What do you think?
Rate this book
The Antagonists: Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter and Civil Liberties in Modern America
Recounts the disagreements of two ideologically opposed Supreme Court justices concerning the important issues of their terms
320 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1989
3 people are currently reading
107 people want to read
About the author
James F. Simon
21 books20 followersJames F. Simon is the Martin Professor of Law and Dean Emeritus at New York Law School. He is the author of seven previous books on American history, law, and politics. His books have won the American Bar Association’s Silver Gavel Award and twice been named New York Times Notable Books. He lives with his wife in West Nyack, New York.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
May 13, 2019
This is a duel biography of Justices Hugo Black (1886-1971) and Felix Frankfurter (1882-1965). Simon briefly reviews their early life, family relationships and careers. The majority of the book is about their opposing judicial theories. The book covers the Court from the 1930s to 60s.
I recently read a biography of Hugo Black entitled “Hugo L. Black: Cold Steel Warrior” by Howard Ball. I have not read a single book biography of Frankfurter; but, a few years ago I read one he was featured in: “Jewish Justices of the Supreme Court from Brandeis to Kagan” by David G. Dalin. Having read about these two men, I could better understand the nuances of their debates regarding interpretations on Constitutional Law. Frankfurter, as a Harvard University intellectual elite was considered the scholar of the Court during those years. Frankfurter’s 1939 confirmation hearing to the Court was the first time the hearings were made public. Black was from the back woods of Alabama but was a brilliant thinker and Judicial activist. These two fought constantly but were always polite and in later years became good friends even though they had philosophical disagreements.
Considering what it is like today, what impressed me most was the civility and good manners during and after debates between the two men. Both men were appointed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945) but had very different intellectual interpretations of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Also, they debated over whether the Bill of Rights applied to just federal, or states or both. As time progressed Frankfurter found himself in the minority position on the Court.
I read this as a hardback book. It is 312 pages published by Simon and Schuster in 1989. It also contains a number of photographs. I have read several of James F. Simon’s books. I find he presents complicated academic information in an easy to read manner for the lay man.
I recently read a biography of Hugo Black entitled “Hugo L. Black: Cold Steel Warrior” by Howard Ball. I have not read a single book biography of Frankfurter; but, a few years ago I read one he was featured in: “Jewish Justices of the Supreme Court from Brandeis to Kagan” by David G. Dalin. Having read about these two men, I could better understand the nuances of their debates regarding interpretations on Constitutional Law. Frankfurter, as a Harvard University intellectual elite was considered the scholar of the Court during those years. Frankfurter’s 1939 confirmation hearing to the Court was the first time the hearings were made public. Black was from the back woods of Alabama but was a brilliant thinker and Judicial activist. These two fought constantly but were always polite and in later years became good friends even though they had philosophical disagreements.
Considering what it is like today, what impressed me most was the civility and good manners during and after debates between the two men. Both men were appointed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945) but had very different intellectual interpretations of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Also, they debated over whether the Bill of Rights applied to just federal, or states or both. As time progressed Frankfurter found himself in the minority position on the Court.
I read this as a hardback book. It is 312 pages published by Simon and Schuster in 1989. It also contains a number of photographs. I have read several of James F. Simon’s books. I find he presents complicated academic information in an easy to read manner for the lay man.
October 29, 2009
James Simon, author of an excellent biography of William O. Douglas, has just produced a masterpiece of biography and Supreme Court analysis. In The Antagonists Simon uses the conflict between two erstwhile friends as a metaphor for the larger philosophical debate on the role of the Supreme Court: judicial restraint v. judicial activism. Both entered the court with outstanding civil libertarian records. Frankfurter, the academic, having taught at Harvard for many years, and having been adviser to statesmen and Presidents, once on the court became a passionate advocate of judicial restraint. Let the legislature reform society. Ironically he firmly believed in the law as a mechanism to change society. His plea to young lawyers: "We make of the clever pleaders, but not lawyers, if they fail to glimpse the glorious vision of the law, not as a harsh Procrustean bed into which all persons and all societies must inexorably be fitted, but as a vital agency for human betterment."
