The l. A. Times, covering the trial for king, and then the o. J. Simpson case. I was dazzled by his writing, he was able to take complex events in a courtroom, and summarize it concisely and clearly. He always wrote amazing speed and great delegates. I got to know him, in another capacity in the late 1990s when he was covering, i was then sharing the elected commission in los angeles, to revise the charter. I saw them that he had this he was amazingly a talented, but also had lots of integrity. At one point the Los Angeles Times was not nearly showing enough tension to try to reform, but according to los angeles weekly, he quit his position at the los angeles time, to protest over this. He put his job on the line, because he believed in the importance of the story. He is then law, and because of that the Los Angeles Times decided to change its approach. Id like to believe that the charter approach, succeeded because of his actions. He was planning some taking some time off from the l. A. Times, and thought it was a great idea, and then i had a chance to read the book, and without doubt its the best biography ive had read. I am thrilled that he is here today, and asked you to join me in welcoming him. I thank you, and especially irwin, thank you for coming today for sharing your burrito with me. I would also like to thank you for, welcoming not just me but my family and friends. My son, jack newton is here today, and my wife. To who the book is dedicated. And our friends are here christopher, and elizabeth and sarah are here. I thank you for welcoming them as well. Im here today to discuss a great lawyer, a good man and a good father, who presided over a lovely family. A man who understood his obligation to society, and to fulfill them to the best of his ability. Im speaking of course about irwin. Who help me so much with this book. And will he allowed me to be here today. As iran mentioned, ive known him for more than 15 years. Ive turned him for wisdom on more subjects than i can count. Whether it is writing the city charter or the cases ive covered law for the patriot act for the war on terror. I know that no person who is more fluent on subjects, for more generous and grateful with his time and knowledge. In los angeles, we consider a great act, but we have shared irwin with you. And i think you intern for sharing him with a nation. Rick i am enormously proud, that he is my friend. So with that, let me talk about another person earl warren. With many respects, i think he is misunderstood. Sometimes by those who dont know better, and sometimes by those who should, or do or at least should know better. In his day, earl warren was accused, and in fact he was a rate enraged by crime. His father had been murdered in 1938 the assailant was never found. He was accused in the day of his sympathy towards communism. He was a veteran of world war i, and who prosecuted communist in his days as a returnee. In his days as an attorney. He was a practical man. One shaped by his experiences, more than any ideology. His life offers powerful evidence, that a persons upbringing, can shape his life and a life can shape history. In one case he was formed, by early 20th century california, and came to embody its values. He exported those values to the nation, and those values helped shape our lies today. If you will bear with me for a few minutes, i would like to talk about who he really was, and in the process paint a more accurate picture of this controversial man. He was born in 1891 in los angeles, in those days it was a scrappy Little AmericanMexican American village. Although, his family left los angeles when he was still quite young, there were two memories of his youth, that will be with him for that his life. And we helped form the man he was about to become. The first was his recollection of a young neighbor, who was crying in pain she died from a disease. Probably polio or meningitis. He wrote in his memoirs, for her anguished cries, and for her passing, it made a lasting impression of death. He was similarly affected, by the mob in 1894, and the American Railway union, against. His father missiles was a railroad man, killed and one night, the members of that union gathered, outside of union station. The main strain station in los angeles. And they hung a man in effigy. And warren had watch this in terror. The experience he recalled, years later gave me a horror of mob action that remains with me to this day. As a young boy, he moved to bakersfield, which was his home for the rest of his youth. Bakersfield at the turn of the century, it was not quite the ok corral but it was not so different there. It was distinctly a western town, of a california variety. Quorums father had been working for the southern pacific in los angeles they were so desperate for workers in the interior of california that they accepted him and bakersfield. Bakersfield was a sharply divided by class and race. Though its Racial Divisions, its fundamental Racial Division was not so much between black and white residents as much as its white residents and chinese population. It was a bustling center of gambling and prostitution but they thick dash of lawlessness. Its a place where a shoot out on main street with some occasional occurrence warrants childhood for the most part was pleasant enough. The family was not rich but he and his sister were well taken care of. There was food to eat, they had presence on holidays and he earned extra pay. But there was also the palpable impact of the life on the frontier of this boy. He worked summers for the same company that employed his father. And the dominant