◆ SpookStack

Sree 7 | I Ike the article that Fred Rodell has written on soe of. rt greats, In “A Gallery of Justices,” for the Saturday Revi has put together an All-American Nine, or what he calls : fan's Dream Court.” It’s a fascinating game. If you like to choose e Ten Best Plays, or Ten Best Movies, or Ten Greatest Scientists, ‘why not a benchful of the great justices? ; . Of the 93 men who have served on the court since its begin- nings (the ninety-third is Justice Potter Stewart, of Ohio) here are Rodell’s Nine. He takes John Marshall and William Johnson from the Marshall Court. Then he jumps and takes Samuel Miller and Zohn Harlan from the courts that sat between the Civil War and the turn of the century, the latter belng the Plessy v. Ferguson dissenter. Then another jump, and he takes the gréat tric of giants —Holmes, Hughes and Brandels—from the court of the early 20th century. He ends with his two favorite judges from the present bench-—Bilack and Dougias. Note that, except for Marshall, Redell has packed his bench “with liberals; and, except for Marshall and Hughes, it is ‘also a‘ bench of rebels and dissenters, both on economic and civil liberties _ dssues. Even on a tribunal so massively based on precedent, it is_ ' the non-conformists who. have done the most creative work. I don’t quarrel overmuch with this bins But there are really only two judges whom everyone would choose—Marshall and - Holmes. After that it is pretty much a grab-bag, if you are willing to defend what you grab. I have two dissents from Eodell’s list. I cannot accept a list 1 of Supreme Court create which omite Rover Taney: Marshall and Tahey, between them, not only dominated the court for an inter- ble stretch but also lald the foundations of our constituti law. To include Taney, I omit William Johnson—an interesting man, byt a relatively slight figure. Similarly I find it hard to omit the craggy figure of Chief Justice Stone, especialy after Masob's biography. To make room for him, I should have to drop Doug Thus my own list reads Marshall, Taney, Miller, Harlan, Holmes, Hughes, Brandeis, Stone and Black. Not a very.novel list, but in such matters novelty is not the deepest consideration, + ¥ + . One of ‘the harshest compulsives in making such a list, is to imit yourself to only ong member of the present court. Despite the attacks on it, mostly by know-nothings, it is a court that contains some extraordinary men. In an age of rubber-stamped political personalities, our justices have managed to be themselves. Actually there are four men on the court-—Black, Frankfurter, Dougias, and Warren—who could sit on an all-time bench without diminishing its stature. Black is hewn out of the Alabame soil, with # powerful mind that has remained steadfastjy militant. Frank- furter is scholar and tactician, unfailingly and infernally articulate, the “concurringest” judge who has ever sat on the bench, ever searching an agonized conscience. Douglas has a good deal of the same outspokenhess as Black, and—like him—courage and a flerce passion for freedom. And Warren, while he has been on the court too briefiv to show the whole orofile of hie future davelonmaent haz Bre Rey SA GAT Te SEEN TV ESTEN: BFA UPAR, SPA BREED SEAWATER TON HFREEN EE My SEC already displayed the qualities of a great Chief Justice. These four men, im intellect, convictions, and the quality “i leadership, overshadow the President and the whole crowd /pf aspifants in both parties for the 1960 nomination. n fact, if uhere is one event that could get me to vote /fhe Rephblican ticket in 1960, it would he the very unlikely choice of Earl Warren as candidate, wo