NET Journal; The Warren Years, Pt 2

fb over a hundred years of racial discrimination had created intolerable conditions of inequality and degradation for the black minority in that part of the problem was segregation in nineteen fifty four soon after lawrence tenure began a new grandchild linda brown seeking admission to an all white public school brought suit against the board of education of topeka kansas the court's unanimous decision in this case was the first in a series of civil rights decisions which was to change the lives of black people across the country and it advanced a national ideal to eliminate racism the lawyer who argued the case for the naacp was robert carter the naacp lawyers decide to make an impact on the side of the ocean and after the tone by nineteen fifty which was before saddam and i have known in the supreme

court the case was decided which held at the graduate level that segregation itself was in a denial of equal educational opportunity and on the basis of that decision we discern in the naacp the convoy to make an all out attack on segregation at the elementary school level like millions of other black children in the south linda brown had been denied entrance to the school under laws permitting racial segregation and at ninety six recorded condoned this practice with its separate but equal doctrine which are permitted segregation or areas of life in the south mr gore chief justice warren points include the decision well understood and it's a decision that conclusion judge could possibly do does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race even while the tangible factors may be equal to drive the children of the minority group

of equal educational opportunities we believe that it does we conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of separate but equal has no place separate educational facilities are inherently unequal so the reaction was the man who argued more cases were for the wand corbin anyone else jack greenberg the brown decision and into a fix to the opposition particularly from the soviet state you had a series of minor revolutions and again that little rock and new orleans and all the decorations it into position and nullification we had in the congress of the united states senate in an event that coming within a single vote

of a stripping the court in its jurisdiction and and during this period of time that as a shortly after fifty four and fifty five the court did very little with regard to implementation it play its role in clearing that these revolutions that have little rock and the like could not stand the educational federal court during this period anna at and ultimately the principal oakland airport and the activism of the movement led to the passage of the civil rights act of nineteen sixty four nineteen sixty five which point congress and know your executive vice president and the corps after the court ruled for the concept of school

integration it's set out in nineteen fifty five to ensure implementation it called for integration in public schools with all deliberate speed this phrase was widely interpreted in the south as a signal that the court would tolerate delay so the pace of immigration was painfully slow eventually the court became impatient with this open defiance and ruled in nineteen sixty four that further delays and be segregating schools systems are no longer tolerable in a recent decision the court has provided strictly i teary of compliance for jack greenberg it was another important victory last term of court case of the greenest you can't count for propane burning desegregation were mostly working with the effect was enough to have formal provisions like premature is richard primack intimidation of political ads of segregation to continue in the segregated which actually bring about

abolition of the previous two sets of death and with a single unitary schools of the supreme court essentially said was look i wouldn't interest in excuses just got worked at this we can make it work in an awareness a way to make it work was this is how it's got to be having said that the corpse the record and the regulations will say i know i have to make some modifications long i think that the court was with you know in them into it or deliberate informal and time to implementation recorded but this is a hollow of love locks are now complaining about the part of the reason blogs not complaining about because what the court really did in that position was to say that we will sacrifice our lives for the individual block trial for the legal educational opportunity and postponement <unk> that this decision will become more palatable acceptable words up of susceptible to

one for years the court's goal was racial equality its decisions have sought to eliminate segregation in virtually every area of life it has ended the poll tax which had been widely used to limit voting it has ruled against the drawing of political districts along racial lines in a soda bread but all racial discrimination both private and public and the sale or rental of property but its power to achieve for racial equality is limited by the willingness of the nation to comply bus after sixteen years the courts goal remains unfulfilled it had addressed itself to equality of law for black and white citizens alike next task was to secure equal rights for the citizens of our cities by nineteen sixty two critics felt that legislatures were grossly now apportioned in favor of rural areas in a series of unprecedented decisions the court said that federal and state legislative districts must be apportioned equally according to

