Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court

by Jeff Shesol

Roosevelt’s fiercest, most unyielding opponent was neither a foreign power nor “fear itself”—it was the U.S. Supreme Court.

During Franklin Roosevelt’s first term, a narrow conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court struck down several key elements of the New Deal legislation. In February 1937, Roosevelt retaliated with an audacious plan to expand the Court—to subdue the conservative justices by outnumbering them with liberals. The ensuing fight was a firestorm that engulfed the White House, the Court, Congress, and the country. Although the Court would remain at nine justices, the confrontation transformed the political and constitutional landscape, saving the New Deal and bringing the nation into the modern world. But it also dealt FDR the biggest setback of his political life and split the Democratic party, thus laying the foundation for a future era of Republican dominance.

This brilliant work of political and judicial history unfolds like a thriller, with wonderful characters and unexpected twists. It uses new evidence to make clear that understanding the fight is essential to understanding the personality and presidency of FDR—and America at a crossroads in its history. 16 pages of photos.

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

656 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2010

About the author

Jeff Shesol is the author of Supreme Power and of Mutual Contempt, a study of Lyndon Johnson and Robert F. Kennedy. He was a speechwriter in the Clinton administration and lives in Washington, DC.

Reviews

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

https://bestpresidentialbios.com/2016...

“Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court” is Jeff Shesol’s 2010 book focused on FDR’s “court-packing” attempt during his second presidential term. Shesol is a partner at West Wing Writers and formerly served as deputy chief speechwriter for President Bill Clinton. For those of us in Shesol’s graduating class at Brown University, however, he is best known as the author of the comic strip “Thatch.”

For a 529-page book focused on a seemingly dense topic, “Supreme Power” is light on its feet, articulate and remarkably engaging. Aimed squarely at the lay reader rather than the legal community, it is written in a colorful style that is both intellectually sophisticated and straightforward – and is clearly the product of meticulous research.

Shesol demonstrates a deep understanding of the politics, players and issues involved in the court-packing controversy and frequently lends his opinions to the dialogue. An excellent writer, he has a unique gift for creating suspense and drama with a topic that could just as easily exhibit all the excitement of a grammar class focused on sentence diagrams.

The book begins with an introduction that sets the tone (and the stage) and quickly capture’s the reader’s interest. The first chapter backtracks to FDR’s first inauguration and reviews important historical context before the narrative carefully surveys the Supreme Court rulings which threatened to unravel much of Roosevelt’s progressive New Deal agenda.

The most interesting aspect of Shesol’s book may be the mini-biographies he provides of the key players in this judicial thriller – including the nine members of the Supreme Court during the period in question. But rather than inundate the reader with a constant stream of back-to-back character introductions, he judiciously sprinkles them throughout the first several chapters as each character becomes critical to the story.

Many readers already know how this Supreme Court drama unfolds, but Shesol’s insights will add color to even the most ardent history buff’s understanding of this (seemingly) failed attempt to alter the Court’s political composition.

But while the first half of the book is a nimble, breathless page-turner, the pace slows and the book’s complexion grows more weighty once FDR formally unveils his court-packing proposal. Like many stories with a particularly dramatic build-up, the denouement is comparatively less exciting.

And while Shesol maintains a steady eye on political jockeying within Congress, the gripping Supreme Court intramurals and discord among FDR’s advisors, the book misses much of the color and context of the Depression and the unfolding New Deal. FDR’s earliest legislative successes are fundamental to the book’s mission but a reader unfamiliar with this period in American history will not fully appreciate the scale and scope of the crisis or of FDR’s response.

Overall, however, Jeff Shesol’s “Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court” is a thoughtful, fascinating and generally fast-paced drama. While it is not a general biography of FDR and cannot serve as an introduction to his life or even his full presidency, this book does a marvelous job examining one of FDR’s most visible presidential failures.

Overall rating: 4 stars

[Christopher Saunders · Rating 5 out of 5]

Superlative account of Franklin Roosevelt’s most notorious folly: his second-term effort to pack the Supreme Court. Shesol (previously author of Mutual Contempt, an excellent chronicle of the rivalry between Lyndon Johnson and Bobby Kennedy) does much to demystify this event, often chalked up to FDR’s frustration at the Court’s overturning New Deal legislation and hubris after his 1936 landslide. In fact, Shesol shows that Roosevelt’s gesture in adding seats to the SCOTUS was well-grounded in contemporary debates. In the abstract, the principle was popular: the Court, led by the stolidly conservative Charles Evans Hughes and overwhelmingly peopled by Republican appointees, was viewed as an ossified obstacle to progress, clinging to outmoded ideology in a time of crisis. Nonetheless, once Roosevelt seriously began pushing for a revision of SCOTUS opposition began; not only on the Court itself, but among conservative groups (especially the American Liberty League) defending the prerogatives of big business under the veneer of Constitutionalism, traditionalists who viewed the Court as a necessary check on presidential and legislative excesses and those generally (including many on the Left) who feared Roosevelt was sliding towards dictatorship. The fight made odd bedfellows: Harlan Fiske Stone, a conservative Justice, became a wary administration ally, while progressives like Burton K. Wheeler turned against Roosevelt to defend the Court. Shesol captures the fight in all its gory particulars, while framing its ongoing significance. Debates over the role of Supreme Court have never truly ended, and indeed variants of the arguments assayed by Roosevelt and his opponents in the ‘30s continue to appear, albeit with the parties shifting according to issue. An excellent book for history buffs, political junkies and anyone seeking to understand America’s endless debates over the Constitution.

