The Warren Court by the Warren Court

We know what Robert Welch and Professor Henry Steele Commager think about the Warren Court, but what does the Warren Court think about itself?

Continuously refueled by provocative new decisions, debate continues over whether to impeach, hang or sanctify the Warren Court. It occurred to Professor Paul C. Bartholomew of the University of Notre Dame to appeal the question all the way up to the nation’s highest and final tribunal: that is, to the Warren Court itself. He has here assembled the considered judgment, delivered formally from the Bench from 1961 to December 1964, of the Court’s own members on the Court. Seven of the nine Justices—Messrs. Black, Clark, Frankfurter, Harlan, Stewart, White and Whittaker—concurring, the verdict of the lower instance is upheld: the Warren Court is guilty of murdering the Constitution of the United States. The verdict thus stands, and condign sentence will forthwith be carried out. . . .

PB

About the Author

Paul C. Bartholomew

Featured Tags

We know what Robert Welch and Professor Henry Steele Commager think about the Warren Court, but what does the Warren Court think about itself?

Continuously refueled by provocative new decisions, debate continues over whether to impeach, hang or sanctify the Warren Court. It occurred to Professor Paul C. Bartholomew of the University of Notre Dame to appeal the question all the way up to the nation’s highest and final tribunal: that is, to the Warren Court itself. He has here assembled the considered judgment, delivered formally from the Bench from 1961 to December 1964, of the Court’s own members on the Court. Seven of the nine Justices—Messrs. Black, Clark, Frankfurter, Harlan, Stewart, White and Whittaker—concurring, the verdict of the lower instance is upheld: the Warren Court is guilty of murdering the Constitution of the United States. The verdict thus stands, and condign sentence will forthwith be carried out. . . .