What do you think?
Rate this book
Felix Frankfurter: Judicial Restraint and Individual Liberties
This biography looks at Frankfurter's career as Supreme Court Justice in light of his previous work as a law professor and reformer, arguing that he failed to live up to his potential, and placing the blame squarely on his insistence on the conservative notion of judicial restraint. Annotation copyright Book News, Inc. Portland, Or.
234 pages, Hardcover
First published August 1, 1991
14 people want to read
About the author
Melvin I. Urofsky
89 books13 followersMelvin I. Urofsky is professor of law and public policy and a professor emeritus of history at Virginia Commonwealth University. He received his B.A. from Columbia University in 1961 and doctorate in 1968. He also received his JD from the University of Virginia. He teaches at American University and George Washington University Law School.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
January 9, 2016
This is an extremely solid biography. I can't say I loved it because I don't know if there was anything amazing. But it did everything you'd want it to do.
What's interesting is how consistently flat Frankfurter comes across as in every portrayal. He wanted everyone to relate to him either as a student or mentor and he really liked "judicial restraint" as he understood it. It's a lot of that in every portrayal.
What's interesting is how consistently flat Frankfurter comes across as in every portrayal. He wanted everyone to relate to him either as a student or mentor and he really liked "judicial restraint" as he understood it. It's a lot of that in every portrayal.
August 16, 2018
Melvin I. Urofsky professor of law at Virginia Commonwealth has written this book on Justice Felix
Frankfurter who served from 1939 to 1962 on the Supreme Court. He went on the court as the man
purportedly behind the New Deal because he drafted so much of the legislation and was able to get
his Harvard students jobs within the old federal agencies and the new ones created by Franklin D.
Roosevelt. But by the time he resigned from the court due to a stroke he was the great authority
quoted by conservative legal pundits. The answer is two words "judicial restraint".
A notion Frankfurter developed into a philosophy when he saw the court for years before the New
Deal appointments strike down all kinds of progressive legislation because it wasn't specifically provided in the Constitution. As he saw it the Legislative branch had primacy in making law and
policy and courts ought to show great restraint before rushing willy nilly into political questions.
But as the courts after the Roosevelt presidency went more into questions of civil liberties there
was Felix Frankfurter clinging to judicial restraint even unto questions of basic human rights. An
interesting sight the Jewish kid born in Vienna raised in New York City upholding the government's
right to investigate people and deny civil liberties to those it deemed enemies.
Frankfurter was not a pleasant man generally though he was capable of a charm offensive if he felt
it needed. He saw his job as a 24/7 struggle to win his colleagues over to his point of view. In
conference he lectured them like his Harvard Law students. But no one ever said he wasn't brilliant if wrong headed.
The Jewish kid also married into Boston Brahmin society. By all accounts his marriage to Marian
Denman was a happy one though her health failed years before his.
His last dissenting opinion was over a case he cared deeply about. Partisan mapmaking of legislative districts made it to the Supreme Court in 1962, it was there before but judicial restraint
ruled then the Court decided not to interfere. Now new justices were willing to revisit the issue.
Frankfurter saw that as the ultimate of judicial interference. One just did not intervene in how
another branch of government essentially made itself. But some of the malapportionment cases
were bizarre, close to the rotten borough situation in Great Britain before the Reform bill of 1832.
He could not answer a colleague's question if not the court what was the remedy? The court went
against him, but Frankfurter wrote a brilliant dissent. A week after having worked himself into a
frazzle over the issue Frankfurter had a stroke and he quit the court, dying 3 years later.
You will not like Felix Frankfurter after reading this book or many others dealing with him. But
you will admire his brilliance and the way an immigrant kid bcame part of our ruling elite. And
isn't that what we are supposed to be about?
Frankfurter who served from 1939 to 1962 on the Supreme Court. He went on the court as the man
purportedly behind the New Deal because he drafted so much of the legislation and was able to get
his Harvard students jobs within the old federal agencies and the new ones created by Franklin D.
Roosevelt. But by the time he resigned from the court due to a stroke he was the great authority
quoted by conservative legal pundits. The answer is two words "judicial restraint".
A notion Frankfurter developed into a philosophy when he saw the court for years before the New
Deal appointments strike down all kinds of progressive legislation because it wasn't specifically provided in the Constitution. As he saw it the Legislative branch had primacy in making law and
policy and courts ought to show great restraint before rushing willy nilly into political questions.
But as the courts after the Roosevelt presidency went more into questions of civil liberties there
was Felix Frankfurter clinging to judicial restraint even unto questions of basic human rights. An
interesting sight the Jewish kid born in Vienna raised in New York City upholding the government's
right to investigate people and deny civil liberties to those it deemed enemies.
Frankfurter was not a pleasant man generally though he was capable of a charm offensive if he felt
it needed. He saw his job as a 24/7 struggle to win his colleagues over to his point of view. In
conference he lectured them like his Harvard Law students. But no one ever said he wasn't brilliant if wrong headed.
The Jewish kid also married into Boston Brahmin society. By all accounts his marriage to Marian
Denman was a happy one though her health failed years before his.
His last dissenting opinion was over a case he cared deeply about. Partisan mapmaking of legislative districts made it to the Supreme Court in 1962, it was there before but judicial restraint
ruled then the Court decided not to interfere. Now new justices were willing to revisit the issue.
Frankfurter saw that as the ultimate of judicial interference. One just did not intervene in how
another branch of government essentially made itself. But some of the malapportionment cases
were bizarre, close to the rotten borough situation in Great Britain before the Reform bill of 1832.
He could not answer a colleague's question if not the court what was the remedy? The court went
against him, but Frankfurter wrote a brilliant dissent. A week after having worked himself into a
frazzle over the issue Frankfurter had a stroke and he quit the court, dying 3 years later.
You will not like Felix Frankfurter after reading this book or many others dealing with him. But
you will admire his brilliance and the way an immigrant kid bcame part of our ruling elite. And
isn't that what we are supposed to be about?
July 7, 2024
A dry and concise depiction of Felix and his ideas. Meets the mark but is pretty bare and a bit unsatisfying. However, it is a fairly no-bullshit summary of Felix’s life in and I can’t complain about that. Plus one star for the author’s blunt attempts at dispelling baseless slander levied against Felix’s legacy while also making blunt critiques where they are very much valid.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews