Democratic Justice: Felix Frankfurter, the Supreme Court, and the Making of the Liberal Establishment

by Brad Snyder

The definitive biography of Felix Frankfurter, Supreme Court justice and champion of twentieth-century American liberal democracy.

Scholars have portrayed Felix Frankfurter—Harvard law professor and Supreme Court justice—as a judicial failure, a liberal lawyer turned conservative justice, and Warren Court villain. Yet as Brad Snyder reveals, Frankfurter was a pro-government, pro–civil rights liberal. He helped found the ACLU, rejected shifting political labels, and practiced judicial restraint. A disciple of Oliver Wendell Holmes and a protégé of Louis Brandeis, he thrived as a power broker for FDR and as a talent scout for the liberal establishment. (Former students and clerks included Dean Acheson, Elliot Richardson, and Richard Goodwin.)

This sweeping narrative illuminates how an Austrian immigrant befriended presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson, led calls for a new trial for Sacco and Vanzetti, and helped achieve a unanimous opinion in Brown v. Board of Education. The result is a full and fascinating portrait of a lawyer and Supreme Court justice who championed democracy.

Genres: Biography, Law, History, Nonfiction, Politics, Legal, American History

992 pages, Hardcover

First published August 1, 2022

About the author

Brad Snyder is the author of the forthcoming book, You Can't Kill a Man Because of the Books He Reads: Angelo Herndon's Fight for Free Speech (W.W. Norton, Feb. 4, 2025). A Georgetown Law professor, Snyder teaches constitutional law, constitutional history, and sports law. He was a 2019 Guggenheim Fellow in constitutional studies and is a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Supreme Court History. He has written four previous books, including Democratic Justice: Felix Frankfurter, the Supreme Court, and the Making of the Liberal Establishment (W.W. Norton, 2022), The House of Truth: A Washington Political Salon and the Foundations of American Liberalism (Oxford University Press, 2017) and A Well-Paid Slave: Curt Flood’s Fight for Free Agency in Professional Sports (Viking/Penguin, 2006).

Reviews

[Gordon Fowler · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent window into the philosophy of judicial restraint

Given the current focus on originalism as a means of interpreting the constitution, it is interesting to consider an alternative means of ensuring that law creation comes primarily from legislative bodies.

[Mat]

Foreign Affairs : In 1894, Felix Frankfurter arrived in the United States from Austria as an 11-year-old who spoke no English. Less than a dozen years later, he graduated first in his class from Harvard Law School. He kept climbing at that speed through a career that placed him at the center of national affairs for more than half a century. Frankfurter was a celebrated advocate for progressive causes, a legendary Harvard law professor, a close adviser of President Franklin Roosevelt during the New Deal, and a Supreme Court justice for 23 years. There, his unquenchable energy, powerful intellect, and sometimes overbearing manner made him a force on the bench—but also a poor coalition builder. He had long believed that the judiciary should leave social policy to Congress. As the Court became more liberal, especially under Earl Warren, Frankfurter’s advocacy of judicial restraint severely disappointed progressives. The notable exceptions were cases involving racial discrimination: for example, he played a key role in achieving a unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 verdict that ruled that racial segregation in schools was unconstitutional. With some prescience, he argued that progressives would come to rue a Court that was active in making policy when it was again staffed with conservatives. Such a Court now holds sway, making this authoritative, albeit overly detailed biography of an extraordinary figure in American history and jurisprudence very timely.

[Samantha · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the best and most comprehensive biographies written about a justice. Frankfurter is a bit of a judicial anomaly -- politically progressive but judicially conservative, at least in the sense that he believed in a more limited judicial role. He believed strongly in the power of states to set economic and social policy, whether he liked it (minimum wage laws) or not (sex discrimination). One questions, however, how much of his deference to legislatures (state or federal) had to do with his close relationships to many people in the bureaucracy. He was a talent mill unlike any other I've heard of; in Slughorn-like fashion, he tapped and cultivated talent from Harvard Law School and sent them into the high ranks of the federal bureaucracy. He had a very close personal relationship with FDR, for example, and they appeared to have consulted each other in ways that would seem wholly taboo now. While he was ahead of his time in some senses (hired the first black SCOTUS clerk), he was woefully behind in others (denied RBG a clerkship for sexist reasons). Love him or hate him, he was truly one-of-a-kind. There will probably not be another justice like him.

