What do you think?
Rate this book
Justice for All: Earl Warren and the Nation He Made
In Justice for All, Jim Newton, an award-winning journalist for the Los Angeles Times, brings readers the first truly comprehensive consideration of Earl Warren, the politician-turned- Chief Justice who refashioned the place of the Supreme Court in American life through cases whose names have entered the common parlance-Brown v. Board of Education, Griswold v. Connecticut, Miranda v. Arizona. Drawing on unmatched access to government, academic, and private documents pertaining to Warren's life and career, Newton illuminates both the public and the private Warren. The result is a monumental biography of a complicated and principled figure that will become a seminal work of twentieth-century American history.
624 pages, Hardcover
First published October 5, 2006
59 people are currently reading
1893 people want to read
About the author
Jim Newton
28 books45 followersJim Newton is editor at large of the Los Angeles Times and writes a weekly column for the Op-Ed page on the policy and politics of Southern California.
Newton came to the Los Angeles Times in 1989, having previously worked as a reporter for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and as a clerk at the New York Times, where he served as columnist James Reston's assistant from 1985-86. He is a graduate of Dartmouth College and the recipient of numerous local and national awards. He was part of the Los Angeles Times' coverage of the Los Angeles riots in 1992 and the earthquake of 1994, both of which were awarded Pulitzer Prizes to the staff.
Newton also is the author of two critically acclaimed, best-selling biographies, "Justice for All: Earl Warren and the Nation He Made," and "Eisenhower: The White House Years."
Newton came to the Los Angeles Times in 1989, having previously worked as a reporter for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and as a clerk at the New York Times, where he served as columnist James Reston's assistant from 1985-86. He is a graduate of Dartmouth College and the recipient of numerous local and national awards. He was part of the Los Angeles Times' coverage of the Los Angeles riots in 1992 and the earthquake of 1994, both of which were awarded Pulitzer Prizes to the staff.
Newton also is the author of two critically acclaimed, best-selling biographies, "Justice for All: Earl Warren and the Nation He Made," and "Eisenhower: The White House Years."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 65 reviews
June 16, 2024
I learned about Earl Warren at a very young age because there were crazy people who had bumper stickers that said Impeach Earl Warren. We didn't call them MAGA back in the 1960s. We just called them crazy. Crazy is nothing new.
Earl Warren had an illustrious career as police court judge (briefly), Alameda County district attorney, California state Attorney General, Governor of California (elected three times), and Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. However, his participation in the internment of Japanese Californians during WWII was shameful.
In his lifetime Warren refused to apologize for his participation in the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent, but in his memoir, which were published after his death, Warren wrote, "I have since deeply regretted the removal order and my own testimony advocating it,..." (See pages 139-140 of Justice For All: Earl Warren and the Nation He Made by Jim Newton.)
For the victims of the internment and their families, Earl Warren's apology was too little too late.
"From the very beginning, the relationship between Nixon and Warren was characterized by Nixon's resentment of Warren and Warren's contempt for Nixon." p. 199
"Nixon was no Earl Warren,..." p. 198
In 1946, Richard Nixon won a seat in Congress, and Warren was reelected for a second term as governor of California. Now that the war was over, Warren focused on housing and highways.
As a precursor to Brown v. Board of Education, in June of 1947 Governor Earl Warren "struck" two sections of California legal code after the Mendez court case ruled that "separate but equal" schools were not legal in California. This ended the segregation of Asian and Mexican children in California schools in 1954. (See page 205.)
In 1948, Earl Warren was the Republican candidate for Vice President, but Thomas Dewey and he were defeated by Harry Truman and Alben Barkley. "[Truman] was as feisty as Dewey and Warren were staid." (See pages 210-213.)
Chief Justice Frederick M. Vinson died on September 8, 1953. Dwight Eisenhower then appointed Earl Warren as Chief Justice. "In broad terms, the Court that Warren joined in 1953 can be considered as two groups: four extraordinary jurists who would leave their imprint on American history for generations and four lesser justices." (See page 263.)
"[Tom] Clark, [Sherman] Minton, [Harold] Burton, and [Stanley F.] Reed labored in the shadow of four others,..." (See page 265.)
"Rarely has the Court featured four such forceful and intelligent members as William O. Douglas, Hugo L. Black, Robert H. Jackson, and Felix Frankfurter,..." (See page 265.)
"Jackson and Frankfurter had become advocates of a restrained judiciary, while Black and Douglas argued a view that gave the Court a more robust role in American life." (See page 265.)
Earl Warren wrote the majority opinion for many of the Court's landmark decisions, including Brown v. Board of Education, which ended school segregation (1954), Reynolds v. Sims, which ruled electoral districts, must be roughly equal (1964), Miranda v. Arizona, which ruled that law enforcement officers must advise people of their rights (1966), and Loving v. Virginia, which allowed interracial marriage (1967). (See Wikipedia.)
Sadly, desegregation wasn't automatic after Brown v. Board of Education. Many states and localities refused to comply with the ruling, and President Eisenhower refused to enforce it.
This book is highly recommended for legal scholars, political scientists, and historians studying the history of either California or the United States.
Both the Roberts and Warren courts have shown that a majority can be built around four justices combined with the Chief Justice. Additionally, those two courts have shown that the quality of the majority opinions is a direct result of the quality of the justices making up the majority. Whereas the Warren Court made a positive contribution to law, the Roberts Court seems to be determined to negate the positive contributions of previous courts.
Earl Warren had an illustrious career as police court judge (briefly), Alameda County district attorney, California state Attorney General, Governor of California (elected three times), and Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. However, his participation in the internment of Japanese Californians during WWII was shameful.
In his lifetime Warren refused to apologize for his participation in the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent, but in his memoir, which were published after his death, Warren wrote, "I have since deeply regretted the removal order and my own testimony advocating it,..." (See pages 139-140 of Justice For All: Earl Warren and the Nation He Made by Jim Newton.)
For the victims of the internment and their families, Earl Warren's apology was too little too late.
"From the very beginning, the relationship between Nixon and Warren was characterized by Nixon's resentment of Warren and Warren's contempt for Nixon." p. 199
"Nixon was no Earl Warren,..." p. 198
In 1946, Richard Nixon won a seat in Congress, and Warren was reelected for a second term as governor of California. Now that the war was over, Warren focused on housing and highways.
As a precursor to Brown v. Board of Education, in June of 1947 Governor Earl Warren "struck" two sections of California legal code after the Mendez court case ruled that "separate but equal" schools were not legal in California. This ended the segregation of Asian and Mexican children in California schools in 1954. (See page 205.)
In 1948, Earl Warren was the Republican candidate for Vice President, but Thomas Dewey and he were defeated by Harry Truman and Alben Barkley. "[Truman] was as feisty as Dewey and Warren were staid." (See pages 210-213.)
Chief Justice Frederick M. Vinson died on September 8, 1953. Dwight Eisenhower then appointed Earl Warren as Chief Justice. "In broad terms, the Court that Warren joined in 1953 can be considered as two groups: four extraordinary jurists who would leave their imprint on American history for generations and four lesser justices." (See page 263.)
"[Tom] Clark, [Sherman] Minton, [Harold] Burton, and [Stanley F.] Reed labored in the shadow of four others,..." (See page 265.)
"Rarely has the Court featured four such forceful and intelligent members as William O. Douglas, Hugo L. Black, Robert H. Jackson, and Felix Frankfurter,..." (See page 265.)
"Jackson and Frankfurter had become advocates of a restrained judiciary, while Black and Douglas argued a view that gave the Court a more robust role in American life." (See page 265.)
Earl Warren wrote the majority opinion for many of the Court's landmark decisions, including Brown v. Board of Education, which ended school segregation (1954), Reynolds v. Sims, which ruled electoral districts, must be roughly equal (1964), Miranda v. Arizona, which ruled that law enforcement officers must advise people of their rights (1966), and Loving v. Virginia, which allowed interracial marriage (1967). (See Wikipedia.)
Sadly, desegregation wasn't automatic after Brown v. Board of Education. Many states and localities refused to comply with the ruling, and President Eisenhower refused to enforce it.
This book is highly recommended for legal scholars, political scientists, and historians studying the history of either California or the United States.
Both the Roberts and Warren courts have shown that a majority can be built around four justices combined with the Chief Justice. Additionally, those two courts have shown that the quality of the majority opinions is a direct result of the quality of the justices making up the majority. Whereas the Warren Court made a positive contribution to law, the Roberts Court seems to be determined to negate the positive contributions of previous courts.
April 23, 2008
Incredibly comprehensive and highly readable, this book provides the reader with a full, insightful biographical history of one of the greatest Chief Justices in the history of the United States Supreme Court. Following Warren's life from boyhood until his death, Justice for All makes clear how Warren's love of country and commitment to justice allowed his views of law and jurisprudence to evolve to the point of crafting or joining such monumental Supreme Court decisions as Brown v. Board of Education, Baker v. Carr, Reynolds v. Sims, and Griswold v. Connecticut.
Newton also does a nice job of dispelling the myth that Warren and his Court were a band of "judicial activists" who cared nothing for the rule of law or the text of the Constitution, an important point for all who are interested in the workings of the Supreme Court and the governance of our nation.
Highly recommended, both for Supreme Court junkies and any American interested in how the Court can protect liberty, justice, and equality when led by a Chief Justice who truly shares those founding values of our country.
Newton also does a nice job of dispelling the myth that Warren and his Court were a band of "judicial activists" who cared nothing for the rule of law or the text of the Constitution, an important point for all who are interested in the workings of the Supreme Court and the governance of our nation.
Highly recommended, both for Supreme Court junkies and any American interested in how the Court can protect liberty, justice, and equality when led by a Chief Justice who truly shares those founding values of our country.
May 11, 2012
This book took me long enough to read, but it confirmed what I already suspected -- I really love Earl Warren. I love him. Think of everything he did for American citizens: you get a lawyer if you're accused of a crime, you get informed of your rights when you're arrested, you can go to a racially diverse school, you have a right to privacy, you don't leave your rights at the "schoolhouse door," poor citizens can vote, black citizens can vote, urban residents can vote, the Civil Rights Act is for real, . . .
March 27, 2014
Earl Warren has always been my favorite California governor I remember being sad when he resigned to become the Chief Justice. Jim Newton, a reporter and editor for the Los Angeles Times wrote an excellent biography of Earl Warren. Newton argues that Warren was among the greatest Chiefs in the history of the Court because there was little divergence between his politics and his jurisprudence. As Republican governor of California from 1942 to 1953 he was a centrist progressive who devoted himself to building consensus among ideological opponents; on the court he did much the same thing. “Justice for All” argues convincingly that the most effective chiefs are more concerned about unanimity and consensus than about ideological purity. The author did extensive research and draws on extensive new interviews and material already in public archives to portray a man with admirable personal life, honorable instincts and superior political skills. But he was not with flaws. The author does not excuse his acquiescence in the 1942 decision to “intern” California Japanese-Americans. Similarly Newton cities both good and bad decisions Warren made in leading the commission that investigated the 1963 assassination of President Kennedy. As Governor he ended California school segregation and discrimination against Mexican, Chinese, Japanese and Mongolian parentage school children, opposed loyalty oath at the University of California, and championed universal health insurance for Californians. As Chief Justice, Warren’s greatest success was in Brown v Board of Education 1954. Warren worked to seek out his colleagues for advice rather than heavy handedly to impose his will and in the process persuading them to join a unanimous opinion striking down school segregation. Warren wrote some of the most famous passages in Brown in his own hand. But for much of his tenure, he delegated most of the writing to his clerks, giving them guidance. Warren also drafted the opinion in the case requiring police to read suspects their “Miranda rights.” Because Eisenhower didn’t conceal his distaste for the Brown decision in 1954, desegregation did not occur until President’s Kennedy and Johnson were in office. Warren understood that the Court is powerless in the face of strong political opposition. Newton’s comprehensive, balanced biography cast’s fresh insight on Warren’s legacy. The book provides a history of early 20th century California as well as the history of Warren’s court. The author provides a look into the personal life of Warren and his family as well as his career which to me makes the man seems more real. If you are interested in history this book is an excellent choice. I read this book as an e-book via my Kindle app on my Ipad.