Black, a product of a rather poor environment and former member of the KKK, arrived on the bench and proceeded to challenge most of the accepted judicial doctrines of the 20th century. He firmly believed that the due process clause of the 14th amendment, which had been used by previous conservative courts to impose their personally held economic beliefs on elected representatives, was intended to force the Bill of Rights on the states. Until his tenure on the bench it was widely accepted that the Bill of Rights was intended to apply to the federal government but not the states. Judge Cardozo had previously argued that the Bill of Rights applied only selectively to the states, i. e. only those rights which were fundamental could be enforced on a state level.
Black and Frankfurter, for a time became bitter foes during debates on these issues. Ultimately Black was the one who built majorities around his position while Frankfurter increasingly was forced into the minority position. During the early fifties, especially during the red-baiting days, both came together again in strong minority positions in favor of free speech. Both were virulent anti-communists, but unlike the McCarthyites, they refused to pander to the lowest common denominator, and tenaciously clung to the principles embraced by the Constitution. Both voted alone to stay the execution of the Rosenbergs (see my last issue for the Sharlitt review) and against the unseemly haste of Chief Justice Vinson to get them executed. (When Vinson died in 1953 Frankfurter is reported to have said this was the first evidence he had seen that there was a God.)
Despite the bitter wrangling, and despite the inevitable politicking, what is reassuring, and yet astonishing, is the depth of intellectual debate. Most of the justices have truly had the best interests of the country at heart and were deeply committed to their ideological positions. The Court was ultimately strengthened by the presence of Black and Frankfurter, who at the end became close friends, despite their differences. Their intellectual differences led to profound debates over the issues which ultimately led to stronger court decisions.
Black, a product of a rather poor environment and former member of the KKK, arrived on the bench and proceeded to challenge most of the accepted judicial doctrines of the 20th century. He firmly believed that the due process clause of the 14th amendment, which had been used by previous conservative courts to impose their personally held economic beliefs on elected representatives, was intended to force the Bill of Rights on the states. Until his tenure on the bench it was widely accepted that the Bill of Rights was intended to apply to the federal government but not the states. Judge Cardozo had previously argued that the Bill of Rights applied only selectively to the states, i. e. only those rights which were fundamental could be enforced on a state level.
Black and Frankfurter, for a time became bitter foes during debates on these issues. Ultimately Black was the one who built majorities around his position while Frankfurter increasingly was forced into the minority position. During the early fifties, especially during the red-baiting days, both came together again in strong minority positions in favor of free speech. Both were virulent anti-communists, but unlike the McCarthyites, they refused to pander to the lowest common denominator, and tenaciously clung to the principles embraced by the Constitution. Both voted alone to stay the execution of the Rosenbergs (see my last issue for the Sharlitt review) and against the unseemly haste of Chief Justice Vinson to get them executed. (When Vinson died in 1953 Frankfurter is reported to have said this was the first evidence he had seen that there was a God.)
Despite the bitter wrangling, and despite the inevitable politicking, what is reassuring, and yet astonishing, is the depth of intellectual debate. Most of the justices have truly had the best interests of the country at heart and were deeply committed to their ideological positions. The Court was ultimately strengthened by the presence of Black and Frankfurter, who at the end became close friends, despite their differences. Their intellectual differences led to profound debates over the issues which ultimately led to stronger court decisions.
October 11, 2024
Well documented but very slow read. Went fairly indepth on the two Supreame court judgeswho got their start during the Roosevelt years. Each a very strong personality with opposing views, opinions and approaches.
Both egotists that they are always right. Sadly neither of them had particularly happy family lives. In bithe cases their wives suffered from severe depression.
Written more like a law text book.
Both egotists that they are always right. Sadly neither of them had particularly happy family lives. In bithe cases their wives suffered from severe depression.
Written more like a law text book.
March 4, 2023
Good, solid review of the relationship and of the work of the Court during this period.
August 29, 2013
A wonderful examination of the battles behind the opinions of the Supreme Court and the role of personality in shaping the law.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews