Radiolab - Radiolab Presents: More Perfect - The Political Thicket

Episode Date: June 10, 2016

The question of how much power the Supreme Court should possess has divided justices over time. But the issue was perhaps never more hotly debated than in Baker v. Carr. On this episode of More Perfect, we talk about the case that pushed one Supreme Court justice to a nervous breakdown, brought a boiling feud to a head, put one justice in the hospital, and changed the course of the Supreme Court – and the nation – forever.

Hey, this is Chad. So a couple of us here have been working really hard for the past few months on a new spinoff. Radio Lab's first spinoff called More Perfect. It is a mini series about the Supreme Court. We've been working on it for months and months. We just released our first episode last week. We're super proud of it. And I'm talking to you now because I want you to subscribe to this podcast.

I think you will really like this podcast. If you like Radio Lab, you will like this podcast. So I'm actually going to do one better. We're actually going to feature a couple of episodes of More Perfect on this podcast on Radio Lab. Because, you know, we really think you'll like it. And that we hope you'll go to iTunes or Google or wherever it is. You get your podcast and you'll subscribe and you'll spread the word. Because if people listen to this thing, maybe we'll keep doing it.

All right. So what you're about to hear is episode two of More Perfect, our new spin-off. on the Supreme Court. Episode 1 is already out. The voice you're going to hear is Susie Lichtenberg, who is my main collaborator on the project. She was a long-time executive producer of Freakonomics, and she and I are basically cooking up this project together. So here it is. Episode 2. Hope you like it. Well, I think we should start the story on June 25, 1969. Well, first you should say who you are. I'm Susie Lechtenberg. I'm Janet. Rod. This is more perfect. Okay, so why June 20, when was it? June 25th, 1969.

Why then? Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren is retiring. Earl Warren of the Warren Court. Is that a big court? Yeah, that's really big. No, come on. Humor me. I think if you think of legendary Supreme Court justices, he's probably in, I don't know, top five. So he was one of the Mount Olympians?

He's a big deal. Constitutional rights. All right, so he's retiring. So he's retiring. He's been on the court for 16 years, and he's in an interview, and he's asked. How would you list, Mr. Chief Justice? the Supreme Court's most important decision in your 16 years here. And he says something that is kind of astounding.

I think the reapportionment not only of state legislatures, but... Wait, before you hear the answer? Yeah. I think that you need to know that he could have said all kinds of cases. He was the Chief Justice during... I don't know, Miranda? The advised either of his rights to remain silent. That's you have the right to remain silent.

Oh. Clarence Earl Gideon Petitioner. Or Gideon versus Wainwright. It is the duty of the state. Which is you have the right to an attorney. To appoint counsel. That seems big. Or...

Segregation has no place in our democracy. Brown versus Board of Education. Okay. That one I know. That one I know. Do you segregating in the schools? That's big. Yeah, what could be bigger than that? He doesn't say any of those. What does he say?

He says this little case called... The Baker versus Carr case. Baker versus Carr. Huh. I think that that case is perhaps the most important case that we've had since I've been on the court. He thought that case, whatever it is, is more important than the case that desegregated the schools. He did. Wow.

So what the hell is it? Exactly. No, really? What is it? It's this case that was so dramatic and so traumatic that it apparently broke two justices. There was an instance in which my brother, my father going upstairs to get a shotgun. Wow.

More perfect. The honor of all the chief justice and the associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Oh, you're having business before the honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, for it admonished to draw and hear and give the court. Okay, so this is more of perfect, a miniseries about the Supreme Court. Just to frame the story we're about to hear for a second, as we were putting this show together, we hosted a panel discussion,

and a couple of us were on stage, and a woman in the audience asked the following question. Yes. Could you address what I see is the increasing politicization of the court, the apotheosis of which I guess was, you know, voting or electing Bush to be our president? Has the court always been this way? Is this just my perception that it's becoming more politicized?

So this turns out to be a really interesting question. It turns out, I didn't know this until Suzy started looking into it, that there was a moment when the Pandora's box just got ripped open. So I think to understand that moment and this story, you have to get to know three characters. And these aren't necessarily the three most important justices of all time. Because at that time you had Chief Justice Earl Warren and William Brennan on the court. and these are kind of giants of the Supreme Court. Gotcha.

But for this story, these three guys are key. One of them is on the right, one of them is on the left, and one of them is just stuck right in the middle, tragically in the middle. So on the conservative side. What difference does it make whether it's in the Constitution or in any other expression or action by the state? You had a guy named Felix Frankfurter. So Justice Frankfurter was one of the most...

Wait, his name was really Frankfieler? Yes. One of the most influential justices of all times. That's Tara Grove. She teaches constitutional law at William and Mary Law School. He was a very influential scholar at Harvard Law School before he became a justice, was a close advisor to Franklin Delodore Roosevelt. He was extremely smart. Towering figure. But as a person, Justice Frankfurter, he wasn't necessarily the nicest person. I heard that from everyone I talked to. I always call him a bantam rooster.

He was a difficult crusty figure. He was short. They had a little bit of a pouch on him. It was one of the most condescending. Egotistical of justices. He was a tough customer. When a clerk would come to the U.S. Supreme Court chambers to deliver a message, when the person at the door tried to hand Justice Frankfurter the paper,

Frankfurter would inevitably let it drop to the ground. So the person had to bend down and pick it up to hand it to him again. Dude, that's a wiener move. And by the way, the voices you heard besides Tara Grove were professors Mike Seidman. Georgetown University Law Center. Sam Azaccaroff. NYU Law School. Craig Smith.

California University of Pennsylvania. An ex-S Supreme Court clerk, Alan Cohn. Colin K-O-H-N. Okay, so Frankfurter is on one side of the aisle. And his nemesis is a gentleman on the other side of the aisle. A liberal named William O. Douglas. Here is Justice Douglas now in the Supreme Court Chambers. This is a recording from a 1957 interview with Justice Douglas.

He looks very well his faces tan, rugged, his eyes sparkle. Douglas was this mountain climbing environmentalist, big on civil liberties. I think that this oncoming generation is more aware of the importance of civil liberties that perhaps my generation was. And like Justice Frankfurter? Douglas was a prick to everybody around him. Everybody hated him. All those same adjectives.

Condescending. Egotistical. Abrasive. Applied. Here's how the New York Times described him. A habitual womanizer, heavy drinker, and uncairing parent, Douglas was married four times, cheating on each of his first three wives with her eventual successor. Do you believe in kissing your bride, sir?

Oh, sure. This is footage from his last marriage to his wife, Kathleen. He was 67, she was 23. Oh, yes. So, yes, yes, that is William Douglas. So you have these two guys, Frankfurter the Bantam Rooster, Douglas the Prick. And... As you can imagine...

They hated each other. They just despised each other. So Frankfurter had this habit of monologuing, and while he would go on and on, Douglas would just pull out a book right in front of him and just start reading. You know, he was just open in his disdain for Frankfurter. I actually found a series of interviews that were done with Douglas in the early 60s, where he basically calls Frankfurter names. God, the evil, utterly dishonest, intellectually.

He was very, very devious. He spent his time going up and down the halls, putting poison in everybody's spring. Wow. Why'd they hate each other so much? Well, according to Mike Seidman. Some of that comes from maybe their difference in background. Frankfitter was a Jewish immigrant from all. Austria, Douglas was a westerner.

But according to him, the core of their hatred actually was ideological. He had reflected a really important split. Over how powerful the courts should be. So for Frankfurter, courts just ought not to intervene. He believed that many matters should be left up to the political process and that courts should stay out of those issues. Douglas, he thought just the opposite. He thought that courts ought to intervene to protect, for example, minority groups, free speech rights, things of that sort.

So you had this personal feud going, you had this ideological war that was brewing in the court, and into the middle of all this, walks Charles Whitaker. You might call him the swing vote. Okay. This is Alan Cohn. I was a Supreme Court clerk for Justice Whitaker from national. 1957 to 1958. Whitaker grew up in a small town in Kansas called Troy. The antithesis of flashy.

This is his granddaughter Kate. He attended kind of a one-room schoolhouse. Proverbial little red schoolhouse. Worked on the farm. But he determined that was not the life for him. Kate says when he was around 16, he became obsessed with the idea of becoming a lawyer. And she says he would actually practice law to the animals. Can you imagine, you know, pushing the plow along in the fields and then lecturing and arguing cases to the cows or to the horses or whatever?

Did you really hear that he was lecturing doing things? Yes. Oh, and on the side, he would hunt. He would hunt squirrels. Possum. Raccoons. Gunks. And he'd sell the peltz for a few dollars.