January 31, 2013
Jim Newton has written an exceptionally readable, fascinating and fair biography of a man who had a significant impact on American life. The narrative is exceptionally strong, taking us from childhood to the end, and never losing the reader's interest for a second. Newton does an exceptional job in terms of balance; he validates Warren's greatest decisions and calls him to task for his mistakes and limitations (such as Warren's support for the Japanese internment and his sexual prudishness). There are several interesting subplots that play out over the years, none more interesting than Warren's ongoing struggle with the phenomenon of Richard Nixon. The discussions of the Supreme Court decisions are fascinating, with just enough attention to the legal details to inform the reader without getting bogged down in legalese. Like Warren, Newton emphasizes the human impact of these decisions and how they have played out in the lives of Americans. Given the strength of his study of Eisenhower's presidency, I will definitely pre-order whatever book Jim Newton decides to write next. He is an author of the highest caliber.
April 5, 2021
3.5 stars.
Good job of research and the writing was solid. But the author is neither a historian nor a biographer and so I did not feel so connected to the character of Earl Warren. There was a noticeable absence of quotes about Warren from others.
Good job of research and the writing was solid. But the author is neither a historian nor a biographer and so I did not feel so connected to the character of Earl Warren. There was a noticeable absence of quotes about Warren from others.
January 29, 2008
A very fine book that covers not only the enormous impact Earl Warren had on American society as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but also the many achievements to his credit before he was even elevated to that office. He was a successful, if perhaps overzealous, attorney general in California. He was an excellent bipartisan governor for three terms, and instituted many of the fair-minded reforms that established the California we know today. He was also very nearly the 1952 Republican nominee for President, a nomination he failed to secure only as a result of the machinations of Richard Nixon.
The book, to its credit, does not shy away from the more problematic aspects of Warren's personal history. Early in his career, he frequently prosecuted union leaders and leftists. And most famously, he was a fervent supporter of Japanese Internment during World War II. The book tries to explain that Warren's early right-wing tendencies were consistent with his later liberalism - but it's a tough sell. The book is more convincing with its alternate explanation that Warren simply had no set ideology until much later in his life.
Throughout the book, Earl Warren comes off as a fundamentally decent human being. Even at his worst, say his support for Japanese Internment, there was no malice in his heart, but only a misguided desire to do what he believed was best for society at large. This desire served him well on the Supreme Court, I would argue, where he worked to convince his fellow Justices to expand civil liberties and ensure the fairness of our criminal justice system. Warren was a deeply admirable person whose influence rightfully still echoes today.
The book, to its credit, does not shy away from the more problematic aspects of Warren's personal history. Early in his career, he frequently prosecuted union leaders and leftists. And most famously, he was a fervent supporter of Japanese Internment during World War II. The book tries to explain that Warren's early right-wing tendencies were consistent with his later liberalism - but it's a tough sell. The book is more convincing with its alternate explanation that Warren simply had no set ideology until much later in his life.
Throughout the book, Earl Warren comes off as a fundamentally decent human being. Even at his worst, say his support for Japanese Internment, there was no malice in his heart, but only a misguided desire to do what he believed was best for society at large. This desire served him well on the Supreme Court, I would argue, where he worked to convince his fellow Justices to expand civil liberties and ensure the fairness of our criminal justice system. Warren was a deeply admirable person whose influence rightfully still echoes today.
December 31, 2015
I read this book from a general interest in the history of the US Supreme Court. My background is thin, having taken a college course in Constitutional history many years ago. So the arrangement of the book suited me. This book is divided into three parts, encompassing his family background in California, entrance into politics as Progressive Republican, and his service as Chief Justice under the Supreme Court.
High points for me:
The discussion of the political climate and history of California
The history of his Leadership of the Warren Court on the JFK assasination.
Discussion of his political friends and enemies throughout his life.
Thorough coverage of the Brown v BOE Case.
High points for me:
The discussion of the political climate and history of California
The history of his Leadership of the Warren Court on the JFK assasination.
Discussion of his political friends and enemies throughout his life.
Thorough coverage of the Brown v BOE Case.
March 21, 2021
I enjoyed this book because Jim Newton told the life story of Earl Warren like an epic. From his humble beginnings in Bakersfield to making a profound impact on American society through his prosecutorial work, governorship, and most importantly— his jurisprudence on the US Supreme Court, Newton told a thoroughly researched story that made me feel that Earl Warren was a decent, common man with great purpose. Despite Warren’s achievements, it is clear that he was not superhuman. Newton brings this to focus and I found it incredibly inspiring as a young professional wanting to make a great impact. One does not need to be cream of the crop, inherently genius, or born into wealth and privilege in order to soar to great heights. What is perhaps most inspiring thing that I learned about Earl Warren is that he was a compassionate person who allowed himself to break free from political institutionalism at the guidance of only his moral compass, yet that didn’t crush his career as one might expect.
I read this book in the wake of George Floyd and the COVID-19 pandemic, wishing that today’s leaders would thoughtfully reflect on the wild success of a moderate, pragmatic leader who defied party politics in the name of progress and true justice.
I read this book in the wake of George Floyd and the COVID-19 pandemic, wishing that today’s leaders would thoughtfully reflect on the wild success of a moderate, pragmatic leader who defied party politics in the name of progress and true justice.
June 10, 2025
A magnificent biography of the life and times of Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1953-1969. The Court Earl Warren led issued so many iconic decisions that still impact Americans to this day. Integrated schools, civil rights, voting rights, right to privacy, freedom of the press, and the Miranda rights which every fan of detective shows hear over and over. Highly recommended.
November 23, 2016
One of the best biographies I've read, and a great insight into what shaped one of the greatest Justices ever. He grew up in a working class family, and rose to become Chief Justice of the United States, overseeing the court in landmark decisions like Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), Reynolds v. Sims (1964), Miranda v. Arizona (1966), and Loving v. Virginia (1967).
So what made the man so famously progressive? Even after this in-depth look into his entire life, it’s hard to tell. When he was young, his family had to move when his father lost his job with the powerful Southern Pacific Railroad, which blacklisted him for joining a strike over labor disputes. But later as an attorney, he often prosecuted unionists. His family were immigrants, but as DA and governor, he promoted policies which targeted minorities. This book did a decent job of covering the messier parts of his life, but kind of glossed over it – after all, the title of the book is Justice for All and the focus of it, and Warren’s life, is really his time as Chief Justice, where his agenda seemed focused on social justice and freedom.
He always did well in school, and flew through college and law school at UC Berkeley with good marks, and went on to become the deputy city attorney in Oakland, CA, after a brief stint in the Army during WWI. He was then appointed DA to Alameda County (county of Oakland, San Francisco, Berkeley), where he earned a tough-on-crime reputation and never had a case overturned by a court of appeals. He served three terms in that position, developing a reputation as the best DA in the state, known for attacking corruptions in the government and lowering the crime rate, and was elected to the State DA position.
