The men who ruled on FDR’s Supreme Court

Because this is aimed at general readers, Feldman places more of an emphasis on the personalities and politics of the justices and keeps the philosophical analysis to a minimum. He doesn’t break much new ground but synthesizes existing information well. Although he generally keeps the narrative flowing at a brisk pace, he occasionally gives readers a bit too much biographical information about his subjects’ pre-court lives.

All four justices were key supporters of the New Deal; they arrived at their conclusions through quite varied philosophies. Their ideological and personality disputes made for a clash of legal titans.

Douglas, for example, was a results-oriented justice. Whatever it took to decide a case the way he wanted was acceptable. That approach to judging, combined with his prickly personality, made him controversial and decreased his effectiveness.

Frankfurter called Douglas one of the “two completely evil men I have ever met.’’ Douglas returned the favor by referring to Frankfurter (the third Jew to sit on the high court) as “Der Fuehrer.’’ And Feldman contends that the friendship between Frankfurter and Jackson “seemed to depend more on disdain for Douglas and Black than any closer connection.’’

Other justices, such as Jackson, took a more pragmatic approach. He was very much of a legal realist and sometimes reached liberal conclusions not out of empathy for the aggrieved party, but because he felt the need to uphold a constitutional principle.

The court’s ruling in Korematsu v. United States upheld FDR’s executive order that forced the internment of Japanese-Americans. In Jackson’s dissent, he focused on what he saw as the inappropriateness of the court passing judgment on a military order during wartime.