And he amassed, I think, $700. With that money, he put himself through law school. My understanding is that he simultaneously went to law school and high school. What? Which is just mind-boggling. Yeah, apparently he went to the head of the law school in Kansas City, and he's like, I don't have a high school diploma, but you need to let me in. The dean just saw how ambitious he was, and he was impressed.

And he's like, all right, you're in. I love this guy. He's like Mr. Bootstraps. Totally. Anyhow, to make a long story short. Soon he became a top lawyer. And Alan Cohen says that's because he would do better than all of his opponents. He would outwork them, out-prepared them.

Great attention to detail. Great presence before a jury. And then he becomes a judge for a judge. a federal district judge and then an appeals court judge. Then in February of 1957, he gets the call. As I recall, it was in the evening, and they asked if he could be in Washington in the next morning. This is Kent Whitaker, Charles Whitaker's son.

He said, certainly, but my best blue suit is at the cleaners tonight. What did he wear? As a matter of fact, my mother or someone else got the cleaners to open up at night. In the first instance, there must be allegations tending to show that the corporation's right of exercise of free will have been destroyed. This is one of the first times that Whitaker spoke on the bench, and he interjects with a question for the attorney, and he is Midwestern polite. I hesitate if you had so many interruptions.

I have a question or two. I wonder if I might have the privilege of asking you. I think it may last... The thing that's crazy to me is that he was... walked into the highest court in the land, and he didn't even go to college. I think it's important to understand that he had no formal education, really. In other words, he never took history or political science or social science. But he loved the law.

My father was not an ideologue. He expected the court to be an arena in which there were lively arguments on legal issues. And that's what he enjoyed, what he... was really good at what he loved. As Kent Whitaker puts it, his dad was kind of the walking embodiment of that thing that Chief Justice John Robert said back in 2005 during his confirmation hearing.

Mr. Chairman, I come before the committee with no agenda. He was sort of a blank slate. It's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat. My father was not interested in advancing a cause or a theory, but... Frankly, that seems how a justice should be that you are approaching it without a political agenda and that you're deciding it.

I think in theory that's exactly right. But in practice, so many of their cases, there is no law to turn to to decide those cases. Kent says that his dad quickly discovered that law at the Supreme Court is never clean cut. Cases make it there precisely because the law isn't clear. Many of their cases are just without precedent. And it's in those cases. At least you must have your ideology as a starting point. And the fact that he didn't have an ideology, that left him vulnerable.

He was definitely getting lobbied from both sides. Frankfurter on one side, Douglas on the other. He was the new kid on the block and was being pulled by each one. He didn't like the way the judges bullied for votes. Within his first three months, he found himself in the middle of a dead. death penalty case. She was found in her bedroom by fireman, taken outside, and soon thereafter pronounced death.

A guy had been tried for arson and murder, and Douglas and the liberals wanted to intervene to help him. They felt like he'd been treated unfairly by the lower courts. But Frankfurter and the conservatives thought that the Supreme Court should be cautious. They should honor precedent. Now, according to Justice Douglas, Justice Whitaker was undecided all the time. Douglas would tell him one thing. He'd say, oh, well, yeah, that seems right.

And then Justice Frank Hurder would say something. would say something else, and he'd say, oh, gosh, that sounds right. I think there was some thought that he might side with the guy who talked with him last, you know. He ends up being so undecided on this death penalty case that he forces the court to delay the vote until the next term. And there were a series of cases like this. Albert L. Trope, where the law would be fuzzy, ideologies would harden, and Whitaker, he would be right in the middle. The physical depictions of him in that first year from people who saw him, described somebody who was restless.

Terribly unhappy. Had lost a lot of weight. Nervous. It was agitated most of the time. It was a lot of stress on him. A massive business, Justice Whitaker, that in normal course under California procedure, the men of probation... But over the next few years, he bounces back.

He finds his feet. You say that the judgment of probation... His production increased substantially. In his third year, his fourth year, and part of his fifth year, he wrote as many opinions as any other judge. He wrote as many dissenting opinions as any other judge. He was one of the nine. He was fully employed. And he wrote some very important opinions during that period of time.

And along came a Baker versus Carr. And it broke him. That's coming up. Hi, this is Sharine from Sunrise, Florida. Radio Lab is supported in part by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, enhancing public understanding of science and technology in the modern world. More information about Sloan at www.sloan.org. Hey, this is more perfect. I'm Chad. I boomrod.

Let's get back to our story from Susie Lechtenberg about the case that broke two justices. 13. Charles W. Baker and Al, Patel. Appellants versus Joe C. Carr in Al. Okay, so it's April 19. 1961. The Supreme Court is hearing Baker versus Carr. This unqualified voters in the state of Tennessee. Now, on the surface, Baker versus Carr was about districts and how people are counted in this country. And this is one of the most basic ways that political power gets assigned in America.

Yeah, like, you know, as populations grow in size, that growth should be reflected in the number of Congress people that are representing them. But at that time, in Tennessee... Tennessee hadn't changed. hadn't changed its legislative districts. Its last reapportionment was in 19 and 1. Since 1901. Which was 60 years earlier. Well, this created big problems for urban areas.

Like Memphis, because in those 60 years, people had moved to the cities in droves. And rural areas were getting smaller. But the Tennessee state legislature had refused to update its count, and it was still giving more representation to those rural areas. In Tennessee, the figure was 23 to 1. NYU Law Professor Sam Izzacro. For people that don't understand it, how does it actually dilute your vote? Well, this is very simple.

You have one district that has one person in it, and you have another district that has 23 people in it. The district that has one person gives all the power to that one person. The district that has 23 people spreads it out over all 23. Wait, what? All right, think of it this way. At that time, a person in the city in Tennessee had one-23rd as much of a voice in the legislature

as a person living in the countryside. Oh. And here's sort of the insidious underbelly of that. It just so happened that the people living in the countryside were mostly white. And a large percentage of the people living in the city were black. Underlying all of the reapportionment litigation, at least in the South, was white supremacy.

That's Doug Smith. Historian and the author of On Democracy's Doorstep. This was deeply tied to white supremacy and the maintenance of Jim Crow. It was a method of making sure that rural white legislatures continue to control the power structure. So you had this situation, he says, where a small minority was choking the majority. Choking the cities and the growing suburban areas from any sorts of funds. The cities couldn't get the money they needed for roads, education, social services. So the question at the Supreme Court was, and they would actually tackle this in two separate hearings,

what should they do about this? And here's where you get to the ideological smackdown. Liberals on the court, like Douglas, basically agreed with the plaintiff when they argued. I say there's nothing in the Constitution of the United States of America that ordained, and nothing in the Constitution of Tennessee that ordains that state government

is and must remain an agricultural commodity. There's nothing in either one of those constitutions that says it takes 20 city residents to equal one farm. Liberals were like, yes. Yeah, this is clearly an injustice. People in the cities are getting screwed. Their voting rights have been diluted and debased to the point of nullification.

But the conservatives are like, yes, people are getting hurt. But we're not going to do anything about it. We can't. Frankfurter... A mere fact that there's a rotten situation doesn't mean a court today. Most vociferously said we cannot get involved. That as bad as this is, it was not an issue that the court should get involved in. Why not?

Well... I do have to think of the road that I'm going to. on, what kind of road you're inviting me. He was like, think of where this will lead. Considering the fact that this isn't a unique Tennessee situation, this isn't a unique Tennessee situation. If we end up doing this in Tennessee, pretty soon we'll be intervening in California.

Maryland? South Carolina. Pretty soon we'll be rewriting the entire U.S. legislative map. I have to think of a lot of states and not say this is just Tennessee. For me, this is the United States, not Tennessee. Yeah, so basically he felt like this would force the court to get involved in politics. And he really believed that the court should never, ever get involved in politics.

This is an idea that goes way back to something called. The political question doctrine. Political question doctrine. The political question doctrine says no federal court can decide this issue at all. The court simply had no business getting into what we're considered to be fundamentally political and what could be more fundamentally political than the makeup of a legislature. It's a philosophy. in the notion that

unelected lifetime judges should not be substituting their will for the will of the people's elected representatives. Frankfurter felt like even if you have a terrible political situation, if the justices stepped in and overruled the legislature, that would be worse than doing nothing at all

because it would be fundamentally undemocratic. He viewed the political question doctrine is a crucial limitation on the federal judicial power. And he wasn't alone. the courts had followed this guideline for about 150 years, and even with the current case in Tennessee. The federal court that first heard the case recognized the situation and actually referred to it as an evil.