* * *

Other, more neutral observers were impressed with Frankfurter's argu- ment. He contended that Oregon should be allowed to experiment with ways to protect the health and safety of its workers as long as the laws were reason- able. He compared the laws with those of other states and countries. And he reviewed the wages and working conditions of women and children and sci- entific studies of fatigue in mills, factories, and manufacturing. "Mr. Frank- furter's argument before the Supreme Court last week was brilliant," The Independent wrote. "What is better, it was convincing."

He believed "the price we pay for this judicial service is too great, the advantages too slim for the Cost." The Due Pro- cess Clauses, Frankfurter argued, were so indefinite as to "leave too much play to policy, without the conscious recognition that it is policy." He was so worked up about the Due Process Clause that he vowed to spend his sum- mer in Hadlyme, Connecticut, writing a book about it. Events overtook his research project.

Like many progressives, Frankfurter believed in political and social change not by empowering judges to interpret open-ended constitutional amend- ments but through new legislation guided by expert-led scientific studies. For months, he and Roscoe Pound had been directing a study of the crimi- nal justice system in Cleveland, Ohio, known as the Cleveland crime survey. Frankfurter enlisted several friends to contribute chapters: former research assistant Herbert B. Ehrmann on the criminal courts, Raymond Fosdick on the police, and psychiatrist Herman Adler on medical science and criminal justice. In October 1921, he and Pound released the first few installments of their book, Criminal Justice in Cleveland, which they hoped would aid state and local efforts at criminal justice reform

Rather than get mired in faculty politics, Frankfurter warned of the dan- gers the Supreme Court posed to the securities bill and other pending leg. islation. In a Yale Review article, he described the Constitution as "flexible enough to respond to the demands of modern society" by permitting the fed- eral government to pass securities laws and other economic regulation and the states to pass unemployment laws, minimum-wage laws, and taxes. He exposed the justices as "arbiters of social policy" and warned them against invoking the vague phrases of liberty and property in the Due Process Clause to invalidate laws simply because they disagreed with them. He conceded the Court's role in preventing the federal government from encroaching on the power of state governments. Ultimately, however, he preferred legislative solutions. He invoked Holmes's belief in legislatures as the "ultimate guard- ians" of liberty and concluded with Brandeis's dissent describing states as lab- oratories of experimentation. Senator George W. Norris, a progressive from Nebraska, included Frankfurter's article in the Congressional Record. In May, Frankfurter incorporated the ideas from his article in a national radio address with Learned Hand, "How Far Is a Judge Free in Rendering a Decision?"

His eye for talent was second to none. He had been recommending lawyers for public service ever since he worked as an assistant federal prosecutor for Henry Stimson, during the Taft and Wil. son administrations, and for nearly twenty years on the Harvard law faculty. He tapped Harvard Law Review editors for judicial clerkships and graduate research fellowships and preached the gospel of public service. Many recent graduates started at Wal Street law firms yet were miserable there; others wanted to go straight into government. Frankfurter's relationship with Roo- sevelt and administration insiders sent his "one-man recruiting agency" into overdrive. Administration officials could not stop asking him to recommend young lawyers; Frankfurter thought it was "the most natural thing in the world. If you want to get good groceries in Washington you go to Magruder's, or in New York to Park and Tilford, or in Boston to S.S. Pierce. If you wanted to get a lot of first-class lawyers, you go to Harvard Law School."

Frankfurter's former students seemed to be everywhere: Dean Acheson as under secretary of the treasury, Wyzanski as solicitor to Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins, Nathan Margold as solicitor to Secretary of the Interior Har- old Ickes, William Hastie as assistant solicitor to Ickes, Corcoran at the RFC, and Cohen and Landis in administrative posts after they wrote the securi- ties law. Frankfurter often recommended people to Moley and Roosevelt and passed on the recommendations of others. At Brandeis's and Stone's request, he wrote Roosevelt about retaining former Harvard Law Review editors Erwin Griswold and Paul D. Miller in the solicitor general's office. He also praised the hiring of former students David Lilienthal on the board of directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority and John Dickinson as assistant secretary of commerce. More often than not, Frankfurter's connection to former students found its way into the newspapers. After Wyzanski's hiring in April, the New York Daily News correctly attributed it to Frankfurter and warned: "Politicians take note."