economic and Political Force of the time. Warrens job was to work as a cowboy which meant he rounded up train men and delivered them to their trains when the call went out. That meant dragging them out of solutions and horror houses and casinos and at the like. That two left in oppression on him he also bore witness to the indignities of labor in those days he saw men squander their salaries. Some were pinched in between trains and operated on in rudimentary fashion which meant to be put on the saw bench and amputated. Warren had a distaste for advice and a distrust of big business. Those traits that were visible as a teenager would be part of him for his entire career. He went to berkeley for college and law school. He was not much of a student im sad to report but he was a brilliant maker of friends and joiner of fraternities. It was there at berkeley that he came of age just as california bulldozed its way into a new kind of politics in state history. The Political Movement that warren was witness to was importantly, from his perspective, led by a trial lawyer. Even as a somewhat shy young boy, warren had dreamed of practicing law in the courtroom and as a College Student he had an opportunity to watch a close one of the most arresting travelers of his generation. Herman johnson was a young killer in San Francisco who is called upon to take over a Corruption Case against the citys mayor and some coconspirators and bribery scandal. He took over the case the first year when the lead prosecutor was shot in the head in court by a dismissed juror. Law students take note. Johnson made his name in that case and went on to serve as governor of california and to spearhead a singular Political Movement in the States History which was the rise of the california progressives. The progressives were, by todays definitions, a bit of a hybrid and they are sometimes misunderstood. They were importantly not populist. They were largely middle class men many ran small businesses. Their principal target of their Reform Efforts was the southern pacific whose political influence they deplored and which shut them out of business. They loath corruption and advice. They were quite bourgeois and moderate in their ideological politics. They managed to, sort of, simultaneously deployed to kind of icons of social and political culture at the time. The smoke filled room and disillusion. The smoke filled room symbolized corporate domination of the state while the solutions stood for the working class. Warren was in many respects the most successful progressive in california history. Once he was elected governor in 1942, he hung just one portrait and his office. Progressivism was responsible for many good things in california it fought corruption and champion better working conditions. It brought the state, initiative and they recall. Progressivism also had quite notable draw backs. One was that its founders were conspicuously unsympathetic of the problems of racial minorities. Californias working class in the early decades of the 20th century was suspicious of immigrant labor which it saw is pretty much as a threat. Particularly Asian Railroad workers Railroad Workers and farmers. The progressives forged their Political Alliance with labor. Warren accepted without much thought the indifference of the progressive towards minorities. That was most tragically apparent as im sure some of you know in 1942 when warren, who was then the attorney general of california, enthusiastically champion internment of california japanese and japanese americans. There safety as attorney general with his responsibility. Their incarceration was the nations shame as well as warrants. With his blessing and approval, the federal government incarcerated thousands of people who had committed no crime. Warren never found the words to apologize for that acts in his lifetime. He championed universal health insurance. Governor schwarzenegger put forward a bill not unlike one warren tried push forward in the forties. Throughout his tenure he flocked the government to accept waves of migrants. From the decibel to the end of the Second World War, california was on the receiving end of the largest peaceful migration in human history. There is no way to know for sure how many people arrived in california in that period but warren liked to say that it was his responsibility to provide for 10,000 new people every monday morning. Among those who returned after the Second World War was california japanese. Warren, who had encouraged their banishment, also welcomed the return and sought to it that they were protected as they returned to their lives. He signed the brown act which gave california its open medians laws. He signed a bill that ended legal racial segregation in california schools. I will return to that in just a minute. He was, through all of that, a gigantically dominant figure in californian politics. He was elected three times in 1942, 1946 and 1950. Each a race of some historic importance. He is, by the way, the only person ever elected three times to governor in california. In 1942, he beat an incumbent democrat despite fdrs popularity nationally and within the state. Despite the fact that the state in country were at war. In 1950, his last election, what he beaten out he beat fdrs son, jimmy roosevelt. He did so by more than 1 million votes. In 1946, he achieved the remarkable feat of not only winning the Republican Party nomination for governor but the democratic Party Nomination as well. Yeah, give that a moment thought. Hes the only person ever nominated by both parties to govern california. It was a 1953 that