What do you think?
Rate this book


The only man to serve as president and chief justice, who approached every decision in constitutional terms, defending the Founders’ vision against new populist threats to American democracy
William Howard Taft never wanted to be president and yearned instead to serve as chief justice of the United States. But despite his ambivalence about politics, the former federal judge found success in the executive branch as governor of the Philippines and secretary of war, and he won a resounding victory in the presidential election of 1908 as Theodore Roosevelt’s handpicked successor.
In this provocative assessment, Jeffrey Rosen reveals Taft’s crucial role in shaping how America balances populism against the rule of law. Taft approached each decision as president by asking whether it comported with the Constitution, seeking to put Roosevelt’s activist executive orders on firm legal grounds. But unlike Roosevelt, who thought the president could do anything the Constitution didn’t forbid, Taft insisted he could do only what the Constitution explicitly allowed. This led to a dramatic breach with Roosevelt in the historic election of 1912, which Taft viewed as a crusade to defend the Constitution against the demagogic populism of Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.
Nine years later, Taft achieved his lifelong dream when President Warren Harding appointed him chief justice, and during his years on the Court he promoted consensus among the justices and transformed the judiciary into a modern, fully equal branch. Though he had chafed in the White House as a judicial president, he thrived as a presidential chief justice.
191 pages, Kindle Edition
First published May 1, 2012
These are anxious times, in America and around the world, in which constitutional limitations on executive power, and the independent judges necessary to enforce them, are under attack from popular politicians, amplified by social media technologies that channel and intensify divisive passions … The populist forces that Taft assailed as our most judicial president and presidential supreme justice once again threaten to undermine the Constitution in precisely the ways that Taft predicted. The fact that all three branches today are institutionally equipped, if they choose, to resist these populist threats and to defend the rule of law is an inspiring tribute to Taft’s constitutional legacy.
Taft distinguished between legal and illegal trusts in the same way he distinguished between legal and illegal union boycotts; by focusing on the question of malicious intent to interfere in what should be a free and fair market where labor and capital can compete on equal terms.He strengthened his ties to the national Republican establishment, including a strong friendship to TR, who recommended Taft to President William McKinley, to become Civil Governor of the Philippines, one of the spoils of the Spanish-American War. McKinley dangled the promise of a seat on the Supreme Court should one become open to convince Taft to leave his beloved judgeship.
The shorter the time the people have to think, the better for the demagogue. One of the great difficulties in carrying on popular government is in getting into the heads of the intelligent voters what the real facts are and what reasonable deductions should be made from them. Any reasonable suspension of popular action until calm public consideration of reliable evidence can be secured in the interest of a wise decision.Intelligent, facts, reasonable, evidence, wise decisions…so unlike contemporary politics and helps explain why Taft’s legacy matters now than ever.
“I love judges, and I love courts. They are my ideals, that typify on earth what we shall meet hereafter in heaven under a just God.”
Author Jeffrey Rosen is an experienced historian of the Supreme Court and its denizens – both past and present. In William Howard Taft a part of the American Presidents seriesfrom Times Books Rosen has crafted from the available sources (copiously referenced … thank you Professor Rosen) a remarkable short and readable biography of Taft’s career. Most importantly though is the skill with which Rosen explores Taft’s constitutional worldview and how that contributed to his, often underestimated, success. While there are other more detailed works on Taft this is an ideal book for someone who wants to understand his contributions in a quick and accessible work.
Two quotes from President and Chief Justice Taft that I have not read before but that I think are worth sharing.
When discussing the habits of his predecessor in the White House and Roosevelt’s reliance on executive orders to get his way Taft said:
“The best way of getting rid of a legal limitation that interferes with progress…is to change the law, and not rely upon the Executive himself to ignore the statutes and follow a law unto himself.”
Self-deprecating humor is often a way to put others at ease when faced with their own discomforts – Taft understood this and often used his size (although as Rosen and Doris Kearns Goodwin both point out Taft was never as large as the stories about him claimed) to disarm others. Upon being offered the Kent Professorship of Law at Yale Rosen tells his readers that Taft responded with:
“…that he was afraid that a Chair would not be adequate, but that if he [the President of Yale] would provide a Sofa of Law, it might be all right.”