population one man one vote the court had ventured into what had been regarded as the domain of congress and state legislatures arthur goldberg was associate justice of the court at that time it took a lot of judicial kurdish move across the british because the tradition of knew that this was not a judicial matter i was on the court when those cases were decided it seemed to me as soon to the chief and the majority of the court we cannot justify that kind of decision what can be more important in a democratic society then a man's thought this is what our democratic society depends upon in their first reapportionment decision baker versus carr the court said it had the right to evaluate a portion of state legislatures in a subsequent decision win over assistance the chief justice said legislators are

elected by voters non farms are cities are economic interests as long as ours is a representative form of government and our legislatures are those instruments ago and elected directly by indirectly representative of the people the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system senator dirksen a constant critic of the reapportionment decisions is interviewed by any t's paul mm hmm jesus and nobody knew that other than just to finish line for eventually and this was an invasion of the domain of congress justice frankfurter is angry dissent

to the baker versus carr decision the courts are hardy possessed of neither the person or the sword ultimately rests on sustained public confidence in its moral sanction such feeling must be nourished other courts complete detachment in fact and in appearance from political entanglements and by abstention from injecting itself into the clash of political forces this is me rationing and of course

in two of the court's decisions were implemented with a minimum of delay and drastically change the makeup of election districts across the country in connecticut for example before reapportionment the town of the union with a population of three hundred eighty three and the city of hartford with a population of one hundred and sixty two thousand and two representatives each in the state house to the new district's gave harper ten seats and reduce union party wants it legislators hearing loss of their seats were alarmed to be critical of their decision to connecticut state senator john lupton which need protection which are not just minorities of people minorities of local interests rural interests non

populous areas we need political implications najarian of representation in one house population representation in the other and then they invited or re elected by a patient but a cork discovered there was a problem in determining fair districts yale law professor alexander pickle you are explain what the fed has big it is another name moot court to require the formation of fed history and to prevent the formation of unfair district again on new ad budget is quite apparent to me an amicable so we're kind of everyone that goes and he said one man one vote this greece must be evil is joe said something that that's

something that has some symbolic significance but which in practice and in affecting the structural operation of government indeed there is even if a state is apportioned on the basis of equal population you can still have political inequality here is about gerrymandering maybe accomplished party's strength is centered in the western third of the state it is a statewide they are outnumbered by party the other criteria of equal population only they could end up with no representation as in this example with all with one seat out of three depending upon which party was drawing lines professor battlefield the decision may make it easier to gerrymander in the future

one motivation and this industry but this relies on a traditional initial portion of white county lines or what happened but such a legislature is that life or even a sense more free yogurt and then there were none of the one man one vote men buried in the thirteenth and then gerrymander in accordance with partisan object all states now have re apportioned their legislatures in this sense it has been a great victory for the court but many thought that the decisions might revitalize our political system might save our crumbling cities while there is some evidence that more urban oriented legislature he was asked by the new state houses for most states it is business as usual you're remembering continues to be an effective weapon to maintain the status quo and the court has declined to rule on this practice criminal justice

it found that the administration of the law the technique of police interrogation and lack of counsel for indigent defendants was hardly consistent with the bill of rights and in decision after decision set out to protect the individual against abuse of power the case of gideon versus wainwright any person who is too poor to hire a lawyer cannot be assured a fair trial as house was provided for him miranda versus arizona without proper safeguards the process of in custody interrogation works to compel the suspect to speak where you would not otherwise do so freely escobedo versus illinois no system worth preserving should have to fear that have been accused as permitted to consult with a lawyer he will become aware of that exercise his constitutional rights critics of these decisions the court was probably criminals senator mcconnell fact over which is inadmissible

logical and positive although the evidence of help including volunteer a confession a record number of these five four decision now they generated right ramsey clark former attorney general and retired justice the supreme court has to deal with a conflict that i can't create the conflict between the poor and the police a silly idea with such questions is the confession what role is the confession play in law enforcement and criminal justice in america than the police had used