Dwight Eisenhower who tapped warren to become chief justice of the United States. And another hard to imagine turn of events, warren accepted that as a recess appointment and served from october 1953 until march of, 1954 without senate confirmation. He left california on a saturday and was sworn in as chief justice of the United States on monday morning. The new chief justice had been forged very much by california. He was a progressive republican. He liked electoral politics and was good at it. He was angered by corruption and infuriated by vice. He understood crime as a prosecutor and as a victim. He was all too familiar with racism and head indeed succumbed to it though he had also taken some steps to make amends. Warren, as he took over the Supreme Court of the United States, singularly a product of his upbringing. A man very much forged by his experience. Its sometimes im often asked whether warren had some sort of about phase but before becoming chief justice and im pretty sure the answer to that is no. I think the right way to think of warren going through this period is a period of steadily expanding horizons. He started as a prosecutor in element a county with a limited geographical focus and a professional focus solely on enforcement. He then became attorney general of california broadening his geographic focus but remaining devoted to law enforcement. Then as governor of course he had to tackle the full range of social issues. Now as chief justice he had his first opportunity to express his ideology and upbringing on a national scale. The effect is a immediately apparent in his first major opinion, brown versus the board of education. Prior to warrens arrival, its impossible to know we precisely how the court would have ruled under warrants predecessor. But notes from the conference under his predecessor suggest that, at best, the court would have struck down 63. There wouldve been heartened emboldened segregationist defined support for their institutions in the Supreme Court. The job for warren in his first term was nothing less than a defining test of american race relations. As warren took over brown, i think it mattered that he came from either north or south. He was a westerner and, as such, somewhat less invested in the institutions that were being challenged and defended. Although this was a little recognized and reported on at the time, warren had played an Important Role in dismantling segregated schools in california. In 1945 a group of parents in Orange County just outside los angeles filed a suit against, what was then referred to as california mexican schools, where racial alignments were barely less odious than those of the south. In westminster in Orange County, there was two schools that educated elementary aged children. The Westminster School had 628 angle students and just 14 of latino heritage while the Hoover School just a few blocks away i had 150 to students, all of them latino. The suit was filed preet brown and thus in an era where it was still sanctioned. Nevertheless, a very brave District Court judge in los angeles struck down the mexican schools on the argument that they did violate the equal protection clause. He was upheld on much narrower grounds by the night circuit. That couldve ended the matter but the night circuits ruling did not force the state to address other aspects of discrimination in its schools. As a result, if it had settled there, the state Education Code would still have included language that permitted with separate schools for chinese and other asian students. Instead, in june of 1947, warren signed the legislation that struck that language and ended all foremost aggregations racial segregation, in california schools. So the warren who came in 1953 new racism and schools. Most importantly, he understood politics. His management of the court threw the brown case would earn him a position of greatness in american legal history. Warren made it clear in his first conference in 53 that he would vote with those prepared to abolish school segregation. That meant the justices had obviously sounded each other out over the several months previous. That meant the majority had assembled behind the naacp position. He also said in that first conference that he believed the only alternative to upholding that position was for the court to make a finding that blacks warrant for your to whites. That had the effect of very much raising the stakes of this conversation for those justices who are inclined, for whatever reason, not to support that position. They now stood the likelihood of being accused of doing so on quite naked leap racial terms. If that was warrens substantive position, his tactical approach was also terribly important. He could have asked for a vote. Its in fact traditional after each justice articulate their position, to vote. He asked they not record about at that conference. He was concerned that doing so would begin to solidify positions and he was there to talk about it. Instead, he brought the potential dissenters along slowly and gently. He declined to blame the south for its adoption of jim crow and he promised justice clark, for instance, that he would not push too hard in the decree of striking school segregation. He argued to limit the rule not only to schools when he couldve argued for a more sweeping condemnation of segregation in public institutions. He quite painstakingly address the fears of the courts and advocates of the judicial restrain. But emphasizing that the court could fund support for its decision and involves president precedent. Stanley reid, he went to read and persuaded him