[Alisa · Rating 3 out of 5]

During this first administration, FDR enjoyed the benefits of a Democrat majority in both houses of Congress. His New Deal agenda required a legislative machine to enact, followed by a steady stream of testing in the courts. The Supreme Court however had a conservative majority and struck down some of the underpinnings holding up key pieces of the New Deal. Roosevelt had a fight on his hands if he was going to succeed, and was determined to come up with a way to control the courts. Changing the composition of the Court with liberal-minded justices would do the trick. The idea for the court-packing plan was born.

This book delves into the personalities and political machinations surrounding the battle for the heart of the court and the power it wields. The debate about what to do about the Court was more than a disagreement over judicial philosophy or aging, obstinate judges, but quickly became a political debate over the balance of power between the three branches of government, the role of the Federal government v. State's rights, and the reach of FDR's progressive agenda. FDR was a master politician and he could find a way to bend others to his will (and sometimes leave them bewildered in the process) but this debate over the court fractured some of the cohesion within the Democratic party and eventually became the undoing of the judicial reform bill. All was not lost for the New Deal - much of it survived - and FDR eventually got his chance to appoint several new Justices during his second term, most notably Hugo Black. But the fight over the court-packing plan had a long lasting effect creating a rift with the more conservative members of the Democratic party over civil rights issues who eventually frittered away to switch to the GOP. Fascinating stuff!

This book is a doorstop, and was a little exhausting to read but a worthy endeavor. The content was intense and sometimes seemed to bog down in spots with excessive detail. And the first 180-200 pages are a bit of a slog, muddying the story in places. For me that dragged it down to 3-stars but if the history of the Supreme Court and Presidential politics is your jam this will be a 4-star+ read.

[Mara · Rating 3 out of 5]

So, as it turns out, Franklin Roosevelt hated old people. Ok, maybe that's a lie, but age did play a factor in the bout between FDR and the 'nine old men' (as the justices came to be known during this supreme court debacle).

My super simple history summary goes something like this: FDR wins in landslide, and the Dems take both houses of Congress. However, there's this whole third branch still to contend with (at least according to the School House Rock classic Three Ring Government) which keeps on striking down New Deal legislation. (This is the part where fans of constitutional law will really get their jollies!) FDR tries to make it mandatory for justices to retire at 70, or at least have like young escort judges or something, but that went as well as attempts to take away old peoples' licenses after a string of farmers markets being mowed down a few years back.

Here, allow me to illustrate that comparison for you:



The next option, the one that gets all the press, is to "pack the court" (hey, you only need a majority vote, which is easy to get if you toss a few more judges in the mix). Then, a lot more stuff happens, all of which you can read about in this well-written book. It does a great job of giving you an 'evenly baked' view of the issues through case law, biographical glimpses of the key players, social history and some great gossip floating around at the time.

As mentioned before, this is definitely a great read for fans of constitutional law and/or those curious about the mysterious supreme court of ours. If you enjoyed Jeffrey Toobin's The Nine, then this will be right up your alley.

[Joe Stack · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an absorbing and thorough account of FDR’s court packing plan, what led up to it, and it’s aftermath. The book’s title does not reveal the whole story. While FDR and the conservative Justices had different views on how the Constitution should be interpreted, the plan to pack the Supreme Court became a major conflict between FDR and his own party. This is the story of that conflict.

The author’s description of FDR’s personality and how he performed as President is well balanced in recognizing FDR’s positive and negative traits. His brief political biographies of the individuals involved are gems, and his history of the Court and controversy over how to interpret the Constitution is far from being dry.

Shesol’s writing style and his blow by blow accounting of this conflict puts the reader there.

[Paulla Ferreira Pinto · Rating 4 out of 5]