As California DA, he oversaw some pretty awful things that would shock most people who admire the liberal decisions the Warren Court published, and know little of his prior work. He was a member of an anti-Asian society, and supported land confiscations from Japanese citizens and was a major driving force behind the Japanese internment camps during WWII. He also supported eugenic sterilization for the “betterment of society,” which was the state-approved policy for forced sterilization on “undesirables” – criminals, drug addicts, poor people on Welfare, and people of color. Ironically – or maybe with the wisdom that comes with time and hindsight that inflicted great personal guilt – the Warren Court would later rule many of these tactics unconstitutional.
(As an aside, the California eugenics policy stood on the twin pillars of greed and racism. The “reasoning” behind it was dregs on society would only give birth to further dregs on society, draining monetary and land resources that could be put to better use. The California eugenics program was so “successful” that in the 30’s, the Nazis came seeking information and education with the goal of replicating the program in Germany, leading directly to the Holocaust death camps.)
His popularity as DA launched him into politics, and he became the only California governor to be elected to three consecutive terms. As Governor, he implemented public welfare programs which provided jobs for veterans returning form WWII, expanded the university system, and built up state infrastructure. He had a strong focus on improving the education system, and granted better access to public schools for Mexican children in the state. His success as Governor began to have influence on a national level, and he ran for VP of the US with Thomas Dewey, losing to incumbent President Truman.
After losing as VP, he was considered a favorite for a nomination as a Presidential candidate in the next race, until the Nixon machine gained traction. Despite Nixon’s promises to support Warren, he threw his support to Eisenhower and even ran with him. Warren maintained a grudge against Nixon for the rest of his life, famously calling him a “crook and a thief.” It is funny, then that it was Eisenhower who offered Warren the position as chief justice, which Nixon supported, most likely as a way to get him off the political stage, and that Warren was the one to swear in Nixon when he became President. It’s even funnier how the two men are forever memorialized in the annals of history. Warren, despite a past including extreme racism and involvement in the eugenics program that spread to Nazi Germany, is remembered as a champion of the people, fighting for social justice and fundamental rights. On the other hand, Nixon is remembered as “Tricky Dick,” the only President to resign the position, after his own paranoia led to the Watergate scandal and the promise of certain impeachment – despite a history of bridging partisan gaps, endorsing the Civil Rights Amendment, and bringing the POWs home from Vietnam.
Anyway, Warren. He became Chief Justice of the United States in a 1953 recess appointment, and it was made official by the Senate in 1954. During his tenure, the Supreme Court took the liberal view that the Constitution was a living document and the terms should be construed in consideration of the times in which the issue at hand had occurred. Unlike most of the prior Courts, which focused on land and property as the country was expanding, the Warren Court focused on personal liberties, expanding Constitutional rights, especially free speech under the 1st Amendment and equal rights and due process under the 14th Amendment. (My favorite amendments, btw.)
(Also, IMHO, the Warren Court took a very Hamiltonian approach to Constitutional Law. There is still a lot of legal in-fighting about whether the Constitution should be interpreted literally – the “strict constructionists” – or whether it is a dynamic, living document that should be interpreted liberally – the “loose constructionists.” The strict constructionists always seem to argue that the Constitution should be interpreted “as the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote it.” This is a meaningless argument, because the men who wrote the Constitution couldn’t even agree, and the strict vs. loose argument began with them. Hamilton often used a loose interpretation to expand government rights for the public good, and Madison, later known as the “Father of the Constitution,” literally expanded the document by adding the Bill of Rights. Both saw a strong federal government as a unifier of the states, and together penned the Federalist Papers. Jefferson, on the other hand, saw the Constitution as almost an extension of his Declaration of Independence, which would allow the states to exist free from foreign rule, but also not impose domestic rule over independent farmers, whom he saw as the centerpiece of the new nation, not Hamilton’s and Madison’s industrial economy. I feel, in a lot of ways, things really haven’t changed since then.)
Anyway, the Warren Court used a loose constructionist interpretation of the Constitution to extend equal rights, separate church and state, revamp criminal justice, and equalize voting rights. In the Brown case, which de-segregated public schools, the court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson. They held that Separate but Equal has no place in public education, because there, separate is inherently unequal. In the Loving case, the Court heard arguments regarding an interracial marriage. The Court overturned laws making it a criminal act to marry someone of another race. In the Reynolds case, the court declared, “one person, one vote,” reapportioning votes to the people rather than the former “balancing” between rural and urban areas. Warren wrote, "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests.”
Several cases made lasting changes to the criminal justice system. In Gideon, the Court held that a criminal defendant’s right to counsel under the 6th amendment was a fundamental right under the 14th. In Mapp v. Ohio, the Court held that illegally seized evidence could not be used in court, and in Miranda, that an arresting officer was required to make known the rights available to a person under arrest, including the right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer. These “criminal rights” are all known today as basic rights, predicated on the value that a person is innocent until proven guilty, but at the time they were seen by opposing parties as radical decisions which severely limited the effectiveness of the police force.
The Warren Court also shaped the way the First Amendment was interpreted, making some decisions that are still controversial today, like Brandenburg v. Ohio. That case resulted in finding it Constitutional for the KKK to hold rallies in public spaces, and invalidated Ohio’s criminal syndicalism laws. This seems ridiculous at first, but really, the holding firmly protected the rights of assembly and speech. However, it also placed a new category of limitations on the first amendment – incitement to “imminent lawless action.” They protected children’s right to free speech and held that symbolism (wearing arm bands to protest the Vietnam War) could be considered speech in Tinker v. Des Moines, stating that students do not lose their constitutional rights when they walk into school, but then limited symbolism as acceptable free speech in US v. O’Brien when men burned their draft cards.
The Warren Court also established guidelines to the already existing limitations on free speech (“fighting words” and offensive speech, obscenity, libel, child pornography, commercial speech/false advertising, speech representing the government). They amended libel laws, finding in Garrison v. Louisiana (1964) that free speech concerning public affairs is essential to self-government, and in Times v. Sullivan, that a state must apply a balancing test between the state’s legitimate interest in enacting a law and the First Amendment’s right to free speech, where the balance was weighed in favor of free speech. This decision allows people to protest peacefully and publicly oppose their government (again, peacefully), and it allows the media to report on it, as long as the protesters aren’t committing other crimes (or inciting others to “imminent lawless action”), or the people and papers aren’t printing intentionally false and damaging accusations with malice.