there was no point in. This was no small achievement reed had originally refused to attend the Supreme Court christmas party, if black faces were going to appear in the party. But warren went to him, as deliberations were nearing in, and said stand you are by yourself now. You have to decide whether its the best thing for the country. Faced with a choice between his patriotism, and his sigar day segregated society opinion, he folded. It was also the work of a governor who had welcomed the japanese back to the state and help and segregation in california schools. It was won by an experienced politician. It was, the first evidence of warrens life, in informing his judicial philosophy, but it wasnt his last. Let me skip ahead for a moment, and say that warren prepared to leave the court in 1969. He was asked, which of his roles he considered most important. Naturally people you know thought he would pick brown, which they thought it was the most important case of the 20th century. He surprised reporters, but instead citing, the courts work in voting rights. Starting with baker versus car. Those cases, were monumentally significant. But his decision, to put those in first position, was curious. Certainly others porter so i asked the question. I believe the reason it resonated so strongly with him, dates back to his own experience in political life. As governor, he had seen little reason to quibble, with californias voting system. In those years people were voted by two different systems. Assembly members were selected by population, and other members by county. Los angeles would have had the same amount of senators, as one of the royal counties in california. So warren had provided presided over that system. Then warren became chief justice, and from that point he saw what the amounts did. Especially to the south. It enhanced the voting strength of whites, and its all at the expense of minorities. Especially urban blacks. With the experience of having been californias governor, and the authority now being the nations chief justice, he struck the rules down. Baker was written by william brennan, his friend and ally on the court. And establish the principle of the court that they could intervene, to consider state legislative system. Sims completed the work of baker, by overturning alabamas system. We he took it on himself to write it reynolds did, and that is notable because it happened at the same year that warren served as chairman of the commission. That was intensively growling assignment. He had accepted it with reluctance, but he agreed to do it only after johnson personally urged him to do so. As a result, that year in 1964, it was the most difficult of warrens life, and for those ten months, he arrived at the offices of the Warren Commission quite early. Right at don, he would provide over until ten, and then walk down the street, and put on the robes, of the Supreme Court, at the end of the court, day and return to the Warren Commission, in the evening to preside over its last sessions until nighttime. He was 72 years old at the time. It was grueling double duty. Those close to him say that no period in his life took a greater toll on him physically or emotionally. Still, he kept command of his court, and he won his majority. And his belief, in voters came through loud and clear. With baker and reynolds. And also in a number of other cases. Look he ended poll taxes, literacy tests, and both devices that were put in place to restrict voting as much as possible to whites. In one sense, i think its just because its charming, to analyze warns faith in voters, you have to understand a person who was elected seven times, that voters were unusually perceptive. The voting cases, demonstrate more than just his personality, and i remember it was a californias progressives, who really saw things like demand of recall. His government domination, and corporate domination of government secrecy. That was warrants tradition in the first half of the 20th century, and by the time he was done with his work on the court, it was the nations tradition as well. There are two, more fields that i would like to mention more briefly, in which warns life in california, profoundly affected the situation he would take as chief justice. And to all of our great benefit, and in one way it was our benefit, the other he failed to do so. But we are better off or warrens inability to. Warren had spent most of his life as prosecutor, he prosecuted subversives, gamblers, prosecutors prosecuting them. He put away a corrupt sheriff, who also have to be with the captain to be the clan. Another who was giving away paving contracts for kickbacks. The one rule he upheld was clean government. As also on 1960s, it was on professionalism and interference. Those ideas express themselves, in a historic line of cases. In 1961, the course court ruled that illegally seized evidence may not be presented in trials. The warren court, the court ruled that the defendants were had the right to a lawyer in state trials. That was gideon who got a new trial. In 1960, six perhaps the most controversial at all, they rolled on miranda. That all gets suspects have a right to be informed of their rights. And also miranda, they got a second trial. And historical and personal terms, those cases yielded somewhat mixed results. Gideon, was acquitted, and led a life after his acquittal. Not so, ernesto miranda, miranda was tried and convicted again. This time based on a confession he made to his girlfriend. He was freed in 1972. Two months later was stabbed to death in a bar fight. His assailants were informed of their around the