interrogation questioning seeking to secure an admission or a confession and i think that the nineteen fifties and i think a nineteen nineteen to hand this prisoner was subjected to pre trial interrogation that would now be outlawed by the miranda decision here is a recording of that interrogation any way the court ruled that confessions obtained in interrogations are inadmissible in court unless the suspects first advised of his right to remain silent and his right to legal counsel many police officials feel this restriction will hinder their law enforcement efforts detective russell krueger minneapolis police

and especially if you start crying you if you want the police department can't manage tricks man but what else we have to fight with why should i watch my life a little in the chancellor angela lives in utah disagrees we know there's the rich person tried to find an intelligent than informally educated person and a hardened criminal and the organized criminals will not be a confession have not given confession an anomaly of convention whatever losses does this mean then that we have two spaniards want to pour one wholly ignorant one person doesn't know is

right and the other for the wealthy even inform the person who knows it right and knows how to protect the supreme court basically said no we have one standard equal just it is no more and then ordering the general tension of the court's decision on the precinct level of basic rule to remember is that all the big ones and compression must be given voluntary you must advise a suspect of his right to remain silent the question really complying with the decisions most of the studies have to raise this question indicated fully compliant with the miranda decision is far from perfect fact a number of your addictions and the indication is that the police are generally ignoring or get regarding the rule that's in power while many critics say these

decisions tend to protect the criminal others feel the courthouse university of pennsylvania law school professor anthony amsterdam helmets the most important areas one of the israelis before trial adequate representation council the guilty plea because eighty percent of cases brought on the guilty plea and because of prisons are held in the form of bell and if they don't have adequate representation by counsel they will plead guilty censoring and then a probation and color and in a case which goes through the process of a guilty plea on the low end up in ohio search and seizure decisions come down to nothing nothing defendant pleaded guilty he is convicted in a sense all of these important areas which are that every case go through the supreme court in united states has

essentially said nothing there is great speculation as to what the new court will do amid the cries for law and order indeed the new chief justice warren burger has already stated in a recent federal court opinion this seeming anxiety of judges to protect every accused person from every consequence of this voluntary utterances is giving rise to myriad rules of exceptions which even the most alert and sophisticated lawyers and judges attacks will be another record for the warren court it was years of response to human needs a surge for racial equality criminal justice and equal representation in these concerns the court may be said to have explicit not only the will of the law the conscience of the nation justice marshall's david and marbury versus madison

that it is a duty of supreme court justices to accept the constitution as roof about this election won yells our emails in which the supreme court ignored with this truism by the martian and his sighted constitutional questions on the basis of the first motions are ones are that this number is rather vulgar words of the constitution but there are problems large social political economic problems which will not answer to the plane tickets a conference and every now and then i think bennett's career the wine cork as a best itself to such problems that was more confident man conscious alone perhaps justified across the marble esplanade of the supreme court building are chiseled for words equal justice under the law under law not all almost equal not nearly the same but equal justice under law and i believe but the warren court will be remembered for

having having given these words real meaning i believe it will be remembered for having exalted human rights to a dignity previously reserved for property rights and i think in that sense it both express the will of the law and the conscience of the nation our guests here to appraise the role of the supreme court and the war on record speak from different vantage points and as you can see already from different viewpoints sam jay irvin jr is the senior senator from north carolina he's a former associate justice of the supreme court that state in the senate he's the second ranking democrat on the judiciary betty and chairman of that subcommittee is unconstitutional rights separation of powers and the vision and codification of office edward bennett williams is practiced before the supreme court as a washington attorney he is one of the most distinguished trial lawyers of his time although with justice