A primeira vez que tive conhecimento do episódio aqui detalhadamente relatado, foi numa biografia do FDR, na qual obviamente o autor não aprofundou o tema mas relatou-o da forma que me parece ter ficado cristalizada historicamente e que constitui o que se usa designar por “common wisdom”: que o “court packing” proposto no início de 1937, logo após a tomada de posse para o segundo mandato de Franklin Roosevelt, foi um erro crasso do Presidente, escorado na inabilidade jurídica do seu “attorney general”, Homer Cummings, e no teimoso e tão inusitado quanto inesperado propósito de dobrar (to curb) o Supreme Court que insistia em declarar inconstitucionais as medidas do New Deal.
Esta obra mudou a minha perspetiva sobre os acontecimentos já que, através de um notável esforço de recolha e reunião de fontes, apresenta um relato que se percepciona objectivo e multilateral dos acontecimentos. E se é certo que não escamoteia a forte personalidade de FDR, o seu optimismo natural, a sobranceria que sempre o caracterizou, particularmente exacerbada pela vitória esmagadora na eleição que antecedeu o episódio em análise, e o seu conhecido gosto por pequenos jogos de poder e de manipulação dos seus colaboradores, não menos certo é que põe em evidência o facto absolutamente determinante de o arreigado conservadorismo dos “Nine Old Men” ou das maiorias alcançadas no colectivo que constituía, à data, o Supreme Court, ter gerado no seio da sociedade americana forte discussão sobre o papel do Tribunal no sistema de governo e na Democracia, e que várias medidas foram sendo avançadas pelos mais diversos sectores da sociedade a fim de ultrapassar o impasse em que sucessivamente as decisões do Tribunal deixavam o Governo Federal.
Uma interpretação muito apegada à letra da Constituição, de pendor fortemente histórico, no qual se fundava o entendimento de que aos Justices somente competia enunciar a vontade cristalizada dos pais fundadores, e um nítido apego a uma visão individualista da sociedade, era constantemente pugnada pelos “Four Horsemen”, a designação dos quatros Justices da ala conservadora do Tribunal, aos quais, de forma mais ou menos regular, se juntavam Charles Evan Hughes e Owen Roberts, constituindo assim a maioria que derrubava as medidas legislativas de cariz social, laboral e de regulação da actividade económica que caracterizaram o New Deal.
A atitude do Supreme Court gerou indignação e agitação social ao ponto da medida que pretendeu Roosevelt implementar nem tão pouco constituir uma originalidade por já largamente debatida.
O que terá contribuído para o seu fracasso e para a sua má fama histórica, não terá sido tanto a sua bondade – pese embora sempre discutível no âmbito dos frágeis equilíbrios do sistema do ���checks and balances” – mas antes a forma como a mesma foi maturada e apresentada pela administração ao próprio Congresso e à sociedade em geral.
Contrariamente ao que era de uso, FDR esteve cerca de dois anos a ponderar o que fazer relativamente ao Supreme Court, avaliou e sopesou todas as alternativas, nomeadamente as faladas emendas à própria Constituição, mas fê-lo no maior sigilo, sem solicitar a colaboração senão de uns quantos e deixando de fora os congressistas, ao ponto de até elementos muito próximos da sua administração terem sido apanhados completamente de surpresa com o anúncio da medida – nomeadamente, o Vice Presidente Garner.
Ao não incluir na discussão os membros de um Congresso que era esmagadoramente constituído por Democratas, FDR alimentou a fogueira da dissidência e permitiu que questões do foro pessoal e da ambição política dos seus correligionários, entre o demais, fendesse o apoio que, à partida, parecia que a medida concitaria.
Por outro lado, ao tentar justificá-la com o excesso de trabalho e a incapacidade dos idosos que integravam o Supreme Court de dar vazão às solicitações jurisdicionais, o que de todo não correspondia à verdade, deu uma roupagem de trapaça, de engano e manobra política, que a sociedade americana não perdoou.
Esta é uma obra fundamental para quem pretende saber mais deste tão relevante episódio da história americana, mas também para quem pretender perceber quão frágeis são os equilíbrios entre as instituições democráticas e como estas podem ser colocadas à prova quando os acontecimentos históricos, as conjunturas circunstanciais, não são acompanhadas pela agilização dos instrumentos jurídicos que as estruturam e regulam.
É, na verdade, um relato da constante luta humana pela adaptação do meio social aos acontecimentos que se precipitam e que não esperam pela mudança de mentalidades para se desenvolverem e provocarem os mais dramáticos desfechos.
Para uma jurista como eu, para além do interesse histórico, este é um livro que provocou uma pausa para reflexão. E penso que este será o maior elogio que lhe posso fazer.

[Aaron Million · Rating 4 out of 5]

Even-handed look at FDR's somewhat misguided, and ultimately unsuccessful (or was it?) attempt to "pack" the Supreme Court in 1937. The book is primarily told from FDR's and his administration's vantage point, but Sheshol does not let that color his description of the events that transpired. There was plenty of finger-pointing and attempts to mislead on both sides. FDR's bill itself was voted down, but he ultimately did get what he wanted - which was a liberal Supreme Court, one that would specifically cease gutting his New Deal programs. Yet he paid a heavy political price for this attempt to change the Court.

[Brad Hodges · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ah, to be a Democrat in 1937. Franklin D. Roosevelt had just been re-elected with an astonishing 61 percent of the vote. The Democratic majority in the Senate was massive--76 of the 96 were Dems. Roosevelt had, in his first term, pushed through sweeping legislation designed to alleviate the effects of the Great Depression, and with such a super-majority in Congress it was not unthinkable to imagine that he could continue to do so. Only one thing stood in his way--the Supreme Court.

Jeff Shesol, in his fascinating and eminently readable Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court, tells a tale that, but for a few twists of fortune, could have had a different ending that would have affected American's lives today. It's also a tale of the hubris of Roosevelt, and perhaps the greatest mistake he made as president--trying to change the law to alter the makeup of the highest court in the land.

When Roosevelt first took office in 1933, the Supreme Court was an aged group, and were mockingly known as the "nine old men." As Shesol points out, they had been known by this name for almost a century, as they had always been men and almost always had been old. Even after the retirement of the nonagenarian Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1932, the court's average age was 71. But age wasn't Roosevelt's problem--the most liberal justice was Louis Brandeis, who was well into his seventies. The problem was their political temperament.

Throughout his first term, Roosevelt's policies were dealt defeats by the court. The National Recovery Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act were both struck down. Many other laws that Congress enacted which regulated business were seen by a majority of the court as improperly interfering with commerce. It was clear that the conservatives, among them James McReynolds and Willis Van Devanter, were keen on striking down anything that had Roosevelt's name attached to it.

Roosevelt's solution was to add more justices. Other ideas were bandied about, including Constitutional amendments that would require seven votes to overturn an act of Congress, or even to prohibit judicial review of Congressional acts to begin with. But Roosevelt and his legal team, led by Attorney General Homer Cummings, had a different idea--pack the court.

"The solution, [Cummings] told Roosevelt, was simple: a law providing that when any federal judge refused to retire at seventy, the president would have the power to appoint an additional judge. Roosevelt got the point immediately. If no one retired, this would give him six appointments overnight--one for each of the current justices older than seventy. A three-man liberal minority would become, virtually overnight, a nine-man majority."

This was not unprecedented. The Constitution does not specify how many justices are on the court--that is determined by Congress. The total has gone up and down over the years. When Andrew Johnson was president and a vacancy opened a hostile Congress eliminated the seat. But it had been set at nine for over sixty years. Clearly this would raise some opposition, but given the numbers in Congress, Roosevelt thought he could get it passed.

It turned out to be a huge fight, and Roosevelt lost support of conservative Democrats. Burton Wheeler of Montana led the charge. Roosevelt erred to begin with, by saying he was doing this to alleviate the workload of the Court. But no one believed that for a minute. Many liberal thinkers were against it, deciding it was baldly political and a step toward dictatorship (then, as now, it was easy to compare the current president to Hitler).

The issue, which Roosevelt put forward on February 5, 1937, was huge. "The clamor was unrelenting. From the morning of February 5, a great roar of opinion--for and against--issued forth from the radio, editorial pages, newspaper columns, town halls, church pulpits. Switchboard operators argued between calls. Waitresses passed petitions. In state capitals and in Washington, the mailbags were full and the wires alive with implorings of one kind or another, sent to anyone with a potential say in the matter. A din like this had not been heard since the League of Nations fight of the early 1920s, or perhaps since Reconstruction--commentators were unclear when, if ever, Americans had made this much noise."

A series of events over the next few months undermined Roosevelt and his bill. The court, perhaps mindful of what was going on, changed direction. Owen Roberts, a Hoover appointee, switched his vote on a few key decisions, including a minimum wage law, and then, more spectacularly, to uphold the Wagner Act, which allowed workers to unionize. Everyone thought this was a loser, so when the government won, it was stunning. Roberts' change of heart was tabbed "The switch in time that saved nine." Then, Willis Van Devanter retired, which would give Roosevelt his first appointment.

The bill would ultimately lose gas and go down. Shesol writes intriguingly of the viper pit that was the Senate, telling the sad tale of Joseph Robinson, the majority leader of Arkansas, who fought hard for the bill primarily because he had been promised a spot on the court. He would end up working so hard for it that it killed him.

There is a lot of interesting stuff in this book. I was amused that during Roosevelt's first term, a suspiciously familiar sounding organization called the "Liberty League" sprung up, hinging on upholding the Constitution and perhaps becoming a third party. They even had a leader named Beck.

And, as usual in books about the Supreme Court, the interplay between the justices is intriguing. Most prominently featured in Shesol's book is Brandeis (Roosevelt called him "Old Isaiah"), Chief Justice Charles Evan Hughes, who though Republican usually sided with the liberals, the same with Harlan Fiske Stone (who would replace Hughes as Chief) and the ever-nasty James McReynolds, who not only refused to speak with the Jewish justices Brandeis and Cardozo, also vowed, "never [to] resign as long as that crippled son-of-a-bitch is in the White House."

But of course he would resign, during Roosevelt's third term. By the time Roosevelt died, he appointed seven of the nine justices, and promoted Stone to Chief Justice. He said that he had lost the battle but won the war, which was true in a sense. But, as Shesol points out, he would have won that war without the court-packing plan, through simply outlasting the conservative justices. Shesol writes that in a way, Roosevelt lost the war, because his effort struck a deep wedge in the Democratic Party, and began the eventual loss of the Southern conservative, which would become final during the Civil Rights movement.

[Julie Moronuki · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first half of this book is somewhat slow-moving and, at times, repetitive, but the second half is quite action-packed and often amusing, as the politicians all start taking swipes at each other as things fall apart. The author does a good job of building up suspense in places. I did think in the epilogue he would examine the fact that FDR's exploitation of the economic crisis, which the Supreme Court resisted which led to the court-packing plan -- that this whole line of thinking -- led to the appointment of some "progressives" such as Black and Frankfurter who would, following this reasoning, give us the terrible Korematsu decision, upholding FDR's internment of Japanese-Americans. The author stays mostly neutral throughout most of the book but in the epilogue he seems to agree with FDR's push for more "progressive" men on the Court but without mentioning that the immediate consequences were not all sunshine and roses. Anyway, as I said, the author mostly stays neutral throughout, so this is a minor quibble based on my own political biases that the Supreme Court (and the executive, as well) should resist the urge to get caught up in and approve of every paranoid reaction that the public has to an emergency. Mostly a very fascinating and well-written book.

[Jessie · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author gives more information about the Court than about FDR,which works. You get a definite sense of the justices' personalities. There is a tendency to jump around in time, however, which can be a little confusing, and the author doesn't really have a good sense for sorting out compelling details from non-compelling details.

[Colin Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastically written and brilliantly researched work of history. A harrowing story that’s not nearly as often told as it once was. This book shows FDR’s weakest and most petulant side while also examining the role and function of the Supreme Court in American life. Elements of this book are evergreen and resonated with me greatly in a post-Dobbs, 6/3 court world. Shesol does such a great job of simultaneously reporting the historical facts and contextualizing them with fresh and gripping insight and analysis. A must read for anyone interested in the Supreme Court or the Roosevelt presidency.