The evil is a serious one which should be corrected without further delay, end quote. But they said that this is a political question. Malacortionment is a political question, and only the political branches can handle this. The Supreme Court, they have no power to do anything about protecting and enforcing the voting. voting rights of these plaintiffs. So, when the lawyer for Tennessee got up there,

I am not here defending the legislature of Tennessee. He didn't try to defend how Tennessee was counting or not counting its people. He basically said, yeah, what we're doing is bad, but it's nobody's job but ours to fix. Is it worse for the legislature of Tennessee, not worse for the federal district courts to buy the... He basically said, if you step in, you're going to screw up the balance of power in America. The power in America comes from we, the people, not the courts. So this matter should be left up to the people of Tennessee and their elected representatives.

Wait a second. If the whole problem is that you don't have a voice in the legislature, then how can you suddenly just have a voice in the legislature? I mean, the only way to change it would be if the legislature itself were to give up power, and why would they do that? Because, of course, once elected officials are in power, they have a vested interest in keeping their districts exactly as they are, because those were the districts that elected them. And fundamentally, electoral representatives knew that if they redrew the lines, that they would be voting themselves out of political power. That's Guy Charles, Professor Duke Law School.

So they had an incentive not to do anything about this. So for the liberals on the court, they felt like this was a fun. fundamental flaw in our democracy that needed to be fixed. And nobody was going to fix it if they didn't fix it. But for Frankfurter, he's like, if you fix this one, you're going to have to fix that one and that one and that one and that one. And where's it going to stop? If you do this, there is no way out. The court's going to get stuck in what he called.

The political thicket. The political thicket. The court must not enter the political thicket. That sounds like Frankfurt. He must have written those words. And the imagery of the thicket is that, you know, the deer very big. proudly with his new horns, goes into the thicket, gets entangled, and can never get out. Frankfurter's claim was, once the courts are in, there will be nothing beyond it,

and someday the courts will be forced to declare winners and losers of very high-profile elections. Okay, so after the oral arguments are over in Baker v. Carr, the justices head into conference. That's a meeting with just the nine. And when they went into the conference, basically the court was divided. Right down the middle. And Charles Whitaker, he was a potential swing vote. Whitaker was deeply torn. He'd been leaning Frankfurter's way.

But... If there is a clear constitutional right that's being violated. During that first argument, he asked a number of questions that suggested a great deal of sympathy with the plaintiffs. Then is there not both power and due? duty in the courts to enforce that constitutional right. There was a lot of thought that he might actually come down on the side of the plaintiffs in that case. And I think it's where Frankfurter really, really began to rip into him. Justice Frankfurter, right after the first oral argument, during the conference, he gave a 90-minute speech.

So he talked for 90-plus straight minutes, darting around the room, pulling books off the shelves. Pulling books off the shelf, reading from prior cases. gesticulating wildly to make his point. And the whole time looking directly at Whitaker. There was one account that I heard where Frankfurter went on for four hours. Four hours. Really lecturing Whitaker, really, really belittling him. This guy.

Yes, it was horribly intimidating. At one point, one of the justices on the liberal side, Justice Hugo Black, he took Whitaker aside. Black was trying to make him feel better. Black said to Charles Whitaker, just remember, we're all boys grown tall. We're not the gods who sit on high and dispense justice. But it's very difficult not to see yourself in that role. Particularly if your vote might be the vote that decides everything. This started to weigh heavily on Whitaker's mind.

He was disturbed by having the weight of the Supreme Court on his shoulders. According to his family, Kate and Kent. My mother tells me that he at that time was under a lot of stress and spoke as though he were dictating, spoke his punctuation. Hello, Judith, comma, it's very nice to meet you. You're clearly thinking about everything that he might say being recorded. I remember his stating that he felt like all the words that he was, uttered were being chiseled in stone as a result of which he said, you don't talk much.

So after they heard the case the first time, Whitaker couldn't make up his mind. And actually, incidentally, there was another justice. Justice Stewart, who was the other swing vote in the case, who also couldn't make up his mind. The court decided to hear the case again in the fall, just because they needed more time. And over the summer, interesting enough, Whitaker said he remained deeply divided that he'd actually written memos on both sides of the issue. Doug Smith says Whitaker wrote both an opinion for intervening in Baker v. Carr and a dissent against intervening in Baker versus Carr at the same time. Meanwhile, as he's doing this, Justice Frankfurter circulates a 60-page memo explaining how this was a political question

that should not be decided by the courts. He's got, you know, a fire in his belly. He's not going to let this one go. Number six, Charles W. Baker at Al Appellants. Monday, October 9th, 1961. It's 10 a.m. and the court is back in session. The lawyer arguing the case against the Tennessee legislature begins to talk. Tennessee voters seek federal court protection. Frankfurter sits quietly for about five minutes listening.