warren that every defendant is entitled to counsel is represented such diverse figures as senator joseph mccarthy congressman adam clayton powell jimmy hoffa bobby baker frank costello and polly adler alexander bickle is professor of law at yale university in a varied career he has been a practicing attorney diplomat and lockhart of the late great justice felix frankfurter yeah because books include politics and the warren court and the new age of political reform that last exchange in the office of chief justice came in a time when all our political institutions have been called into question especially among young people is a possibility that the supreme court is outmoded or on the contrary is it the most responsive or three branches of government oh i think that historically the prior to the warren court that we thought of the supreme court as the bastion of the status quo but i don't think that we have thought of the warren court in in that wise survey

center of an as not i don't think of it as the lesson the status quo i think it's been a forward but moderate court and compassionate but not a sentimental court i think it's been a great court i may be wrong to expect you'd be wrong to think of the court as being responsive are or are not a society which begins to look to its judges for instant responses to its reforming the verge his first false eye on the one hand there is that political institute for rotten are obsolete and on the other hand will lose eventually from the judges a function name eva fighting to maintain a degree of continuity that they and only way and well performed so i would hope the court will be new automotive ever because the spent a continuity nor i would welcome all three sponsors did i've certainly lived with the court is essential and the airports that continue but i would say on this responsiveness account of

thomas' improvement said that he was a great jazz was great lawyer he said zero prosecutions and also to protect the farmhouse of government their very own whims of public opinion and in a judge of who would give our interpretation cost his vision not want it but the intent of the raptors like prosecution that vision would be just as charged with reckless disregard of visual beauty senator evan you agree with the war and that had our citizens immediately represented in government some of these other problems would not have come before the supreme court are i have in general privately reapportionment decisions high held what i think unfortunately some respects because i'm going on stage some are small countess which on that system on taiwan representative regardless the population ramon longer be able to like deny these cows and yemen mark allow some of this the greatest public officials and art like that is that the one man mumble system puts a man to the album

appeared too intrusive their own citizens oh i disagree with the senator on the subject and i guess professor michael disagrees with me on this subject you i think that the baker against current rules against him for sanitary decisions we had some good part will situations in this country and one state down south we have twenty five percent of the people collecting seventy three percent a legislature that was an outrageous situations it was the kind of situation that would give some justification that the younger generation when they say that they can't break into the system they can't make change legislatively they can't make it through the democratic process and i've taken a little more absurd retail i thought my parents are deliberately on the initial reports the decision was pretty well just a thought i think of struck down ancient importance as america's in tennessee sixty years old would have no relation to reality makes a great deal of sense that that might've made sense to require one of the institutions at least of state government to

be out and out your majority area report about a great deal for the napa last decision's insist on mathematical equality on demand says donna that almost a thousand really on the basis of the nineteen sixty census which nobody can tell you now has any particular relation to the other to the actual voting population eligible to vote in a state we run our words from an initial step which i think serve democratic institutions and which was relatable to some constitutional ski tour of a doctrinaire application of a rigid inflexible principal and i'm afraid most of the criticism appease a lot of the regularly academic criticism along court runs along that kind of line that no objection very often to an initial approach to a problem there is an objection to the courts over confident assault upon large and complex

social policy the decision to abort asylum once and for all and doctrinaire fashion from olympus that very often doesn't work that the best mortgage singing now under the field of civil rights center and giving top last five grazing rights bills would've been less likely to do that would have been weaker and it not been for the supreme court decisions what i don't think it ever been paid for them up and scream court decisions now so if the interrogation placed upon the fourteenth amendment had not been changed and mayo mikey gets for the no basis on with zika pension rights when you look at all of the civil rights decisions that came out of the court they boil down to a very simple proposition which i don't think senator obama will again say always say in essence is that american citizens who pay the same taxes pledge allegiance to the same flag in obedience to the same laws fighting the same war is in dire in the same battles can go to the same