[Jim Cullison · Rating 5 out of 5]

A gripping, thoroughly researched, and most timely read on FDR's war with the judicial branch during the 1930s. Shesol is a fantastic writer, and he infuses thrilling drama into what could have been turgid material. This book should bring peace and perspective to those who are alarmed by contemporary developments. As Truman said, "the only thing new in the world is the history you don't know."

[Bob · Rating 5 out of 5]

One thing you will take from this book is that people like the Supreme Court when the Supreme Court agrees with them. If the Court makes a contrary ruling, it's an evil institution.

And during the early 1930s, the Supreme Court was getting on Franklin Roosevelt's bad side a lot, invalidating numerous parts of the New Deal. Roosevelt tried to remedy the situation by creating six more vacancies on the Court. Roosevelt would have his majority then.

The plan fell apart because Roosevelt made some horrible political miscalculations. No one in Congress had much involvement at all in drafting the plan. And it turned out that there were some limits to what Roosevelt could do. Even with a 76-20 majority in the Senate.

Shesol's account of this time is a fascinating read. The details about the political leanings of the nine "Old Men" on the Supreme Court are particularly enlightening. Also, Shesol shows that the adoption of the New Deal faced the same kind of opposition from the public as the present Administration does today.

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

Numerous books have been written about Franklin Roosevelt's effort to "pack" the Supreme Court in 1937. Jeff Shesol's is not only the latest but it ranks as the best. He does an excellent job of tracing the origins of the plan to the legal and constitutional battles over New Deal legislation in the mid-1930s, battles which threatened the very core of Roosevelt's agenda. He describes the cases in clear and accessible prose, bringing both the personalities of the major figures and their ideologies to life and making their struggle in the courts and Congress every bit as dramatic as it was when it unfolded. This is a must-read for anyone interested in well-written history, and an indispensable guide for anyone seeking to learn about the packing plan and its importance in U.S. history.

[Andrew Riley · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book covers a lot of ground, masterfully. It is at once a history of the 1937 "Court-Packing Plan," an ethnography of FDR's Cabinet, an assessment of the status of the New Deal toward the end of the 1930s, and a frank biography of Roosevelt himself. Incredibly detailed, it's the perfect read for a law or politics buff, FDR admirer, or student of the New Deal; despite its length, it's a hard book to put down.

[Geoffrey Rose · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic and surprising relevant for our own times, Shesol's story of the failure (or success?) of Roosevelt's court packing plans has the dramatic tension of a great novel. It was difficult to put down. Strongly vivid descriptions of FDR and Charles Evans Hughes among other luminaries. Highly recommended.

[Tony · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting insight into FDR's quest to expand the Supreme Court. I particularly enjoyed the explanation of the national state that lead FDR down this path. At times, the book could have been more concise, especially in the epilogue.

[Brooke Wanser · Rating 4 out of 5]

My Constitutional Law professor recommended this book during background of an introductory lecture on the commerce clause. It was a well-written read, if tedious at times. Thinking about the court-packing scheme has become relevant again in 2022.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really well written book. It was a bit dense, but full of details that are interesting if you want a more detailed look at the “Switch in Time that Saved Nine.”

[Steven Meyers · Rating 5 out of 5]

"A SYSTEM OF MUTUAL FRUSTRATION"

At its core, ‘Supreme Power’ is about abuse of power by both President Roosevelt and the Supreme Court. Two different philosophies, one known as “organic law” and the other “theological tradition” (known today as “originalists,”) constantly wrestle with the Constitution’s vague meanings. The author writes that the president’s “serene, supreme confidence in his instincts” made him take some risks that were clearly on shaky constitutional ground. Granted, the Great Depression necessitated drastic executive and congressional action, but the plentitude and haste of their prima facie bills to alleviate suffering were obviously going to face pushback from the Supreme Court. Even though I am an admirer of many parts in the New Deal, the Roosevelt Administration, in my humble opinion, sometimes recklessly and inappropriately exceeded the Constitution’s parameters and the Roosevelt Administration knew it. Both FDR and the Supreme Court saw themselves on the respective side of angels. Their cross-purposes brought to the forefront a spectacle of open and private frustrations with the other side.

‘Supreme Power’ does a good job of describing the personalities and factions on the Supreme Court, the key political and administrative players, and outside organizations. I especially liked how Mr. Shesol explained and debunked the popular notion that the justices, once they put on the robes, somehow become quasi-oracles of received wisdom rather than thinking, feeling, fallible men. The court-packing showed that the Supreme Court also has an ingredient of politics in its decision-making and actions. The book also intentionally or unintentionally shows that the makeup of the Hughes court and the public animosity or support it generated is similar to our present-day politics. The book was published in 2010. Some of the conservatives on the Supreme Court were enamored with the widely popular English philosopher Herbert Spencer’s social Darwinism and were breathtakingly cavalier about the welfare of the less fortunate. These “theological traditionalists” appeared to have no respect for the very real possibility of our nation’s economic collapse. Claims of presidential, congressional, and judicial abuses of power are a near constant. Mr. Shesol explains how the president and Congress had a few tools at their disposal for reigning in the Court, but they came with political and structural risks. Some of the Supreme Court’s rulings were truly horrible and based upon antiquated 1800s’ societal mores that no longer existed. I found their ruling on Morehead v. Tipaldo down-right daft and understood why many citizens thought the ole conservative coots on the bench were ready for the funny farm. While President Roosevelt was an adroit politician and could effectively slather on the rhetorical manure when making his case, FDR’s overinflated ego sometimes helped while, other times, it made a friggin’ pig’s ear of things. Most seasoned politicians and judges thought the court-packing effort was going to pass. When it collapsed, it should come as no surprised that there was a lot of finger-pointing. Mr. Shesol’s last chapter is a great summary of whom or what caused its downfall and how it permanently altered the power dynamics in D.C. The book includes 16 pages of black-and-white photos.

The 529-page paperback edition is an interesting work that will help the reader put present-day acrimony into better perspective. Our system of checks-and-balances makes it a given that there will be near-constant conflict and frustrations between the three branches of government. Such well-written historical nonfiction as ‘Supreme Power’ is therapeutic for me. Detailed history reminds me that while we live in, some ways, unique times, other aspects echo earlier times. Mr. Shesol’s book is a full-bodied explanation of FDR’s court-packing attempt. Most people only hear about the event when pundits mention it in passing during their diatribes. I’d bet my left gonad most pundits only have a superficial understanding of FDR’s court-packing attempt. ‘Supreme Power’ clarifies much about the times and the desperation which led to violence, talks of revolution, and very heated arguments. Mr. Shesol’s nonfiction work is not only for the legal-minded. Any average Joe or Jane, like me, can read this thing and come away from it more enlightened. I learned a lot from ‘Supreme Power.’ It’s another fine work that shows the reader how political sausage is made. The book may have you chugging Pepto-Bismol.

[Bryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jeff Shesol's "Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court" is look at the tumultuous relationship between Roosevelt and his battle with the court system. Over the years I've read a fair amount of stuff on FDR and his Administration but I've always felt like the episodes around the Supreme court were somewhat underwhelming and usually just driven by ideological motivations. Of course as we all know, battles between the Executive and Judicial branch are Evergreen in our politics so that gave this book some added flare.

One of the most positive things I can say about this book is that Shesol writes in a way that covers a lot of ground, gives you great context into some of the battles and legal issues, without overwhelming the reader. I am not a lawyer and have never found "lawfare" discussions all that interesting to read. Shesol gives the reader a good overview of the various competing forces around the New Deal and Judicial branch without overwhelming a reader in case notes, etc.

This book essentially follows the history of first two terms of the Roosevelt Administration from a look at the various legal challenges around New Deal Programs. As I'd mentioned, a lot of books about Roosevelt either barely cover this period or cast these issues as based on the authors various prejudices with fall along: 1.) The dastardly Roosevelt, overwhelmed in his hubris, finally met his match with good ole' fashion American Civics set in place by our ingenious Founders to save our Constitution. Or 2.) The all knowing, wise, benevolent, Roosevelt working day and night to improve the lives of all Americans, was challenged by the evil, stupid, monstrous 9 old men of the Supreme court bent on blocking us from the shining path of progress and Shangri-La.

Shesol, who I believe worked for the Clinton Administration in some capacity, and maybe in his heart believes number 2, I think manages to give a fairly straight down the line story of how these events played out. Even if he does sorta seem to be leaning into his own bias, I never found that to overwhelm the narrative. For the most part I think he covers these fairly complex and controversial issues, that still somewhat plague us today, in an even handed manner.

I saw this book recommended on https://bestpresidentialbios.com/curr...
And, I would agree that the best part of the book is the first half. Shesol gives these really great profiles of Roosevelt, some of his administration and the various Supreme Court justices that are just great to read. He sets the stage really well to cover the ensuing controversies.

The second half of the book, while not bad, but I didn't find quite as interesting. I read the first half of the book in a few days but the second half just started to drag for me. Basically, he sets up this huge conundrum for FDR in that many of the New Deal programs are being altered or outright thrown out and how to deal with it, then he actually releases his plan to "pack" the court due to them being overworked, which does come across as kind of silly. All of the hemming and hawing over that just isn't quite as interesting as the first 300ish pages. Equally the conclusion just isn't that exciting either. Which, I feel silly writing, given we are talking about a history book here. But, I dunno, in some ways, after reading this, I do sorta understand why some authors don't go into great detail on this subject.

But, then again, I really enjoyed this book because it just gives you a window into how politics works and the various day-to-day struggles in an Administration, especially managing personnel. I don't think I quite had as good an understanding for how FDR, with such massive Congressional majorities from the 1936 elections, could have his agenda so thoroughly sidetracked.

Overall, this is a good book for history buffs and political junkies. I would recommend to both. For someone who isn't into "court stuff" this book captured my interest and did keep me reading, despite a few slow bits. While not quite 5 stars, I would recommend.