And then? He don't mean to imply because he referred to wrong. He starts in. It had no rights to the state. I certainly did not, Mr. Justice. The ratio you gave a minute ago. Can't pass against determination of the state report? I wasn't trying to deal with that problem.

I wanted to know, and the totality doesn't include. Is there any state in the U. needs to be different for you in this order? Well, it's passed on it by denying a right under it. If that isn't passing on it, I don't know what is passing. Of course, not Mr. Justice, Frank Ferdter. Frank Furnter hammers the attorneys with questions. During the course of oral arguments, he speaks approximately

a hundred and seventy times. 170? 170. Damn. Charles Whitaker. We have some system for the allocation of its legislators

to district's account. 17 times. Well. After nearly four hours of oral arguments, the justice is recess and go into conference. Frank Furter needed desperately. He had to get Whitaker.

And he would kept after him like a dog after a bone, trying to persuade him. And that harassing he got, I have to make a point here. It was a nightmare. And I saw the nightmare. How so? Describe it to me. Well, he was a nervous wreck and like a cat on a hot tin roof.

I found out, I don't know if he told me or his wife told me. He was on tranquilizers. To try to overcome what he thought was just working. work-related stress. Well, clearly something was taking hold of him. We had trouble concentrating, highly fraught. I would characterize his eventual breakdown as something of a slow descent. By the early spring, after the court had returned from its winter recess,

Whitaker was absent from the court. You mean like he didn't show for work one day? Apparently so. His clerks didn't know where he was. The other justices didn't know his whereabouts. He just disappeared. Really, in the middle of what's going to become one of the monumental decisions of the 20th century, he disappears. He had to escape.

Where do you go? Well, he went to really what would be a cabin in the woods in the middle of Wisconsin. And he called up one of his former law associates in Kansas City to come up and join him. And according to Craig Smith, he and this guy whose name was Sam Mulby, they would just sit there on the bank of the lake in silence. They would sit for hours on end not talking to each other, just waiting for the justice to speak. You know, we have no way of knowing.

what he was thinking at that moment, but I imagine he was just sitting there and he was thinking about these two realities that could unfold. Like, on the one hand, if the court stepped into politics, they could protect people. But on the other hand, what kind of precedent with this set? Would it make the court too powerful? In which case, who would protect the people from the court?

I imagine his mind with, back and forth and back and forth. And when Whitaker decided he really had to get back to work, then this protege would say to him, no, just relax. Just take it easy and get yourself together

before you decide to go back. After three weeks, Justice Whitaker returns to D.C. Back to Washington for a few days. That's Kentigan, his son. We found my father to be really in extremis, and debate, and I think borderline suicidal.

When you said he was suicidal, what do you mean? There was an instance in which my brother found my father going upstairs to get a shotgun. Oh. Yeah. A few days later, Charles Whitaker checks himself into a hospital. There is some evidence that it was really Justice Douglas. who convinced Whitaker to go to the hospital. I do recall it.

That's Justice William Douglas again. It was very poor, very worried and very depressed. He asked me what I thought he should do, and I told him I didn't decide what he should do until I get well. A few weeks later, March 29, 1962, the presidential press conference from the new State Department auditorium, Washington, D.C. Several announcements to make.

It is with extreme regret that I announced the retirement of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Charles Evans Whittaker, effective April 1st. Justice Whittaker, a member of the Supreme Court for nearly five years and of the federal judiciary for nearly eight years, is retiring at the direction of his physician for reasons of disability. I know that the bench and the bar of the entire nation join me in commending Mr. Justice Whittaker for his devoted service to his country during a critical period in its history. Next, I want to take this opportunity

to stress again the importance of the tax bill now before the House of Representatives. Wow. And whatever happened with the case with Baker v. Carr? Well, Whitaker didn't vote on Baker v. Carr. So you could say that this case that essentially broke him, his vote didn't count. Wow.