schools sit on the same jury is all in the same elections live in the same neighborhoods and swim at the same public beaches now that seems to be there both a very elementary moral proposition and quite an elementary legal proposition i don't think senator and we can say that proposition and say that lee legal proposition all because all the night the record shows that deal fourteenth amendment was placed in the constitution to make permanent the civil rights act of eighteen sixty six and nevada from all fields that question of things are important that you share for the first album and the prosecution and the rampage where where i would take issue with the center and is in the application of the word amendment to that process the recording date and i would suggest that that it is after all a function of the court one which i unfortunately were unable to state inn and strictly limiting terms

so that we can point with precision to when the function may be reformed and when it may not be performed what it is one of the functions of the pork weevil confined and discipline a certain ways to alter the constitution in effect to allow it to grow in response to the growth of society itself and more significantly more then the material or or economic or what have you is one of a bunch of the report survey run a more efficient not the forest and god knows it hasn't been the last time that the court as perform that function so i said they wouldn't use the word commandment which is to me a somewhat charged in the jar to word but i don't think anybody can deny that the court that day changed the constitution i think frankly in a way which mostly of water to process of nevada to the ultimate moral merits with a change a constitutional change greatly to the benefit of the

country think you'll agree a professor that was necessary at the time and was not forthcoming from the legislative branch nor forthcoming from washington our allies the advice i get a lot of high fiber prof rorabaugh it wasn't worth the migration uprooted a welcoming find off all one of the historians on president eisenhower's years arthur larsson certainly he is qualified to know and should know says that the president didn't approve the decision in brown v the board of education so it's unlikely that we're going to get the kind of leadership that was necessary in the field at that time from that from the president and senator durbin seems i think that we certainly were going to get from the congress that's in the brown v the board of education whatever situation we have a nineteen sixty nine of none of the three branches of active in this field and was fifteen years my judgment

you would have taken a little all right disagree more i think that we open the windows with brown against board of education and that would've been broken a national level by this time had we not made the advances that we made in the area of civil rights there are long overdue and we may move into the area of criminal law twins i'm sure you've been on good terms of the years from the other side the table with a number of law enforcement officers is it your impression that they are sincerely felt that the warren decisions in this field inhibited law enforcement on the marlins of certainly express two congressional committees that they have an inhibited in law enforcement and i think that a number of but critics of the court have said that the rising crime rate is attributable to some of the china most decisions to critics

of the war court i think personally that this is absolute holcomb when i think it's demonstrable holcomb we do have a rising crime rate in this country mr newman but that is the kind of crime which is accelerating in this country is what i call street crime it's muggings and buildings and robberies and burglaries and larson he's an auto thefts the kind of crime that's directed against property but maybe attendant also with violence against the person isn't a mugging or you ok now that's the kind of crime that has accelerated varied very rapidly now if if you look at the causes for that you can quickly a lemonade supreme court decisions most of these crimes are committed by youth under twenty one twenty two years old and i could walk out with you from the studio tonight to the nearest precinct and we could stay there for a day or a month and we would never find one young man or one young boy brought in new

commander dismissed from the street who never any of the decisions of the supreme court action was is not law enforcement had things call you in and what why is it inhibited because their price a defendant accused arrested men of his constitutional rights sure i suppose that the law enforcement has inhibited to some extent by the fact that everyone is entitled to a lawyer which inhibited because we do not allow third graeme atkinson the police stations it's inherited because so we have given the right to confrontation witnesses we've given the right to a trial to a grand jury indicted these are all things we determined long ago were socially necessary in the conduct of a free society i don't think that the law enforced that has been unduly inhibited by any of the decisions of the warren court nor do i think that you can relate to all of the problems that we're now dealing with in our

cities and urban turbulence to these decisions i think they sell this deal shows that this sort of the warren court unlike in the us supreme court if you're wincing as a possible prosecution question of crumpled far all it once forbidden rice that's a good resume on the fundamental common criticism criticism believe in excess of judicial activism is going to watch legislation centers i think a large extent we have the gambling law won the one chord and substitute that was arraignment of all right now the government mammen all around the walls so that the burden of many years because in the senate it seems to be that the nine men of the supreme court should interpret the constitution period they should not we even do it the problems of the day or their own social theorist yes that's fair to a nicer what though i think that is a sound reasonable was adored wife knows manner a lot of the wrestlers think they will pass additional was intended mainly