Frankfurter spoke for an hour about the constitutionality of Roos- evelt's New Deal programs. He described the Constitution as "not a lawyers' document" but "a scheme for the development of a nation" which was meant to be "dynamic." He invoked John Marshall's line in McCulloch v. Maryland that "it is a constitution we are expounding" as the best statement on the sub- ject. He cautioned the nine justices on the Supreme Court against reading their "fixed notions" into vague clauses when deciding the constitutionality of New Deal programs such as the National Industrial Recovery Act, and he quoted Holmes several times for support. After Frankfurter fielded questions from several people, Shaw jumped in and insisted the framers of the Con- stitution would "drop down dead again" if they saw Roosevelt's New Deal programs. Frankfurter, who knew Shaw "could make mincemeat of me on any other subject," turned to Percy and whispered: "The Lord hath delivered him into my hands." Treating him like a confused law student, Frankfurter calmly and gently refuted Shaw's arguments and concluded that "if the found- ers came to earth again they would drop dead because they would so admire the imaginative handling of the Constitution they had framed."

his majority opinion, however, he refused to rely on prec- edent. He worried about the Supreme Court acting like a super-legislature and invading the power of the states to set their own educational agendas. He believed that the Court should give state and local laws wide latitude -- whether they were state minimum-wage laws or local school boards compelling schoolchildren to salute the flag.

et, unlike state laws that suppressed free speech or press, Frankfurter rec- ognized an equally important state interest "inferior to none in the hierarchy of values. National unity is the basis of national security. To deny the legisla- ture the right to select appropriate means for its attainment presents a totally different order of problem from that of the propriety of subordinating the possible ugliness of littered streets to the free expression of opinion through distribution of handbills." He quoted Lincoln on the balance between pro- moting individual liberty and having a strong state. And he insisted that "it is not the personal notion of judges of what wise adjustment requires which must prevail."

Above all, he wrote Stone, his Gobitis opinion was an essay about the proper role of the Court. Adkins v. Children's Hospital symbolized the so-called Loch- ner era and the Court's willingness to invalidate state and federal economic legislation. He wanted his Gobitis opinion to be "a vehicle for preaching the true democratic faith of not relying on the Court for the impossible task of assuring a vigorous, mature, self-protecting and tolerant democracy by bring. ing the responsibility for a combination of firmness and toleration directly home where it belongs—to the people and their representatives themselves." He thought the school board's refusal to make an exception for Jehovah's Wit- nesses was "foolish." Of course, he deemed his personal views irrelevant and preferred "to let the legislative judgment stand and put the responsibility for its exercise where it belongs."

No one said anything about the propriety of a sitting justice interpreting federal law and opining on executive power for the president who had nom- inated him. Frankfurter may have felt emboldened by the common practice of justices advising presidents: Wiliam Moody with Theodore Roosevelt, Brandeis with Woodrow Wilson, Taft with Harding, and Stone with Hoover. Yet, in advising Roosevelt and Stimson on issues that might come before the Court, Frankfurter was crossing dangerous ethical lines because, rightly or wrongly, he believed that when it came to winning the war, the ends justified the means. Frankfurter's role in remaking Roosevelt's cabinet for war was as conse- quential and, in his mind, as important as his flag salute opinion in Gobitis. He did not care whether he was sufficiently "liberal" for his friends in gov- ernment, the media, or the legal academy. He ignored the obvious conflicts of interest and violations of separation of powers about advising the president and the new secretary of war. Nor was he concerned whether he would be the future intellectual leader of the Court. He remained steadfast in his belief that liberals should rely on the political process rather than the judiciary for political and social change. He contributed to the most consequential polit- ical events of his life by serving the Roosevelt administration as a wartime recruiter and policy maker while sitting on the Supreme Court as an asso- ciate justice. The war dominated his work life. And it soon transformed his home life.

Brandeis was Frankfurter's father protector, financial benefactor, and frequent co-conspirator. They defended the constitutionality of minimum wage and maximum hour laws for the national consumers league, fought for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, turned Harvard Law School into a breeding ground for public servants, and clashed over the new deal's expansion of federal power, and Roosevelt's court packing plan. Through it all, no one played a greater role in advising Frankfurt about his career--from joining the Harvard Law faculty to declining positions on the Massachusetts supreme judicial court, and as a solicitor general. He also prevented Frankfurter from joining the US Supreme Court sooner by refusing to retire. Most of all, Brandi practiced his own version of judicial restraint. He believed in avoiding unnecessary constitutional questions and preferred a limited role for the judiciary, particularly when it came to interfering with the roles of states in solving socioeconomic problems. As a justice, Frankfurter built on Brandeis's idea about constitutional avoidance and deference to state regulation.