[Gabby M · Rating 4 out of 5]

Many Americans will vaguely remember the phrase “the switch in time that saved nine” from government class in high school, and recall that it had something to do with court packing on the Supreme Court, and maybe FDR. This book, by Jeff Shesol, tells the story of that switch and places it in context. When Roosevelt was elected in the wake of the Depression, he enacted many broad, sweeping social programs as part of the New Deal…and then watched a few years later as the Supreme Court started to strike them down as exceeding the power delegated to Congress as part of the Constitution. As his frustration mounted, he started to think about ways that he could get around this obstacle, including requiring justices to issue determinations of constitutionality prior to a bill’s passage, changing their jurisdiction so they would no longer be allowed to strike down federal law, or by simply adding more justices to the Court to replace aging, conservative judges with younger, liberal ones. After being re-elected by an overwhelming margin, and bringing a huge Senate majority with him, he decided to bring a bill to require Supreme Court justices to retire at age 70 or have a new justice appointed alongside them (who would then replace the justice whenever he did retire). The bill faced a steep uphill climb, including among members of FDR’s own Democratic party, when something happened that changed the conversation: the existing justices started ruling differently. Two justices started voting more often with the liberals, sustaining programs like Social Security and state minimum wage laws that had previously seemed to be on rocky ground. FDR did not stop pursuing his bill, but it took most of the little wind that existed out of its sails. Ultimately, of course, nothing changed on the Court. There were nine then. There are nine now. It was very interesting to read this book now, with the current dialogue around the Court. Like then, there are three liberal justices who form one block, four conservatives who form another, and another two conservative-leaning who are occasionally on the other side. Like then, there is a liberal outcry about the ways the Court has ruled. When Biden was in office, there were not infrequent calls for him to engage in court packing. This book made clear to me, though, that it would have been incredibly logistically difficult to do so. If a second-term FDR with an overwhelming majority in the Senate couldn’t get it done, why would we think it would be realistic for another president to do so? Even with both a legal and a political background, I was expecting this book to be a challenging read. I was pleasantly surprised to find it very accessible! It keeps its cast of historical figures as small as it realistically can and provides enough detail to be comprehensive without becoming dry and dense. United States history is not my favorite subject to read about, so I have some substantial gaps in my knowledge, but I felt like Shesol managed to deftly balance grounding a reader unfamiliar with this world in his narrative without it feeling hand-holdy and patronizing. It’s probably too long (about 530 pages prior to endnotes) and too focused on a single historical moment to be truly “pop” history for a very broad audience, but the writing is engaging and clear, and though it was published 15 years ago it is still incredibly relevant to our current moment and I definitely recommend it for anyone with any interest in the subject at hand!

[AndrewMillerTheSecond · Rating 5 out of 5]

Jeff Shesol has put forth a meticulously researched, revealing and at times thrilling account of FDR’s court packing scheme and his relationship with the Supreme Court in his first and (early) second terms. Beneath the popular narrative of an impromptu and disastrous gamble on a sacred body you find a thoroughly deliberated (if still misguided) plan that sought to upend a recklessly out-of-step political institution. Unfortunately for Roosevelt, he acted–without consulting any congressional leaders–whilst the courts began to roll back their conservatism and increasingly rule in favor of the administration. He also failed to recognize or address that many in his massive congressional coalition were only married to the Democrats out of convenience, and would take any good opportunity to embarrass him. (In the case of Burton Wheeler, they had been practically frothing to do so.)

This tale is at times confusing, but Shesol’s mastery of developing his characters overrules that in many instances. We get an intimate look into the tribulations of the Supreme Court justices: Chief Justice Hughes is, despite his God-like composure, a deeply conflicted politician who flirts periodically with his past progressive-facing self; Harlan Stone is the reliable liberal who is really quite skeptical of FDR and the Democratic Party and resents any congratulations from their cheerleaders; James McReynolds is a fervent partisan who vows not to retire “so long as that crippled SOB is in the White House”. The President, of course, is the subject of much psychoanalysis and some of his otherwise admirable qualities during his battle with the court worked to his detriment. I have to say that very few history books do a better job at humanizing their protagonists in such a gripping way.

Packing the court was not a totally shambolic exercise as the common perception might lead you to believe. In conjunction with the DoJ, FDR spent months analyzing the possible routes of attack against the Court. A broad range of actions were considered, from simply defying the Court (whether in specific cases like the challenges to restricting gold ownership or generally) to amendments to the constitution to replacing aging justices. Shesol seems to partly pin the demise of Roosevelt’s plan on his unwillingness to listen to congressional proposals; most were through option 2, which the administration thought would result in a bloody and drawn-out fight that might not succeed. When the President presented the plan publicly, he knew and relished the fact that he would do so to a stunned Congress. This would usually work, but the arguments accusing the Court of being overworked and ill-equipped with only 9 justices never stood up to scrutiny. If the President had started by stating the true motivation–a conservative Court that was behind the times–he might have succeeded.

I think I could say a lot more about this book, but I will leave by saying it is brilliant through and through. Plenty of echoes to the present push to reform the Court, and a great look into the intersection of the judicial branch and politics. (Hint: they always intersect.) If you can, sit down and read Supreme Power.

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a great book (4.5/5). Extremely well researched and detailed (maybe at times a bit "too"). Timely and informative. Truly an incredible historical narrative filled with twists of fate, turns of fortune, and political intrigue that should be wider known. There are many parallels to the modern Court, replete with battles along old traditional lines -- black/white, North/South, urban/rural, big vs small gov't, originalists vs those espousing a "living" Constitution. There are echoes that harmonize with Trump and McConnell. The Tea Party is there in the form of the American Liberty League. There are the old reliable justices that presage Ginsberg and Scalia, as well as the swing justice Kennedy. Activist judges many of them, if often behind the scenes. My penciled marginalia lists "Trump!" and "Bernie!" and "modern GOP's lack of empathy!" to mark the excitement of these similarities. This grand play contains many actors and many acts, and it has most of the elements of a fine Greek tragedy. It is well worth the price of a ticket....