all that express at all that this all should interpret the prosecution called its language well those languages of jail and well the language is ambiguous they should put themselves is made of candy and to the position that the man who well there's been a massive failure what was full blown up that they meant and candid about the words they use my objection is that many of these decisions it handed down i really it as far as it was concerned object in the mountains which to label called omega man who had no right no power to make among the constitution not only more students sits in and out of our nation's word for the prosecution to manage inmate's already carried how rigorously the end result would have to be really obsolescence of the constitution american life except as it would get amended virtually annually and become just another internal

revenue code all kinds of little provisions and ends in small print all french in it and and fail of the reverence and and and the function of collecting really just the people and the symbol of that now as if we follow ratify a flea well you're feeling about constitutional interpretation senator we would have to come to this conclusion that although the fourth amendment would protect a man from the police going in and seizing his letters from his death it without a warrant they would not protect these words would not protect him from police listening to every word that was uttered in his house between him his wife over a period of a month because it does not say in the fourth amendment that his conversations are protected from illegal searches and only says his paper's these effects of protected not done that well that wouldn't go after the whole lot

like you say in that case under the fourth amendment thousand dead on us citizen usa isn't a landslide agencies in his words will then you're giving the constitution by the eye that's what where are denying it say the constitution lot of reliable it interpreted the complex objects of in the interrogation for comment but that'll make a masculine those homes do is write about this and as i'm going away goes overseas is that man's words invades is home i think so i have the protection that you know that then we can go on that it becomes a matter of judgment about how what you can do with a sly wouldn't survive the conditions and other factors factors having to do with how much of a government of a nation on to be an end to the court factors having to do with how well an institution like that court can administer certain

things with our rigid you want your national rules to be over a country this size factors of that sort that would govern the exercise of judgment about when and how you should apply this rather general line of course we'd all agree one costume says a jury trial when twenty dollars and conversely that we've bought enough it be enough thirty five yuan unchanged at the man of course but much of the cosmos to the constitution as a party ten isn't pregnant with that kind of precision enhance the integrity line between the interpretive function and the unending function is a much more shadowy war and women weep my question gentlemen we now have a new chief justice within a few years when they have a largely reconstituted court is the record of the court in the immediate future going to be determined primarily by events held by the man who make money which is the composition of the court in terms of joggers now because i say well if i understand your question i o we're not going to have direct

regression in the development of the law involving human liberties civil liberties civil rights by virtue of the edition of different man on the court i don't think we are i don't think there'll be a disposition and anybody who was named on the part of anybody was named by the president was worthy of the office and we have to assume you'll be worthy of the office to undo things that have been done in the past there may be slowing down there may not be a rapid growth in the law that there has been in the past decade and a half but i do not believe that there will be a return to where we were fifteen years ago when jews settled for aig a period of consolidation and perhaps less judicial activism i think there are there need to be many many more reforms made in the wealthy administration of the criminal justice and in the area of civil rights and civil liberties one of the things that

concerns me greatly is senator and was talking about the way jason stonewall case and he made it sound very very cogent way that all the models were on the side of the accused and that the state was helpless in a criminal case was nothing good but the more remote from the fact the real fact of the matter is that in our jurisprudence today the man has sued for five hundred dollars in a courtroom he has more rights than someone who is on trial for his life in so far as procedure all our weapons because he can take the testimony of a person would soon begin when the names of all the witnesses of the person was sued and he can take all of their testimony before trial so that when he walks into the courtroom is for humanity knows everything that his opponent is going to offer against him in a contest over money what if on the other side a