During the late 194os, Frankfurter was more sensitive to issues of race than gender. In Goesaert v. Cleary, Frankfurter dictated the first draft of his major- ity opinion upholding a Michigan law that forbade a woman from becoming a licensed bartender unless she was the wife or daughter of the owner. Frank- furter's opinion rejected an equal protection challenge and upheld the law's distinction between the wives and daughters of owners and non-owners of bars.

N HIS REFUSALS to apply the Double Jeopardy Clause to the states, to expand the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, to encroach on Congress's investigatory powers, and to hear trivial cases, Frankfurter contin- ued to advocate for a more limited role for the Court. He had faith in elected state and local officials to be responsive to the needs of the people, in Con- gress to use its investigatory powers wisely, and in state and lower federal judges to do their jobs. He did not believe the Court should try to solve all the country's problems and should limit its own power by respecting history and following precedent.

Sacks, who informed Ginsburg that she was under consideration for the Frankfurter clerkship, broke the bad news. ... Ginsburg knew nothing about Frankfurter's concerns about her small child and sick husband until she read the Sacks-Frankfurter correspondence nearly sixty years later and described it as rife with "typical 1950s attitudes about women." On some levels it is surprising that Frankfurter refused to hire Ginsburg. ... He was willing to buck convention in hiring the first African American Supreme Court clerk in William T Coleman. On the other hand, Harvard Law SChool did not admit women when he taught there. He had spent a lifetime mentoring male former students and encouraging them to enter public service. As a justice, he had revealed his blind spots about gender equality in writing the majority opinion in Goessaert v. Cleary, which upheld a Michigan law forbidding the licensing of most women bartenders.

[Gary Osborne · Rating 5 out of 5]

This summer, I heard Associate U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elana Kagan speak at a conference. She was asked what she has read recently that she would recommend. She listed three books, one of which was “Democratic Justice,” a biography of Felix Frankfurter, written by Brad Snyder. So, I undertook to read it, and I am so glad I did.

Such a fascinating life. Born in Vienna, Austria. Moved to the US when he was 11 years old, not speaking a word of English. A star student who graduated from City College in NYC and then went to Harvard Law School where, in 1906, he graduated first in his class. He was a brilliant man who loved his adopted country and devoted his life to serving it and to training and encouraging others to direct their skills toward public service. He was an incredible collector of people, a networker, connecting people to one another and to important jobs in government and in academia. He encouraged the “best and the brightest” to pursue careers in public service. I so enjoyed reviewing the people and events during the first six decades of the twentieth century that influenced him and that he influenced. He knew and advised every President from Theodore Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson. He was especially close to Franklin Roosevelt, who nominated Frankfurter to the Supreme Court in 1939.

This book reacquaints me with the joy of reading a good biography of a life that was well lived; to live vicariously through the life of another person.

Thank you, Justice Kagan, for this recommendation, and to Brad Snyder for writing this wonderful book!

[Ivor Armistead · Rating 5 out of 5]

An extraordinary biography of an extraordinary man, and, importantly one that you don’t have to be a lawyer to read, appreciate and enjoy. One can and many have disagreed with Felix Frankfurter’s political and judicial philosophy. To me, he was admirably idealistic with an ultimately unrealistic and impractical view of the separation of powers and stringent requirements of judicial restraint. In the end, there are critical policy issues which in strict Constitutional theory should be left to the political (elected) branches of government that but cannot be indefinitely ignored by the courts when the political branches are unable or unwilling to address them. We may wish it otherwise, but idealism must often yield to pragmatism if progress is to be made.
Frankfurter was a legal scholar, an advisor to Presidents and a long-serving and respected Justice of the Supreme Court, but his greatest contribution to the nation may have been in encouraging some of his best students to enter public service and legal education. Something for which I am personally grateful.

