Changes

}}

}}

}}

}}

'''Earl Warren,''' (1891-1974) was an [[United States|American]] statesman and judge, best known for his role as Chief Justice on the [[Supreme Court]] from 1953 to 1969.  He was a [[liberal]] [[Republican]], serving as governor of [[California]], 1943-53, and as the losing GOP nominee for [[Vice President]] in 1948.   

'''Earl Warren,''' (1891-1974) was an [[United States|American]] statesman and judge, best known for his role as Chief Justice on the [[Supreme Court]] from 1953 to 1969.  He was a [[liberal]] [[Republican]], serving as governor of [[California]], 1943–53, and as the losing GOP nominee for [[Vice President]] in 1948.   

Warren was an activist judge who pushed for a liberal interpretation of the [[Constitution]] and more powerful role for the judiciary.  Under his leadership, the [[Warren Court]] repeatedly ruled in favor of criminals and against [[prayer]] in school.

Warren was an activist judge who pushed for a liberal interpretation of the [[Constitution]] and more powerful role for the judiciary.  Under his leadership, the [[Warren Court]] repeatedly ruled in favor of criminals and against [[prayer]] in school.

Warren was born in Los Angeles, the son of Methias H. ("Matt") Warren, a railroad worker, and Christine Hernlund. After Matt was blacklisted for joining in a strike, the family moved to Bakersfield, California, in 1894, where the father worked in a railroad repair yard, and the son had summer jobs in railroading. Warren always recalled how big corporations could dominate the lives of their employees and how powerless minority members were when faced with discrimination.  He was strongly influenced by the reform currents of the [[Progressive Era]] to oppose corruption and promote democracy.

Warren was born in Los Angeles, the son of Methias H. ("Matt") Warren, a railroad worker, and Christine Hernlund. After Matt was blacklisted for joining in a strike, the family moved to Bakersfield, California, in 1894, where the father worked in a railroad repair yard, and the son had summer jobs in railroading. Warren always recalled how big corporations could dominate the lives of their employees and how powerless minority members were when faced with discrimination.  He was strongly influenced by the reform currents of the [[Progressive Era]] to oppose corruption and promote democracy.

Warren graduated from Kern County High School and then attended college and law school at the [[University_of_California,_Berkeley|University of California at Berkeley]], earning a B.L. in 1912 and a LL.B. in 1914. He worked for a law firm before serving briefly in the [[army]] in 1918. He built his career at the Alameda County district attorney's office 1920-38.  In 1926 he was elected to the first of three terms as district attorney. In 1925, he  married Nina Palmquist Meyers, a widow with a young son. Warren adopted him, and the couple had five more children.  

Warren graduated from Kern County High School and then attended college and law school at the [[University of California, Berkeley|University of California at Berkeley]], earning a B.L. in 1912 and a LL.B. in 1914. He worked for a law firm before serving briefly in the [[army]] in 1918. He built his career at the Alameda County district attorney's office 1920-38.  In 1926 he was elected to the first of three terms as district attorney. In 1925, he  married Nina Palmquist Meyers, a widow with a young son. Warren adopted him, and the couple had five more children.  

Shortly after taking office, irregularities were uncovered in the city of Oakland, the largest city in Alameda county. Warren vigorously investigated allegations that a deputy sheriff was taking bribes in connection with street-paving arrangements.  

Shortly after taking office, irregularities were uncovered in the city of Oakland, the largest city in Alameda county. Warren vigorously investigated allegations that a deputy sheriff was taking bribes in connection with street-paving arrangements.  

As governor Warren modernized the office of [[governor]], and state government generally.  

As governor Warren modernized the office of [[governor]], and state government generally.  

Like all [[Progressive Era|progressives]], Warren believed in [[Efficency Movement|efficiency]] and planning. During World War II he aggressively pursued postwar economic planning. Fearing another postwar decline that would rival the depression years, Governor Earl Warren initiated public works projects similar to those of the [[New Deal]] to capitalize on wartime tax surpluses and provide jobs for returning veterans. Warren also built up the state's higher education system based on the University of California and its vast network of small universities and community colleges.<ref> John Aubrey Douglass,  "Earl Warren's New Deal: Economic Transition, Postwar Planning, and Higher Education in California." ''Journal of Policy History'' 2000 12(4): 473-512 </ref> For example, his support of the Collier-Burns Act in 1947 raised gasoline taxes that funded a massive program of freeway construction. Unlike states where tolls or bonds funded highway construction, California's gasoline taxes were earmarked for building the system. Warren's support for the bill was crucial because his status as a popular governor strengthened his views, in contrast with opposition from trucking, oil, and gas lobbyists. The Collier-Burns Act helped influence passage of the Federal-Aid Highway Act in 1956, setting a pattern for national highway construction.<ref> Daniel J. B. Mitchell,  “Earl Warren's Fight for California's Freeways: Setting a Path for the Nation.”  ''Southern California Quarterly'' 2006 88(2): 205-238 34p.</ref>