Around the time that he was in the hospital, there was sort of this liberal coup at the court where Frankfurt or lost a couple. couple of other votes. So in the end, the decision actually wasn't very close at all. What was it? It was six two. Oh, Frankie. Yeah. And Brennan wrote the majority opinion, and he says that this whole kind of cluster that we've been fighting over of how states in Tennessee count their voters, that this is something the courts can and should look at. So in other words, they decided to lower their horns and go into the thicket. Oh, yay, they did. Oh, yay. And just one or two final questions. What happened to

Justice Frankfurter. Well, the thing that I find perhaps most extraordinary is it less than two weeks after the decision in Baker v. Carr came down. Felix Frankfurter was working at his desk at the Supreme Court. And Frankfurter's secretary found him sprawled on the floor of his office from a stroke. He suffered a massive stroke and then never returned to service. And while he was in the hospital, Solicitor General Archibald Cox visited Frankfurter, And Frankfurter, he was in a wheelchair and could barely speak, but he apparently conveyed to Archibald Cox that the decision in Baker v. Carr had essentially caused his stroke. He felt so passionately that the court should stay out of the case,

that he physically, physically deteriorated after the court had gone the other way. After Baker v. Carr, President Kennedy essentially had two Supreme Court vacancies to fill. Now, Whitaker's seat, he filled with a guy who turned out to be a moderate. Frankfurter's vacancy, that second vacancy? It's that vacancy that will lead to the appointment of a man named Arthur Goldberg. That is the fifth vote that the four liberals, what are regarded as the four liberals, that becomes the fifth vote that they need really to create what has come to be regarded as the war in court revolution. This is when the Supreme Court basically became an agent for social change.

That revolution that begins with the 1962 term, that's the revolution that is going to change. The way we draw our political boundaries. When the prosecutor withheld a confession. The way we think of criminal justice. The way we treat state where small black armed bands. The way we treat First Amendment. of religious and obscenity issues. That's the Warren Court that people remember.

And that's the court that came into existence when Felix Frankfurter left. And so just thinking about that question that that woman asked all the way at the beginning of the story? Yes. Could you address what I see is the increasing politicization of the court, the apotheosis of which I guess was, you know, voting or electing Bush to be our president.

You can kind of draw a line from this moment in Baker v. Carr all the way to December 9, 2000. 7 o'clock here in the east, the polls in six new states have just closed, and the lead story at this hour is the state of Florida is too close to call. I think Phil Schringford would have said, see, that's what I told you, that's what would happen, is that eventually you will be deciding a partisan question which presidential candidate essentially received the most votes. For those who felt themselves on the losing side of Bush Rie Gore, this was Justice Frankfurter's

revenge. This was the moment that Baker v. Carr had opened up. And when I teach this, to students, and particularly in the decade after Bush v. Gore when the sentiments about this were still quite raw, I would say to them, well, is this, was Frankfurt a right? And I remember a student in the mid-2000s who said in class, I never thought I would say this, but because I hated the outcome in Bush v. I was so angry when the court interceded. But if Bush v.

Bush v. Gore is the price we have to pay for the courts making the overall political system work somewhat more tolerably properly. It's a price I'm willing to pay. Before we totally sign off, what happened to Douglas? We sort of lost track of him. So after Baker v. Carr was decided, he went on to be a Supreme Court justice for 13 more years. And to this day, he actually holds the record.

for being the longest serving justice of all time, 36 years. Huh. And Frankfurter? So Baker v. Carr was the last case that he ever heard, and he died a few years afterwards. Man. And Charles Whitaker, did he ever recover? Well, after Whitaker retired from the court, he moved back to Kansas City with his family, and his son said that it took him about two years to get better

from his nervous breakdown. But he did get better, and eventually he got a job as counsel to General Motors. but he never returned to the bench. He never was a judge again. Okay, More Perfect is produced by me, Chad Irumrod, with Susie Lichtenberg, Tobin Lowe, and Kelsey Patrick. Go, Kelsey. With Soren Wheeler, Ellie Mistal, David Herman, Alex Overington,

Karen Duffin, Sean Ramosforam, Catherine Wells, Barry Finkel, Andy Mills, and Michelle Harris. Special thanks to Gianne Riley. Archival interviews with Justice William O'Douglas come from the Department of Rare Books and Special Collections at Princeton University Library. Supreme Court Audio is from Oye. Oyee.

A free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell. More Perfect is funded in part by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation, and the Joyce Foundation.