courtly goes in to defend his lover and his reputation and sometimes maybe even his wife he had none of these weapons of discovery on his side he cannot take the testimony of the witnesses who are going to be called against him before trial in fact he does not even know who they are is no way to get that information their testimony goes before a grand jury in secret before he is indicted the prosecution knows what the testimony as the defense does not so that procedurally it's not quite the way it was represented to be here the fact of the matter is that we have some great great reforms to bring about in our criminal process i think and it had written and thirty three the day franklin d roosevelt and charles evans hughes said that the time had come for the bar to get active and bringing about some changes in the administration of criminal justice because at that time it was an anachronistic archaic thing and what we went for many many years without any changes and i think we have started we still have a long

way to go in this area and i think about the people that go levy the legislative bodies thought this so called use a walker this new court follows lagarde will change that they call it that hit it just that much time and owen finds that other courts and on some things in another step i don't think you're suggesting that the court under chief justice burger should now re look at the decisions of the warren court and if it gets the appropriate number of votes to undo them i'm sure i was a young man the case or so around the case was decided but for that there were page decision a nation now best buy's stations that though it recognizes that suicide in the victims of ground i just wasn't on the justices again why i have the say that protection i

witnessed what in love with like depending on the other appointees mostly to be felt well assuming another appointment a really really really the senator's the chief justice breyer i would assume that you all see any wholesale overruling but that they're well on the one hand be a much more cautious a slower approach two new problems and i'll root mr willems we have to solve all the world's problems are slightly coming up seven s for this war approach to the remote part of the road and caught in what is in many of these areas still left to do namely work a spike a fabrication a lot of decisions because no matter how broad jamaica man of dogmatic neither party the next day still comes up and shoulders a new wrinkle a german thought of before and i think in the application of that decision including miranda

two such new wrinkles are you will find a somewhat very likely a somewhat different spirit on the part of the majority of fifty others see this film or less as a giant burgers or green ribbons professor rydell that if we gave to senator ervin's the selection of the next justice of the supreme court the miranda an escondido and map and maori and gideon still would not be overturned was hard to sell a lot of that i would hope that i will point iran if you they would be over a parallel you a guarantee that the summit about poor decisions it means that one does sound at the outset what all parts of the sermon review the jungle oh i have an idea so wholesale rules of decisions on out with a civil fine senator that some of the justices who have voted in the minority in miranda ness could be though would have enough for respect for the concept of starts isis not the percussive peyton

overruling of those decisions in the next few years but i think the decisive majority of the court i think that's true but i think i think you would find judges like like justice carmen other justices stuart in white reluctant to do that until all the returns were and i don't think one can send about what you think are the statistics that i don't think one can say that on miranda for example the returns are in we now know what is meant when it what the effect of it would be i think the judges would would waive some of the overturning precedents that the wine court and gave them for example map itself was after a while after a certain time i pass that on the basis of one of his color of it could be offered as a new outlook on the problem new insights or new facts and i think certainly an important way for thank you gentleman for three different estimates of the work of the warren court in three different projections work of the court in the future the years of the warren court were years of rapid almost subliminal changes

whether the court reflected he's and crescendo or less directed those changes it's much too early to say but there will be more changes in the years ahead chief justice warren burger will have to address himself and his core to a more violent and constant society how he does it with what techniques whether he will refuel are called the judicial crucible are getting questions for informed speculation at best new law we have earl warren's own subjective verdict on his stewardship a simple verdict and given the controversy which is swirled about has had a serene one he said last week it has not been a frustrating experience all of the late justice warren will be judged not only by his interpretations of our constitution and our laws but also by his efforts to find judicial responses to some of the agonies of our time these were a few and domestic and

we must have all the elements of this on the senate mary has human dignity for all the quality of opportunity for all and equal justice under law for all and here we just get down to the the simple basis that that lincoln had in mind when he said that this is a government of the people by the people and for the people government of the people not for certain about some of the people but all the people not by some of the people that buy all of them and not for some of the people but for all the people of the united states ms

ba if by the pittsburgh many pieces public television