a quarter for having helped him on with his coat, but Dulles insisted this never occurred. Douglas also claimed that he chose to work for the Cravath firm over Dulles's firm because the attorneys at Cravath were earnest, frank, and unpretentious. Dulles responded that Douglas was not offered the job because he did not meet their standards. Douglas said he was paid $1800 a year with an increase to $3600 that same year at Cravath, but the firm's records showed an initial $1800 with a raise of $3000 after two years.[66] In another incident, the University of Chicago dean offered Douglas a teaching position with a salary of $20,000, but Douglas said the amount totaled $25,000.[67] When Douglas was appointed chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, he claimed that Joseph Kennedy personally escorted him to the White House, where Roosevelt told him he was his man. However, a letter signed by Douglas suggests that he did not meet Roosevelt for at least six months after his appointment to the Commission.[68] Douglas himself told his daughter Millie that if he embellished a little here or there about his life, a writer had license to do so.[69]

As the Warren Court increasingly came under attack, Warren, Douglas, Frankfurter, and Goldberg felt obligated to explain their positions in autobiographies. In the conclusion of Go East. Young Man, Douglas wrote with pride of his stay of execution after what some would call his inexplicable actions concerning the Rosenberg case.[70] After his Court career ended, Arthur Goldberg felt free to write Equal Justice, defending the Warren Court against accusations that it acted without principle.

In The Supreme Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist, however, refrained from discussing his experiences on the Court. He ended his coverage of the Court's substantive doctrines at the time of Chief Justice Fred Vinson's death in 1953, thus omitting discussion of cases and doctrines which involved his colleagues. But as for personal doctrine, Rehnquist said outright that a judge could not isolate himself from public opinion, and that "the role of judge was little different from that of any other public official--do your best to see that the matter is settled in the way you believe is correct." [71]

Gone were the days when Justice William Johnson of the Marshall Court wrote a separate concurrence and "heard nothing but lectures on the indecency of judges cutting at each other." The extrajudicial writings of Taft, Warren, Douglas, Frankfurter, and Rehnquist included numerous criticisms of Presidents and Justices, unlike Hugo Black, who told his wife Elizabeth that he thanked God for never having written anything reflecting discredit on one of his brethren.[73]

As a whole, autobiographies by United States Supreme Court Justices provide a unique primary source for study of the Court and its relation to American life. Such works personalize the Court and make its members palpable individuals. Nineteenth century autobiographies emphasized a Justice's family background and formative experiences, thus looking solely to the past. Twentieth century autobiography has shown some of the same, but extended the focus to include the Justice's present situation and where he hoped to lead others, thus covering both past career and future concern for the Court, Constitution, and nation. In his autobiography, Justice Taney summarized his inducement to put his life into words: "My life is, therefore, to form a part of the history of the country."[74]