rights, they did have declined to speak. And then they were apprehended. Miranda, of all the cases, were very real in their day, but while they were shocking notions in some part of the country, to warn they were the natural a birth of his lifelong assistance in police work than prosecutorial profession. Warrens upbringing upbringing did not serve him so well in one way. He liked to say that, the courts would calm saying that any man show this to one of my daughters are punching in the mouth. He had a visceral reaction to pornography. Which were noble instincts. As a father specially. But they did not help him through the question of how much expression the First Amendment protected. He tried to fashion a rule, based on his upbringing, how the courts should protect the speech, but punish those who peddled it. But always the question brought up was how a man or woman could be put in jail for something that the constitution protects. So the warren court drifted somewhere in the pornography cases. Buts that is the exception, that highlights the role. In one field after another, warren wrote law, that drew upon his life in california, and in this nation they made it a much better and more mature place. Given our time here today, i have skipped over some cases, but let me just say and passing, that warren court also established a rule of libel, personal favorite of mine, and as you know it establishes the Public Officials may not take damage for against media. In addition the warren court, had the rights of privacy. It protects speech, and assembly and religious practice, from government intrusion, and the government has no law against that. It also barrs call them from soldiers, and police making them get warrants and so forth. I concluded that the first time it is established, around every person. The government may intrude on that privacy, but only after taking steps consistent with the constitution. Thinking as a whole, those rulings and the rest of the work of the war in court, created a liberal therrien this some. Not a reckless one, rick little rational under strained liberalism. He a powered the government the government to address inequity. But without intruding on personal liberty. Law there are those, today who would have you believe, that when warren created was a architecture of liberalism, and wispy leftist fantasy, reckless in activism, and barely in accordance with the constitution. That is, as a personal analysis, and of a legal analysis of the war in court, completely wrong. Warren law was the father of six, a good father he is a grand master, of the california masons, and he was a veteran who had served his country in world war i he was deeply, and movingly a patriot. He was an activist, to be sure but unlike his leadership, heres what that activism created. Segregated schools were ruled unconstitutional, so were states the gave white voters more power over blacks were ordered to stop. Get four people were given lawyers to represent them. Police would have to get a warrant before ransacking a home. People horrors arrested were reminded they have a right to a lawyer. Public officials, were warned that this is a country founded on as the appreciation of. Bureaucrats thought they were they could write prayers, and force children to speak them in school. But they were told that prayer was for religious leaders, and not Public Officials. I would like to conclude, by asking this. Which of those principles, would anyone here liberal or conservative, disavow. To any of us believe that this would be a better country, if Public Schools discriminated by race, does anyone here ready to defend the proposition, that charles would be fair if for people had to represent themselves. Would any of you want your, colleagues are children to recite a prayer, every morning written by george bush, or mario cuomo, or pat robertson. In an area of privacy, where this nations endless, depressing, and sometimes destructive debate over abortion, cloud all other values, can we actually look at and say its not a liberal position position, that got individuals would maintain their private views. s a government that sets parameters, of decency but recognizes its limits, that knows the difference between a Public School in a private home. That is a legacy in muggier in moderation. One who defined the Political Center in california, and who went on to redefine america. It is essential, that we something and we have lost but we should reclaim. Liberty and rectitude is side by side. One of decency, and Free Expression in full measure. It is i submit, one of justice for all. I would be delighted to take questions. Yes sir. You talk a lot about earlier point, i was wondering how it sets it apart of the current judgments of the court, to have academics are career judges. Thats an excellent question, one of the things im often struck by is that when warren came to the war in court, he of course you know we talked about at length, having been the governor of california, but he was not the only person on that court to come from a political background. Five of the justices, of the war in court had not been judges in any significant way prior to their service on the Supreme Court. As william douglas, came from the fcc, Robert Jackson served as attorney general, and i happen to believe, that that breath of experience was quite good for the court i think enlarged the personalities and enriched the debate. I think its unfortunate that the confirmation process and the difficulties related to have tended to push president s in recent years to appoint more professional judges. I dont say that to