A few quotes:

"Let us face the fact that Justices of the Supreme Court ARE molders of policy, rather than impersonal vehicles of revealed truth." -- Felix Frankfurter

"If Roosevelt doesn't ruin this country, it will be because it can't be ruined." -- Justice James McReynolds

"I want you you to go back and tell the President that we're not going to let this government centralize everything. It's come to an end." -- Justice Louis Brandeis

"Amending the Constitution (broadening Federal powers) would involve more than destroying our form of government... It would involve the race question... I cannot conceive of the southern people making such a disgraceful surrender of their rights." -- Ellison "Cotten Ed" Smith, Senator from S.C.

[Isaac · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book seemed timely given recent pushes to pack the supreme court, and indeed it is very relevant. Everyone who has an opinion on the matter should probably at least know this story.

I was a little hesitant to listen to a book this long when it seemed like a fairly simple story and I was worried it would get too bogged down in the minutia of court cases but it doesn't at all.

This book absolutely benefits from the length because the author takes his time, setting up the story, introducing you to FDR, members of his cabinet, all 9 justices and handful of relevant senators. Normally I get lost in books with so many character and it's a real tribute to Jeff Shesol's writing that it did not happen here.

This book is incredibly well researched as Shesol introduces and develops all these folks largely by quotations but recounts and he mixes in lots of details about the vocal inflection of the justice, or the reaction of the crowd and it makes for some engaging storytelling.

And WHAT a story! I had previously done a bio of FDR but I don't think these events got much more than a chapter. Taking the time to go case by case here really helps build a lot of background of what it was like in the depression, but also it's just such a ride. The events get compared to a roman tragedy a couple times towards the end and I think it's fitting.

There was a bit of a lull in the middle of this book, Shesol spends A LOT of time with FDR's AG game planning how to reform the court and at times it felt a bit repetitive. Aside from that little lull thought this book was as fun to read as it is relevant to modern politics.

[Justinmmoffitt · Rating 4 out of 5]

A timely read for 2020 that all prospective court packers ought to read. There is one question that should be on all of their minds: How did FDR, the most powerful president in the history of the country, fail to pack the Supreme Court? Because FDR had significantly more support than any politician today, if he couldn’t pull it off, no one can.

FDR’s failure was ultimately one of hubris: the plan was too sneaky, instead of purporting to simply pack the court, the plan was wrapped in an aging scheme which would add one justice for every justice over the age of 70. Everyone knew the bills intended purpose, at the press conference announcing it, FDR spoke tongue-in-cheek and ultimately the would-be packers abandoned the “justices are too old” argument and based their base on ideology. This failed because the court began upholding the New Deal instead of striking it down.

FDR also failed to communicate. He waited three weeks or so before he threw his weight behind the plan. And he didn’t include Congress during the bill’s construction.

Ultimately, there were several other reasons that added to this failure but if the new court packing advocates want to succeed, they must see where FDR failed.

[Guy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very interesting concept but a pretty dense read and quite a slog to get through.

Louis Brandeis: "Power, must always feel the check of power", "Sunlight is the best disinfectant"

George Sutherland: "The process must be undergone, and the sufferings must be endured. No power on Earth, no cunningly-devised laws of statesmen, no world-rectifying schemes of the humane, no communist panaceas, no reforms that men ever did broach or ever will breach, can diminish them one jot."

FDR: "Economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America, what they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power."

Henry Ashurst: "I am the Dean Emeritus of Inconsistency"

CJ Hughes: "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is"

[David Shaffer · Rating 5 out of 5]

I just finished, Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt Vs. The Supreme Court by Jeff Shesol.

An excellent book that covers the precursors to Franklin Roosevelt's attempt to pack the Supreme Court, including his battle with a court that leaned conservative and dismantled many early aspects to the New Deal.

The book goes into the personalities of the sitting justices, involved members of Roosevelt's administration and advisors and members of the house and senate.

It details the public and legislative fight and both the outcome to the legislation and short-term outcome for the court.

Coming in at under 600 pages of reading it is comprehensive but not cumbersome.

I definitely recommend this for all interested in the topic.

[Michael Holloway · Rating 5 out of 5]

Where goes the constitution...

I picked up this book as Any Coney Barrett took her seat on the Court. Her nomination following the death of Ruth Based Ginsburg was impaired by bad faith among Republicans and hypocrisy of its leaders. There was some similarity with the Court FDR faced in his push for Congress to enact New Deal regulations. At least, similar in a conflict between the threat of rigid interpretation of the Constitution and the needs of humanity in desperate economic and social upheaval. Mr Shesol had access to diaries, letters, private and public papers, news and magazine articles that tell the story in both human and political terms the history of the "court plan", and the lives and destiny of the players. Well written.

[Chad Montabon · Rating 2 out of 5]

It really is a five star book, but it is not entertaining. It is also not an academic exercise - sometimes less enjoyable books are worth the work when the information is clear.
There are a lot of characters involved with FDR's court packing efforts and it is very similar to current events, but there are too many characters that are not fleshed out very well.
Brandeis, Cordoza, VanDervetter and others needed more details to make them and the perspective they brought more real.
While all of the players are a little familiar, none of them are well known enough to pass over them they way this book did.