[Kathy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Legal historian Brad Snyder gives readers a detailed account of the life of Felix Frankfurter from his landing at Ellis Island at age 11 through his years teaching at Harvard Law School to his career as a Supreme Court justice. FF fell is love with America. Although part of a humble family, he did have the advantage of spending his early years in Vienna where culture flourished, as did acceptance of Jews as full citizens. The New York City of his schooling years had excellent public schools. His linked to a high school-to-degree program at City College of New York that was free. Snyder does not clarify if FF graduated with the equivalent of an associate degree or a bachelor degree (before World War II many students entered law school with just the two-year degree). The story of Frankfurter's path to Harvard Law is quite engaging, but no spoiler in this review.

Early jobs, including one he had between CCNY and Harvard Law, linked to FF's passion for helping people get fair deals in life. Not only did public service fulfill him, but it also became his idee fixe when advising students once he started teaching at Harvard. As his career toggled between Massachusetts and the District of Columbia, he met political and judicial luminaries. Those included Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Stimson, Al Smith, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., FDR, Louis Brandeis, Phil and Katherine Meyer Graham, JFK and many more. If there had been a popular biography of FF in the 1980s, one might think it inspired Woody Allen's Zellig.

Snyder does a good job explaining the kind of judicial restraint Holmes and FF favored. FF had great faith in democracy and thought many cases could be resolved by the citizenry making its legislators fix things before they led to the courthouse. FF was a constitutionalist with a progressive nature (not much of a fan of political parties). Before being elevated to SCOTUS, his experiences with minimum wage and maximum hours cases, anti-union bullying, the Sacco-Vanzetti case, and New Deal legislation made him evaluate how judges and justices may not shed personal prejudices. Readers may find Justice Franfurter's dissent in the Rosenberg case truly poignant.

Readers will need three bookmarks to facilitate reading this book—current page of the biography, page of abbreviations for sources, corresponding page in the Notes section. They will also need to extend some forgiveness to Snyder (or his proofreaders). Examples: text says 2239 Massachusetts Avenue for an address that is 2339 in a picture; Dumbarton Street is Street today and calling it Avenue is just confusing. Did the Frankfurters ever learn that J. Edgar Hoover had bugged their phones? Did Walter Lippmann come to FF's funeral? Details are important. Glitches can make a reader wonder if the biographical or judicial accounts contain any. Snyder and this tome still deserve four stars.

[Clayton Brannon · Rating 5 out of 5]

A Masterful Portrait of Law, Power, and Democratic Ideals

Brad Snyder’s Democratic Justice is a monumental achievement—meticulously researched, compellingly written, and intellectually invigorating. Far more than a conventional biography, the book weaves the life of Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter into the broader tapestry of 20th-century American political and legal development. Snyder vividly chronicles Frankfurter’s journey from a young immigrant to a key architect of the New Deal and a justice who sought to reconcile democratic values with judicial restraint.

What sets this work apart is how it situates Frankfurter at the crossroads of law, academia, politics, and social reform. Snyder brings to life Frankfurter’s friendships with figures like Louis Brandeis and FDR, his profound influence on the shaping of liberal jurisprudence, and his sometimes-controversial role in shaping the boundaries of judicial power. The book is unafraid to explore complexity, portraying Frankfurter as both principled and pragmatic, idealistic yet deeply strategic.

For readers interested in constitutional law, the moral challenges of governance, or the roots of America’s liberal establishment, Democratic Justice offers both depth and clarity. It stands as a definitive study not just of a man, but of the difficult balance between democracy and judicial authority in a rapidly changing world.

A must-read for legal scholars, history buffs, and anyone interested in the evolution of American liberalism.

[Harold · Rating 4 out of 5]

Felix Frankfurter was a one man band and a bit of enigma. This detailed biography follows and explains the man and the motivation, but does so as if written contemporaneously and without a historical lens to let us know how Frankfurter, the man and the justice, stacks up today.

Frankfurter had a short but meaningful career in government, starting with the Wilson administration. This left him with a lifelong belief in government service and a deep appreciation and understanding of politics. He quickly befriended the legendary justices of Holmes and Brandeis, had a house that with his friends that they and other Washington heavyweights visited and talked the issues of the day.

From there Frankfurter went on to teach at Harvard Law, at the time not the most aspired to position, but one he used to people the courts and government with his protégé’s. In time he turned down the Supreme Court of Massachusetts to stay at Harvard, and use his position to funnel his favorite students to clerkships on the Supreme Court and top level government positions. He became a close advisor and confidante of Roosevelt’s, and an avid supporter, and eventually a Supreme Court nominee.