disparage them because theyre quite care capable. I feel it creates a much narrower and less freethinking court. I think warren benefited from the breadth of experience of those justices. Did you discover other cases in which the chief justice worked as hard and effectively as he did in brown to marshal his colleagues into a unanimous or less fractured position than otherwise would have been the case . Yes. There are many cases where warren worked hard. Brown i think is the one with the largest consequence in the sense that it is the one with the necessity to deliver an opinion that addressed not just legalities but the underlying moral question. There are throughout their many instances where warren had to really flawed his team. In the initial stages of the warren court, it was quite divided into two relatively antagonistic camps. Jackson and frankfurter promoted restraint. It was not ideologically split. Theres the phrase liberal judicial activism that flows to easily from the conservative top i think today. Warren fell in quite soon with the black and douglas camp. Throughout that whole period, from his initial arrival to the court until frankfurter left and then died in the early sixties, it was a significant struggle. Baker versus car was a fierce struggle. So fierce many believe it contributed to whitakers nervous breakdown and departure from the court. Once frankfurter is gone, Justice Harlan state and represented a voice of conservative skepticism. But the intensity of the debate much less and. That period from roughly 62 to 68 can be considered the most harmonious period in the courts under warns service. Given that warren was a republican, i wonder if you could come in just a little bit on how his relationship with eisenhower changed after his appointment and then also his decision to resign and give johnson the opportunity to name a successor. Yes. Let me start with Eisenhower Eisenhower was quite disappointed in warren. It is perhaps apocryphal root reported attributed to eisenhower saying my biggest mistake and my presidency is sitting on the Supreme Court. But its quite clear that johnson or i beg your pardon, eisenhower was disappointed in both warren and brennan. There is an infamous episode early in warrants tenure in which warren recorded in his memoirs where he went to a dinner party in the white house hosted by eisenhower. John davis, the lawyer from South Carolina was invited and said within earshot of warren. Warren was quite offended to be there while brown was still in the court. At the conclusion of dinner and as they were getting up to go for cigars and drinks, eisenhower took worn by the arm and gesturing to the southerners at the table said, see there not a real such bad people. They just dont want their daughters sitting next to some big knee growth. Warren was mortified. Their relationship never recovered after that. It was deep and i warns Court Rulings in defense of the speech and Association Rights of communists which eisenhower also objected to strongly. At the end of his career, warren did try to get cute with his resignation. After Bobby Kennedy was killed in los angeles, i think warren saw quite clearly with the experienced political eye that he had, that nixon was the likely nominee and likely to be the next president. There is no person in warrants professional life that he tested more than Richard Nixon. Seeing that that could happen, he submitted his resignation and made it contingent well upon the appointment of his successor. Its not so unorthodox nowadays. At the time, johnson was a badly weakened president. He was not seeking reelection. The vietnam war was upon the country we are in the summer of 68. It was too much of a stretch for johnson. Johnson then appointed his personal lawyer and the whole confirmation really became a test of johnsons ability to pull on the senate. The fact is he had lost that affinity at that point. The tragedy from warrants perspective is forced to withdraw his nomination and warren and forward both return to the court. I suspect if warren could have figured out a way to stay longer and not give nixon the vacancy he would have done so. The awkward thing for warren is he was leaving because he had gotten too old. He did end up in the awkward situation of having to swear in Richard Nixon and then having to give him is vacancy. As a result, as you all know, nixon quickly was able to replace them both in his first year. You noted how the sentimentality in the brown case was the same who in turn the japanese americans. You said hes said that he never found the words to apologize for that. You mention also that he welcome back to japanese americans. Did you find any other actions that may have expressed any regret . Yes is the answer. In fact, his memoirs include a passage in which he says i have since come to deeply regret my advocacy of the internment. His memoirs did not come out in his lifetime of fortunately. They remained unfinished at the time of his death and were put together and then released. One interesting thing a foundering research was a copy of the manuscript that was sufficiently finished for him to send it to colleagues to sort of proofread sections of it. In that, it merely says i have since come to regret and his editor added the were deeply. He founded very deeply was difficult to apologize. He was very stubborn man. I think he had political aversions of saying the words im sorry. Its really unfortunate, and a number of respects i think. Theres a group of japanese americans who made a really concerted effort to get him to apologize in his lifetime. Their police to him had this