Another big thing the Warren Court did was extend the Bill of Rights to the States. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), a case that granted the right to birth control for married couples and led the way for other landmark cases like Roe v. Wade (1973), Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), did so much more. The holding of the Griswold case granted the basic right of privacy to citizens of the United States, because even though it wasn’t explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights, it was in the “penumbras” of other protected rights, and it was necessary to protect citizens from government intrusion.
Anyway, if anyone is still reading this, wow. I’m sure you wanted a review of the book and not an excerpt from my Con Law outline, but Warren led a fascinating life and was part of one of the most radical and effective supreme courts in history. Toward the end of his tenure, he even led the government commission to investigate the assassination of JFK. So, read the book, enjoy a well-written, well-told account of his life if you want to know more.
So what made the man so famously progressive? Even after this in-depth look into his entire life, it’s hard to tell. When he was young, his family had to move when his father lost his job with the powerful Southern Pacific Railroad, which blacklisted him for joining a strike over labor disputes. But later as an attorney, he often prosecuted unionists. His family were immigrants, but as DA and governor, he promoted policies which targeted minorities. This book did a decent job of covering the messier parts of his life, but kind of glossed over it – after all, the title of the book is Justice for All and the focus of it, and Warren’s life, is really his time as Chief Justice, where his agenda seemed focused on social justice and freedom.
He always did well in school, and flew through college and law school at UC Berkeley with good marks, and went on to become the deputy city attorney in Oakland, CA, after a brief stint in the Army during WWI. He was then appointed DA to Alameda County (county of Oakland, San Francisco, Berkeley), where he earned a tough-on-crime reputation and never had a case overturned by a court of appeals. He served three terms in that position, developing a reputation as the best DA in the state, known for attacking corruptions in the government and lowering the crime rate, and was elected to the State DA position.
As California DA, he oversaw some pretty awful things that would shock most people who admire the liberal decisions the Warren Court published, and know little of his prior work. He was a member of an anti-Asian society, and supported land confiscations from Japanese citizens and was a major driving force behind the Japanese internment camps during WWII. He also supported eugenic sterilization for the “betterment of society,” which was the state-approved policy for forced sterilization on “undesirables” – criminals, drug addicts, poor people on Welfare, and people of color. Ironically – or maybe with the wisdom that comes with time and hindsight that inflicted great personal guilt – the Warren Court would later rule many of these tactics unconstitutional.
(As an aside, the California eugenics policy stood on the twin pillars of greed and racism. The “reasoning” behind it was dregs on society would only give birth to further dregs on society, draining monetary and land resources that could be put to better use. The California eugenics program was so “successful” that in the 30’s, the Nazis came seeking information and education with the goal of replicating the program in Germany, leading directly to the Holocaust death camps.)
His popularity as DA launched him into politics, and he became the only California governor to be elected to three consecutive terms. As Governor, he implemented public welfare programs which provided jobs for veterans returning form WWII, expanded the university system, and built up state infrastructure. He had a strong focus on improving the education system, and granted better access to public schools for Mexican children in the state. His success as Governor began to have influence on a national level, and he ran for VP of the US with Thomas Dewey, losing to incumbent President Truman.
After losing as VP, he was considered a favorite for a nomination as a Presidential candidate in the next race, until the Nixon machine gained traction. Despite Nixon’s promises to support Warren, he threw his support to Eisenhower and even ran with him. Warren maintained a grudge against Nixon for the rest of his life, famously calling him a “crook and a thief.” It is funny, then that it was Eisenhower who offered Warren the position as chief justice, which Nixon supported, most likely as a way to get him off the political stage, and that Warren was the one to swear in Nixon when he became President. It’s even funnier how the two men are forever memorialized in the annals of history. Warren, despite a past including extreme racism and involvement in the eugenics program that spread to Nazi Germany, is remembered as a champion of the people, fighting for social justice and fundamental rights. On the other hand, Nixon is remembered as “Tricky Dick,” the only President to resign the position, after his own paranoia led to the Watergate scandal and the promise of certain impeachment – despite a history of bridging partisan gaps, endorsing the Civil Rights Amendment, and bringing the POWs home from Vietnam.
Anyway, Warren. He became Chief Justice of the United States in a 1953 recess appointment, and it was made official by the Senate in 1954. During his tenure, the Supreme Court took the liberal view that the Constitution was a living document and the terms should be construed in consideration of the times in which the issue at hand had occurred. Unlike most of the prior Courts, which focused on land and property as the country was expanding, the Warren Court focused on personal liberties, expanding Constitutional rights, especially free speech under the 1st Amendment and equal rights and due process under the 14th Amendment. (My favorite amendments, btw.)
(Also, IMHO, the Warren Court took a very Hamiltonian approach to Constitutional Law. There is still a lot of legal in-fighting about whether the Constitution should be interpreted literally – the “strict constructionists” – or whether it is a dynamic, living document that should be interpreted liberally – the “loose constructionists.” The strict constructionists always seem to argue that the Constitution should be interpreted “as the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote it.” This is a meaningless argument, because the men who wrote the Constitution couldn’t even agree, and the strict vs. loose argument began with them. Hamilton often used a loose interpretation to expand government rights for the public good, and Madison, later known as the “Father of the Constitution,” literally expanded the document by adding the Bill of Rights. Both saw a strong federal government as a unifier of the states, and together penned the Federalist Papers. Jefferson, on the other hand, saw the Constitution as almost an extension of his Declaration of Independence, which would allow the states to exist free from foreign rule, but also not impose domestic rule over independent farmers, whom he saw as the centerpiece of the new nation, not Hamilton’s and Madison’s industrial economy. I feel, in a lot of ways, things really haven’t changed since then.)
Anyway, the Warren Court used a loose constructionist interpretation of the Constitution to extend equal rights, separate church and state, revamp criminal justice, and equalize voting rights. In the Brown case, which de-segregated public schools, the court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson. They held that Separate but Equal has no place in public education, because there, separate is inherently unequal. In the Loving case, the Court heard arguments regarding an interracial marriage. The Court overturned laws making it a criminal act to marry someone of another race. In the Reynolds case, the court declared, “one person, one vote,” reapportioning votes to the people rather than the former “balancing” between rural and urban areas. Warren wrote, "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests.”