While on the Court he remained a friend and advisor to Roosevelt, even on matters which were likely (and did) come before the court. The separation of powers annd the ethics of working as an advisor to the executive branch did not concern him. He worked behind the scenes of Roosevelt’s re-election campaign as well.

At the same time, as a justice he believed in judicial restraint, even on cases involving issues which today we would question; Undeniably brilliant, he alienate man of his fellow justices, and emerged as a conservative voice on the Warren Court (and he hated both Warren and Douglas). It wasn’t that he had lost his liberal leanings, but his strong belief in judicial restraint trumped most of his feelings, except where security or patriotism was concerned. He supported stern measures during the war and thereafter against communism and criticism of the government with much less scrutiny or restraint than he applied to other matters.

In the end, the picture is mixed, and fuzzy. Clearly the author is enamored with Frankfurter, but himself paints with restraint, and consequently the book is more about the man than his decisions and direct impact. In the end, it is a split decision.

[Josh Craddock · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating inside look at one of the twentieth century’s legal titans. Frankfurter's influence was felt most outside the Court: His only famous majority opinion was Gobitis, which was quickly overruled and is widely disparaged today. His concurring and dissenting opinions largely reflect roads not taken in constitutional law. But as a professor and mentor, his influence was everywhere. His former students and clerks staffed the New Deal and later formed the mid-century liberal establishment. In some ways, he was a better professor and politico than justice; indeed, his ethical lapses as a justice were remarkable and would make Supreme Court commentators today blush. But over the decades he remained mostly consistent in his skepticism of judicial policymaking and his belief in a strong federal government to solve social issues.

[Nathaniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Audiobook, largely. I read a portion of this. This is really good. Frankfurter was on the court during a lot of the historical decisions of the 20th century and his decision making his interesting, to say the least.

The amount of influence Frankfurter had on FDR while a Supreme Court Justice makes me giggle now, considering how silo-ed off Americans want their Presidents and Supreme Court Justices to be.

The book digresses for a time into somewhat trivial fights. The other way to look at it is that it's a fuller look at life on the Supreme Court. I choose its a digression about trivial shit.

Really good.

[Robert Sparrenberger · Rating 4 out of 5]

The goal with this book was to write a complete biography of Felix Frankfurter. I do mean complete. It’s 710 pages of Felix with 300 pages of notes in the back. It could have been shorter and the audience is definitely someone with a legal background. There were times my mind started drifting with the level of detail in this one.

The takeaway message is that Felix was a busy guy and while on the Supreme Court, practiced judicial restraint. I don’t think he would be pleased with the direction the court has taken this century.

3.5 stars rounded up.

[Christina · Rating 4 out of 5]

At this point, I feel like I know enough about Felix Frankfurter. He was everywhere and into everything during the FDR administration. He was onto something regarding judicial power. Like many people in history, shit’s complicated. Mostly a fan, however, he was also super annoying. No one I will ever talk to for the rest of my life will know what I’m talking about so this is it. Bye Felix, it’s been a long week.

[Debra Fairweather · Rating 4 out of 5]

An incredibly well researched book. I enjoyed the parts of the book that focused on the history of Justice Frankfurter’s life, but the extensive narrative on each of the court cases he reviewed as a Supreme Court justice, bogged down the book and would appeal to a law student rather than the average reader.

[Ale Gonzalez · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book in 60-100 page spurts which made it feel kind of slow, but it was largely extremely accessible as a non lawyer and provided a great insight into the mind of a fierce advocate for the American democratic process. Interesting to read about FF and judicial restraint now given today’s SCOTUS.

[Alexander · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting and informative book of a fascinating man who was far more than a Supreme Court Justice. Strongly recommend.

[Adam Shain · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting history of Supreme Court during a the mid 1900's.

[Cwelshhans · Rating 5 out of 5]

Truly excellent. Not at all hagiography and instead a detailed, interesting, and well-written history of the man and his times.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading more about the judicial branch these days and this is a great place to start.

[Lisa Denig · Rating 2 out of 5]

I love an in depth biography and I'm particularly drawn to the law but I couldn't get into this one. Didn't even finish it.