additional potency in light of brown. You can see he is a person who is in fact devoted to civil liberties. For him to be unable to apologize to him was particularly hurtful i think. There are a few other ways in which he attempted to telegraph his regrets about the internment. There was a piece of legislation during the period after his retirement from the court but prior to his death that would have made it somewhat easier to carry out another internment. Warren publicly opposed the legislation and referred to the excesses of the world war ii period in that regard. Those who were asking for his apology chose to accept that as an apology and move on. But he never did quite get the words out right. Its quite disappointing. Yes. Thank you for coming. This has been wonderful. Im thinking about the dinner party incident. And that in dressed up terms was the principal argument made on the path of segregation. Not that they are suit inferior to whites what we all have right of association and whites have the right to not want to associate with blacks. That was the argument that was made. So im wondering when you think about the argument that was out there, his statement at the initial conference, that coming out any other way would mean blacks were inferior, that seems very radically different than his approach in every other regard that you described. Thats something seems to me calculated to require stanley reid to recoil and intrench himself and say forget about this. It did not seem like a way of reaching out. He said i realize its about association to you but you have to understand these are the values are more important. Thats a fair point. The only thing i would say is its offered up in conjunction with a very gentle approach of how to move the court forward on it. It is a very firm, and youre right, a statement that could invite some backlash. But it is accompanied by determination to move quite slowly from that period forward. If you look at his calendars through those weeks of late 53 and 54, he launches he lunches every day with read or clark. There was a real sense that he was going to work the room and pull these votes along quite slowly. I suppose youre right. It could have had the effect of backing read into a corner. Every other thing about his approach though was designed to avoid that. He was ultimately successful in doing so. Whats the timing through the dinner party . Its after the initial conference but before, i want to say it is february or march of 54. Its an extremely deliberate process. The other thing to remember about his desire to move slowly and aside from the tactical issues within the court, is that he was still a recess appointee during this period. Had the court issued a rolling in brown, at the point where warrants to require confirmation, it undoubtedly would have complicated his confirmation considerably. So he had personal political reasons to move slowly as well i dont think those were the dominant reasons for moving slowly, but thats also looming in the background throughout this period. Catherine. Since you just finished, im wondering whether you wanted to comment at all on theres a controversy sort of brewing about what papers from living, sitting Supreme Court justices ought to be make made available to the public. What form of clerks whats fair game in trying to get at the revelation of how the court deliberates versus protecting the confidentiality of the deliberation process . I wonder whether you saw bits of that as you are searching this book and whether anything, any evidence you wanted to have to read this book you couldnt have. Or perhaps evidence youve got for this book. The short answer is i think maximum availability of this material is the right way to go. I say that understanding that the confidence is between a justice and his clerk help foster a certain free nice to exchange opinions. An answer to the other part of your question, there is no material that i coveted for this book that i wasnts able to get in some way. It wasnt always easy. By statute, the Judiciary Committee records are sealed for 50 years. Purely by coincidence. But 15 years from 1954 coincided with the middle of my research. Justice brennan has a body of papers that are incredibly important and illustrative of warren. Ray fischer, who is now a judge on the ninth circuit, he pointed out very early on in my research that warren was somewhat of a stern figure who did not gossip readily with his clerks. But he did talk with brennan all the time and run in gossip with his clerks. The bread and papers are a real trove of material on the war in court and on warren personally. As a result, the brennan papers are centrally divided into two parts. One part are controlled by some restricted access arrangements. Brendan brennans son allowed me access to those papers and the very much helped bring life to the last part of the book. I think its a shame that some of the brennan papers when he will get them to the library of congress he put certain restrictions on them when patches papers could be released. I think thats a shame because i think they do offer such a sort of vivid insight. At the end of term, brennan wrote a memo that summarized the cases of the term. They go through the deliberations of the court and the deals and the. Its rich material unlike anything else than i am were out in court files. Other little bodies of papers. The fda file on warren which is some 2600 pages long i think. Im lucky that my wife is a First Amendment lawyer and helped that along. I did not feel at the end of this that there was anything that i couldnt get that i needed