1. As an exception, see, John Marshall, The Life of George Washington (1805-07).
2. R. Highsaw, Edward Douglass White, Defender of the Conservative Faith xii (1981).
3. L. Tribe, God Save This Honorable Court 4 (1985).
4. R. Hodder-Williams, The Politics of the U.S. Supreme Court 32 (1980).
5. A. Mason, The Supreme Court from Taft to Warren 13 (1958).
6. See The Federalist Papers, Number 78.
7. R. Spector, "Judicial Biography and the United States Supreme Court: a Biographical Appraisal" 11 The American Journal of Legal History 13 (1967).
8. S. Tyler, Memoir of Roger Brooke Taney, LLD. 17, (1872).
9. J. Bradley, Family Notes Respecting the Bradley Family of Fairfield 41 (1894).
10. S. Field, Personal Reminiscences of Early Days in California, frontplate (1893).
11. C. Kent, Memoir of Henry Billings Brown, Late Justice of the Supreme Court of the Untied States, Consisting of an Autobiographical Sketch with Additions to His Life 109 (1915).
12. W. W. Story, ed., The Miscellaneous Writings of Joseph Story 1 (1852). Story intended the writing to be private, so one can group it with Justice Salmon Chase's diary (found in Diary and Correspondence of Salmon P. Chase (1971). The Library of Congress has the unpublished diaries of Justices George Sutherland and Levi Woodbury.
13. 1 Wheat. 304 (1816).
14. J.S. Adams, ed., An Autobiographical Sketch by John Marshall 3 (1937).
15. Id. at xii.
16. F. Stites, John Marshall, Defender of the Constitution 169 (1981); D. Grier Stephenson, Jr., The Supreme Court and the American Republic, an Annotated Bibliography 230 (1981); J. Services, A Bibliography of John Marshall 182 (1956).
17. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857).
18. Adams, supra note 14, at xiii.
19. Id. at xiv.
20. 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L. Ed 579 (1819).
21. G. McDowell, Curbing the Courts 136 (1988).
22. Highsaw, supra note 2, at 70.
23. Not an unusual event during the gold rush era. For Turner's viewpoint, see W. R. Turner, Documents in Relation to charges Preferred by Stephen J. Field and Others, Before the House of Assembly of the State of California, Against Wm. R. Turner (1856).
24. On Terry, see A. R. Buchanan, David S. Terry of California (1956); A. E. Wagstaff, Life of David S. Terry California (1956); A. E. Wagstaff, Life of David S. Terry (1892); for Terry's viewpoint, see D. Terry, Character and Career of Stephen J. Field as It is Known in California (1889).
25. C. Swisher, Stephen J. Field, Craftsman of the Law (1930), pp. 3-55.
26. J. Brigham, The Cult of the Court 68 (1987).
27. Id. at 48.
28. Id. at 35.
29. L. Lowenthal, Literature, Popular Culture, and Society 113 (1961); M. Laforse and J. Drake, Popular Culture and American Life vii-ix (1981).
30. L. Lowenthal, supra note 29, 114.
31. H. and E. Black, Mr. Justice and Mrs. Black 223 (1986). For an autobiographical sketch, see H. Black, "Reminiscences" 18 Ala. L. Rev. 3-11 (1966).
32. Brigham, supra note 26, at 19.
33. Id. at 19.
34. Id. at 4.
35. 244 U.S. 205, at 222 O. W. Holmes dissent; see also A. North, The Supreme Court: Judicial Process and Judicial Politics 8 (1966).
36. Brigham, supra note 26, at 63.
37. J. Frank, Courts on Trial 259 (1949).
38. H. Stone, Law and its Administration 37 (1915).
39. Brigham, supra note 26, at 77.
40. Id. at 30.
41. L. Pfeffer, This Honorable Court 290 (1965).
42. W. Taft, The Anti-Trust Acts and the Supreme Court 33 (1914).
43. A. Mason, William Howard Taft: Chief Justice 50 (1964).
44. Id. at 58.
45. Hodder-Williams, supra note 4, at 103.
46. J. Byrnes, All in One Lifetime 4 (1958).
47. E. Warren, The Memoirs of Earl Warren (1977).
48. W. Douglas, Go East, Young Man p. 155 (1974).
49. W. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court 8 (1987).
50. Douglas, supra note 48.
51. B. Schwartz, Super Chief 52 (1983).
52. P. Kurland and G. Casper, ed., Supreme Court Review 115 (1980).
53. Schwartz, supra note 51, at 38.
54. B. Murphy, The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection 32 (1982).
55. Pfeffer, supra note 41, at 165.
56. Tribe, supra note 3, at xviii.
57. Brigham, supra note 26, at 129.
58. Kurland, supra note 52 at 129
59. A. Goldberg, Equal Justice 31 (1971).
60. R. McCloskey, The Modern Supreme Court 308 (1972).
61. Id. at 326.
62. Story, supra note 12, at 35.
63. Warren, supra note 47, at 27.
64. Id. at 324.
65. J. Simon, Independent Journey: the Life of William O. Douglas (1980).
66. Id. at 82.
67. Id. at 110.
68. Id. at 153.
69. Id. at 234.
70. Rosenberg v. United States, 346 U.S. 273 (1953); see M. E. Parrish, "Cold War Justice: The Supreme Court and the Rosenbergs" 82 American Historical Review 823 (1977).
71. Rehnquist, supra note 49, at 185.
72. Id. at 120.
73. Black, supra note 31, at 108. At the same time, Black advocated absolute freedom of speech, and seemed highly amused when critics verbally abused him. See Dennis Gillmor, and Grey, editors, Justice Hugo Black and the First Amendment (1978).
74. Tyler, supra note 8, at 17.