Several cases made lasting changes to the criminal justice system. In Gideon, the Court held that a criminal defendant’s right to counsel under the 6th amendment was a fundamental right under the 14th. In Mapp v. Ohio, the Court held that illegally seized evidence could not be used in court, and in Miranda, that an arresting officer was required to make known the rights available to a person under arrest, including the right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer. These “criminal rights” are all known today as basic rights, predicated on the value that a person is innocent until proven guilty, but at the time they were seen by opposing parties as radical decisions which severely limited the effectiveness of the police force.
The Warren Court also shaped the way the First Amendment was interpreted, making some decisions that are still controversial today, like Brandenburg v. Ohio. That case resulted in finding it Constitutional for the KKK to hold rallies in public spaces, and invalidated Ohio’s criminal syndicalism laws. This seems ridiculous at first, but really, the holding firmly protected the rights of assembly and speech. However, it also placed a new category of limitations on the first amendment – incitement to “imminent lawless action.” They protected children’s right to free speech and held that symbolism (wearing arm bands to protest the Vietnam War) could be considered speech in Tinker v. Des Moines, stating that students do not lose their constitutional rights when they walk into school, but then limited symbolism as acceptable free speech in US v. O’Brien when men burned their draft cards.
The Warren Court also established guidelines to the already existing limitations on free speech (“fighting words” and offensive speech, obscenity, libel, child pornography, commercial speech/false advertising, speech representing the government). They amended libel laws, finding in Garrison v. Louisiana (1964) that free speech concerning public affairs is essential to self-government, and in Times v. Sullivan, that a state must apply a balancing test between the state’s legitimate interest in enacting a law and the First Amendment’s right to free speech, where the balance was weighed in favor of free speech. This decision allows people to protest peacefully and publicly oppose their government (again, peacefully), and it allows the media to report on it, as long as the protesters aren’t committing other crimes (or inciting others to “imminent lawless action”), or the people and papers aren’t printing intentionally false and damaging accusations with malice.
Another big thing the Warren Court did was extend the Bill of Rights to the States. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), a case that granted the right to birth control for married couples and led the way for other landmark cases like Roe v. Wade (1973), Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), did so much more. The holding of the Griswold case granted the basic right of privacy to citizens of the United States, because even though it wasn’t explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights, it was in the “penumbras” of other protected rights, and it was necessary to protect citizens from government intrusion.
Anyway, if anyone is still reading this, wow. I’m sure you wanted a review of the book and not an excerpt from my Con Law outline, but Warren led a fascinating life and was part of one of the most radical and effective supreme courts in history. Toward the end of his tenure, he even led the government commission to investigate the assassination of JFK. So, read the book, enjoy a well-written, well-told account of his life if you want to know more.
July 9, 2022
There have been a few books that have connected with me on a level that this biography has…and with recent events from the SCOTUS, timing may be part of it.
Earl Warren was human and boy did he err at times as a prosecutor, AG, governor, and Chief Justice…but his drive, focus, and determination to see the promises laid out by the Declaration of Independence fulfilled for all through his tenure on the court is worthy of far more praise than he receives today. While he did not change America overnight, his court’s decisions in key cases have provided the basis upon which the words of Langston Hughes yearn for:
“Let America be America again—
The land that never has been yet—
And yet must be—the land where every man is free.”
While he was a Republican, he was an American first and a public servant second. He like to have opposing viewpoints around him and worked in a bipartisan way that may not be possible anymore given how our political climate has changed. Was this in part his way of getting elected? Absolutely! Did he serve with the people’s best interests in mind? Based on what I read, it’s hard to argue he didn’t! I wish we had more politicians/public servants like Earl Warren in America today. To be fair, the thought of running for office has crossed my mind more than once as I see a surprising amount of his views, ideals, and principles in myself…and I feel like the nation would be better off with a younger generation of politicians/public servants carrying his ideals and principles into government.
Some might say that judicial activism is bad, but without it, segregation would likely still exist, voting rights would be non-existent, you would not have an attorney provided to you if you wanted one (in ALL cases), no Miranda rights, no right to privacy (which the current SCOTUS is probably going to do something about), or…a nation that fails to recognize it is reneging on its founding promises: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness; All men (and women) are created equal; and that we have certain, inalienable rights. The American Experiment has been running for 221 years and some of our tests have been shameful, despicable, and unfair; the tests submitted to Warren and his court have been shining examples (amongst a bevy of others) of what America is, can be, and will be. To take from John Winthrop, America is a city upon a hill, and the eyes of the world are on us. Warren and his court provided a bright beacon for all to see, not just at home but around the world.
Earl Warren was human and boy did he err at times as a prosecutor, AG, governor, and Chief Justice…but his drive, focus, and determination to see the promises laid out by the Declaration of Independence fulfilled for all through his tenure on the court is worthy of far more praise than he receives today. While he did not change America overnight, his court’s decisions in key cases have provided the basis upon which the words of Langston Hughes yearn for:
“Let America be America again—
The land that never has been yet—
And yet must be—the land where every man is free.”
While he was a Republican, he was an American first and a public servant second. He like to have opposing viewpoints around him and worked in a bipartisan way that may not be possible anymore given how our political climate has changed. Was this in part his way of getting elected? Absolutely! Did he serve with the people’s best interests in mind? Based on what I read, it’s hard to argue he didn’t! I wish we had more politicians/public servants like Earl Warren in America today. To be fair, the thought of running for office has crossed my mind more than once as I see a surprising amount of his views, ideals, and principles in myself…and I feel like the nation would be better off with a younger generation of politicians/public servants carrying his ideals and principles into government.
Some might say that judicial activism is bad, but without it, segregation would likely still exist, voting rights would be non-existent, you would not have an attorney provided to you if you wanted one (in ALL cases), no Miranda rights, no right to privacy (which the current SCOTUS is probably going to do something about), or…a nation that fails to recognize it is reneging on its founding promises: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness; All men (and women) are created equal; and that we have certain, inalienable rights. The American Experiment has been running for 221 years and some of our tests have been shameful, despicable, and unfair; the tests submitted to Warren and his court have been shining examples (amongst a bevy of others) of what America is, can be, and will be. To take from John Winthrop, America is a city upon a hill, and the eyes of the world are on us. Warren and his court provided a bright beacon for all to see, not just at home but around the world.
