The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Today in Supreme Court History: November 15, 1882
11/15/1882: Justice Felix Frankfurter's birthday.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
No Justice ever fell shorter of expectations.
I didn't think I'd be saying anything nice about Frankfurter, but he was hardly awful as Justices go, certainly not in comparison to certain colleagues of his. I don't know if he uniquely fell short of expectations.
It would have been nice if he had been less deferential to other branches of government, but this deference was in fact one of the reasons for his appointment.
He taught Con Law at Harvard for 25 years. He had written books on the Court, had researched and lectured on its decisions, for 25 years. One would expect him to be a leader on the Court, explaining precedents and giving guidance on how they fit the facts of the present case. Instead he alienated the other Justices, found few to follow him, and left practically no mark. When he did write for the Court he was often small-minded (Minersville School District v. Gobitis or didn't think things through (Guaranty Trust Co. v. York). He is cited more often for his scholarly work than for his Court opinions, which is odd.
His personality was...not collegial. He was good at cultivating those above him and below him, but dealing with people as equals may have been a challenge for him.
But as far as failing to meet expectations, he was expected to uphold broad federal powers and the administrative state, and he did it, didn't he?
He might have met FDR's expectations, but to those in the legal world, he did not. Any hack politician would have served that purpose, not one of the nation's preeminent Constitutional scholars.