June 16, 2017
I learned a great deal not only about Warren himself but about the Supreme Court and the history of California. Newton gives a thorough background of Warren before he was on the court and shows how his political principles developed over time and how his biography shaped his jurisprudence. While Newton is sometimes critical of his subject, especially regarding Warren's important role in the removal of Japanese Americans from their homes during World War II, he convincingly portrays Warren as a very decent man with an abiding concern for justice and good government. Over time, a growing concern for the government's responsibility to bring about a fairer society brought him more to the center politically and to leading the Supreme Court in requiring states to treat their citizens by the justices' understanding of the rights that all Americans ought to enjoy.
Newton's summary of the comments of one of Warren's clerks gives a good glimpse of the picture that Newton paints. The clerk said "that the Supreme Court could not function with nine Earl Warrens. It would be too conscious of delivering individual justice and perhaps too heedless of the need to construct an architecture of law. But nor, Gaither added, can the Court survive without one Warren. Someone needs to look after the law, as Warren did, to see not only that it is faithful to its principles but also that it is effective in action, that it serves society and does not merely bind it, that is delivers not just abstract justice but actual fairness" (519).
That's not the style of constitutional law that I prefer. But this book helped me to understand the case for it much better. While I thought that Newton sometimes slipped into hyperbole about Warren's accomplishments and I thought his uncritical admiration for JFK was unwarranted, those were only tiny flaws in a truly informative and insightful work.
Newton's summary of the comments of one of Warren's clerks gives a good glimpse of the picture that Newton paints. The clerk said "that the Supreme Court could not function with nine Earl Warrens. It would be too conscious of delivering individual justice and perhaps too heedless of the need to construct an architecture of law. But nor, Gaither added, can the Court survive without one Warren. Someone needs to look after the law, as Warren did, to see not only that it is faithful to its principles but also that it is effective in action, that it serves society and does not merely bind it, that is delivers not just abstract justice but actual fairness" (519).
That's not the style of constitutional law that I prefer. But this book helped me to understand the case for it much better. While I thought that Newton sometimes slipped into hyperbole about Warren's accomplishments and I thought his uncritical admiration for JFK was unwarranted, those were only tiny flaws in a truly informative and insightful work.
Want to read
April 15, 2023The national Republican Party yearned for Warren to be on the ticket in 1944; he demurred, and delivered an unremarkable keynote address at the GOP convention. New York governor Tom Dewey selected Ohio senator John Bricker as his running mate, and the ticket lost overwhelmingly to Franklin Roosevelt. (Associated Press)
Warren was a devoted baseball fan, who after 1952, rarely missed a World Series. Here, in 1940 or 1941, he throws out the first pitch of the season in Sacramento. He was naturally left-handed, but his elementary school teachers forced him to favor his right; for the rest of his life, he wrote right-handed but played sports left-handed. (University of California, Berkeley)
Earl Warren held elected offices in California from 1926 to 1953, winning seven straight elections. He enjoyed campaigning and engaged in it with diligence and attention to detail. Asked how he could recall people with precision, Warren replied that he avoided distractions; "I never look at their neckties." (University of California, Berkeley)
Earl Warren and Nina Palmquist met at a pool party in 1921 and were married four years latter. Theirs was an enduring, happy, traditional marriage of two practical people who loved and appreciated each other deeply. (University of California, Berkeley)
Although Warren held important public positions without interruption from 1919 to 1969, he tried to reserve time for his family, usually in the evenings. This picture, taken around 1937 in the breakfast room at 88 Vernon Street in Oakland, shows all the Warren children except for the eldest, Jim, was away at school.
Warren was a devoted baseball fan, who after 1952, rarely missed a World Series. Here, in 1940 or 1941, he throws out the first pitch of the season in Sacramento. He was naturally left-handed, but his elementary school teachers forced him to favor his right; for the rest of his life, he wrote right-handed but played sports left-handed. (University of California, Berkeley)
Earl Warren held elected offices in California from 1926 to 1953, winning seven straight elections. He enjoyed campaigning and engaged in it with diligence and attention to detail. Asked how he could recall people with precision, Warren replied that he avoided distractions; "I never look at their neckties." (University of California, Berkeley)
Earl Warren and Nina Palmquist met at a pool party in 1921 and were married four years latter. Theirs was an enduring, happy, traditional marriage of two practical people who loved and appreciated each other deeply. (University of California, Berkeley)
Although Warren held important public positions without interruption from 1919 to 1969, he tried to reserve time for his family, usually in the evenings. This picture, taken around 1937 in the breakfast room at 88 Vernon Street in Oakland, shows all the Warren children except for the eldest, Jim, was away at school.
July 18, 2018
Earl Warren was one of the most important figures in 20th century America. He is not as well known as many 20th century Presidents, but as Supreme Court Chief Justice he inaugurated four of them and oversaw many of the key cases that gave us many of the rights we take for granted today. Certainly, "gave us" isn't the correct verbiage. The Constitution gave us those rights, or dictated that government couldn't usurp them, but before the Warren court many of these rights were either unrecognized or trampled nonetheless.
This book is a whole-life biography of Warren. It is broken into three parts. The first part, which is about a quarter of the book, covers his youth and his time as District Attorney in Oakland and Attorney General of California. The second part, the next quarter of the book, covers his time as Governor of California. The third part, the last half of the book, covers his tenure as Chief Justice, along with a short chapter of his retirement.
The author, I think, does a good job of analyzing Warren's positions, many of which changed quite a bit over time. As Governor, he supported the internment of Japanese Americans in the cause of security in spite of the fact that no acts of sabotage had ever been blamed on Japanese or Japanese Americans. This contrasts with his battle against racism over his entire tenure on the Supreme Court. As a prosecutor, he took advantage of practices he declared unconstitutional as Chief Justice.
Includes photos, notes, index, and an extensive bibliography.
This book is a whole-life biography of Warren. It is broken into three parts. The first part, which is about a quarter of the book, covers his youth and his time as District Attorney in Oakland and Attorney General of California. The second part, the next quarter of the book, covers his time as Governor of California. The third part, the last half of the book, covers his tenure as Chief Justice, along with a short chapter of his retirement.
The author, I think, does a good job of analyzing Warren's positions, many of which changed quite a bit over time. As Governor, he supported the internment of Japanese Americans in the cause of security in spite of the fact that no acts of sabotage had ever been blamed on Japanese or Japanese Americans. This contrasts with his battle against racism over his entire tenure on the Supreme Court. As a prosecutor, he took advantage of practices he declared unconstitutional as Chief Justice.
Includes photos, notes, index, and an extensive bibliography.
February 5, 2017
If you grew up in California, you already know the life of Earl Warren is intimately linked to the history of this state. From his days as DA in Alameda County to his tenure as Attorney General, during which he strongly advocated and supervised the imprisonment of Japanese citizens and immigrants, to his time as governor to his dramatic years on the Supreme Court, he was one of the most influential men of his time. I read this book in conjunction with my course on the Warren Court taught by retired judge, Bill O'Connor. This book was not on the reading list and it is well worth reading on many levels: for the information about how some of the most momentous decisions of our time were decided, for the background information on Richard Nixon, to the workings of the Warren Commission, it is a fascinating read.
July 22, 2018
This is an excellent and readable biography of Chief Justice Earl Warren. My only complaint is the author's interpretations of Pres. Eisenhower's political positions, but this is only a small part of an otherwise excellent biography.
The author presents Warren as a man who was liberal in many ways, and conservative in others. As such, neither liberals or conservatives today claim him. I think the author is correct in this assessment Warren's politics and legal reasoning.
I highly recommend this book for those interested in Earl Warren's life, or those who have an interest in the legal cases in which he was involved.
The author presents Warren as a man who was liberal in many ways, and conservative in others. As such, neither liberals or conservatives today claim him. I think the author is correct in this assessment Warren's politics and legal reasoning.
I highly recommend this book for those interested in Earl Warren's life, or those who have an interest in the legal cases in which he was involved.
June 2, 2020
The book does an excellent job of balancing the person, the personality, his work & legacy. It does credit to the author who is able to makes readers understand the judgments of the US Supreme Court in terms of their achievement without getting bogged down in legalese. What i found most interesting in the manner in which he was able to portray the Man and the times he lived in, while highlighting his different public roles. One of amazing things was the ability of Warren to look beyond his own life without being embittered & maintain a positive outlook even to the office of the Chief Justice, a role he came to so later in life.
October 23, 2017
Great book. Loved hearing about how he was bipartisan and was only a Republican because he was opportunistic. He was able to cut taxes because he efficiently ran his government in Cali. He was completely wrong on the Japanese internment issue and his attempt to make a doctrine of obscenity in the courts (thankfully he failed on this account).
However, Brown, Miranda, Carr, Loving - all amazing cases (I'm missing some others) and helped move us to fulfilling Jefferson's pledge in the Declaration.
However, Brown, Miranda, Carr, Loving - all amazing cases (I'm missing some others) and helped move us to fulfilling Jefferson's pledge in the Declaration.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 1, 2022
A great book about a great justice. Liberals didn't know what to do with Warren because while he championed civil rights (Brown v. Bd of Ed) and criminal reform (Miranda), he was also a product of back-room white politics and enjoyed the genteel DC social life. Conservatives hated him because they couldn't believe a 3-term Republican Governor of California appointed to the Supreme Court by Eisenhower would turn into a "judicial activist." Me? I love him for all it, and argue that his steady practicality on the bench kept America from going completely off the rails in the 1950s and 1960s.
August 7, 2017
This was very informative for me. I didn't know of Warren's political experience in California or his metamorphosis once he became Chief Justice. The title of the book intimates that he made the Nation and this is not an overstatement. His personal beliefs and persuasive skills while he was on the Court drove several key rulings in the 50's and 60's. The story also includes descriptions of the personality conflicts among the other Justices, too. This is a worthwhile history book.
July 22, 2020
Not too many people have shaped the country like Warren did. From Brown vs. Board of Education to Miranda, he was a timeless advocate for rights and civil liberties. He was fortunate enough to preside over the Supreme Court at a time when so many landmark cases were decided, and we were lucky to have him sitting when they were heard.
This is a long, exhaustive book, but written to be compulsively readable. I finished the last half of it in two days.
This is a long, exhaustive book, but written to be compulsively readable. I finished the last half of it in two days.
July 6, 2022
I had heard of Earl Warren before reading this book but it was just a name that didn’t mean much to me (born in the 90s). He was one of the great figures of the 20th century and his life and career are still impacting the lives of so many people. The author seemed to be a big fan of his subject but still addressed his role in interment of Japanese during WWII pretty fairly I thought.
December 27, 2017
This is a big very well researched. It is a very deep read that covers not just the changes he made thanks to being on the supreme court but his whole life. This book though was so dense with information that I had to stop and start reading it so I could get through it all.
September 3, 2019
Illuminated my understanding of Chief Justice Warren and some of the historical events he lived through and had an influence over, from the Japanese internment in California during World War II to the Civil Rights Act and the Miranda decision.
September 26, 2020
The recounting of Warren's time as Attorney General and Governor of CA alone would make this a great read...add in his tumultuous, productive, and impactful time as Chief Justice of the SCOTUS and this becomes a great read! SCOTUS controversies have been with us for quite awhile, providing some context to the current political judicial circus.
January 7, 2021
Excellent biography with compelling details about the cases over which Warren presided during his tenure on the court (1953-69). Brown v board, Mapp v Ohio, Tinker, Griswold, Engel, Gideon, Miranda, Baker, and others.
Also important mentions of his public service as alameda county DA, governor of California, and head of LBJ’s commission on the assassination of JFK.
Also important mentions of his public service as alameda county DA, governor of California, and head of LBJ’s commission on the assassination of JFK.
July 20, 2022
This was an incredible biography of a man I’ve always wanted to study, but didn’t fully appreciate until I read this book. Warren, the progressive Republican (you remember those), made mistakes in his life, most notably his support for the Japanese interment during WWII. But he also learned though his mistakes and returned throughout his life to his upbringing and his concept of equality and fairness. It’s curious that no side of the political spectrum wants to claim him now as so much of the last seventy years of society were molded by his decisions and actions.
I strongly recommend this biography!
I strongly recommend this biography!
April 1, 2024
Excellent book. It was a slow read but I enjoyed it very much and I am glad I read it. The coverage of many important Supreme Court cases, and many historical events along the way, was well worth it. I recommend this book.
August 13, 2024
Can’t say I’ve read a better biography than this one. Newton was: honest to the man and the situation; able to understand and communicate difficult topics; and painted a narrative so detailed and intriguing that it reads like fiction.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 65 reviews