Like all [[Progressive Era|progressives]], Warren believed in [[Efficency Movement|efficiency]] and planning. During World War II he aggressively pursued postwar economic planning. Fearing another postwar decline that would rival the depression years, Governor Earl Warren initiated public works projects similar to those of the [[New Deal]] to capitalize on wartime tax surpluses and provide jobs for returning veterans. Warren also built up the state's higher education system based on the University of California and its vast network of small universities and community colleges.<ref>John Aubrey Douglass,  "Earl Warren's New Deal: Economic Transition, Postwar Planning, and Higher Education in California." ''Journal of Policy History'' 2000 12(4): 473-512</ref> For example, his support of the Collier-Burns Act in 1947 raised gasoline taxes that funded a massive program of freeway construction. Unlike states where tolls or bonds funded highway construction, California's gasoline taxes were earmarked for building the system. Warren's support for the bill was crucial because his status as a popular governor strengthened his views, in contrast with opposition from trucking, oil, and gas lobbyists. The Collier-Burns Act helped influence passage of the Federal-Aid Highway Act in 1956, setting a pattern for national highway construction.<ref>Daniel J. B. Mitchell,  “Earl Warren's Fight for California's Freeways: Setting a Path for the Nation.”  ''Southern California Quarterly'' 2006 88(2): 205-238 34p.</ref>

Like all state, local and national officials in California, he supported the relocation of everyone of Japanese descent in 1942-44.  For many years Warren defended the action, maintaining that it seemed the right and necessary thing to do at the time; in his memoirs, published after his death, he finally acknowledged that relocation had been an error.  

Like all state, local and national officials in California, he supported the relocation of everyone of Japanese descent in 1942-44.  For many years Warren defended the action, maintaining that it seemed the right and necessary thing to do at the time; in his memoirs, published after his death, he finally acknowledged that relocation had been an error.  

Liberals consider Warren's final opinion a political masterwork, not just for his political gamesmanship, but for his general writing, making use of dubious social science research to draw legal conclusions, and laying the groundwork for busing.

Liberals consider Warren's final opinion a political masterwork, not just for his political gamesmanship, but for his general writing, making use of dubious social science research to draw legal conclusions, and laying the groundwork for busing.

The very first case  put Warren's leadership skills to an extraordinary test. The Legal Defense Fund of the NAACP (a small, primarily white legal group separate from the much better known [[NAACP]]) had been waging a systematic legal fight against the "separate but equal" doctrine enunciated in [[Plessy v. Ferguson]] (1896) and finally had challenged Plessy in a series of five related cases, which had been argued before the Court in the spring of 1953. However the justices had been unable to decide the issue and asked to rehear the case in fall 1953, with special attention to whether the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause prohibited the operation of separate public schools for whites and blacks.<ref> See [http://americanhistory.si.edu/Brown/history/index.html Smithsonian, “Separate is Not Equal: Brown v. Board of Education’’]</ref>  

The very first case  put Warren's leadership skills to an extraordinary test. The Legal Defense Fund of the NAACP (a small, primarily white legal group separate from the much better known [[NAACP]]) had been waging a systematic legal fight against the "separate but equal" doctrine enunciated in [[Plessy v. Ferguson]] (1896) and finally had challenged Plessy in a series of five related cases, which had been argued before the Court in the spring of 1953. However the justices had been unable to decide the issue and asked to rehear the case in fall 1953, with special attention to whether the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause prohibited the operation of separate public schools for whites and blacks.<ref>See [http://americanhistory.si.edu/Brown/history/index.html Smithsonian, “Separate is Not Equal: Brown v. Board of Education’’]</ref>  

While all but one justice personally rejected segregation, the self-restraint faction questioned whether the Constitution gave the Court the power to order its end. The activist faction believed the Fourteenth Amendment did give the necessary authority and were pushing to go ahead. Warren, who held only a recess appointment, held his tongue until the Senate, dominated by southerners, confirmed his appointment.  

While all but one justice personally rejected segregation, the self-restraint faction questioned whether the Constitution gave the Court the power to order its end. The activist faction believed the Fourteenth Amendment did give the necessary authority and were pushing to go ahead. Warren, who held only a recess appointment, held his tongue until the Senate, dominated by southerners, confirmed his appointment.  

Warren told his colleagues after oral argument that he believed segregation violated the Constitution and that only if one considered African Americans inferior to whites could the practice be upheld. But he did not push for a vote.  Instead, he talked with the justices and encouraged them to talk with each other as he sought a common ground on which all could stand. Finally he had eight votes, and the last holdout, Stanley Reed of Kentucky, agreed to join the rest. Warren drafted the basic opinion in [[Brown v. Board of Education]] (1954) and kept circulating and revising it until he had an opinion endorsed by all the members of the Court.<ref> For text see [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=347&invol=483 BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)]</ref>  

Warren told his colleagues after oral argument that he believed segregation violated the Constitution and that only if one considered African Americans inferior to whites could the practice be upheld. But he did not push for a vote.  Instead, he talked with the justices and encouraged them to talk with each other as he sought a common ground on which all could stand. Finally he had eight votes, and the last holdout, Stanley Reed of Kentucky, agreed to join the rest. Warren drafted the basic opinion in [[Brown v. Board of Education]] (1954) and kept circulating and revising it until he had an opinion endorsed by all the members of the Court.<ref>For text see [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=347&invol=483 BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)]</ref>  

The unanimity Warren achieved helped speed the drive to desegregate public schools, which mostly came about under President [[Richard M. Nixon]]. Throughout his years as Chief, Warren succeeded in keeping all decisions concerning segregation unanimous. Brown applied to schools, but soon the Court enlarged the concept to other state actions, striking down racial classification in many areas. Congress ratified the process in the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]] and the [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]]. Warren did compromise by agreeing to Frankfurter's demand that the Court go slowly in implementing desegregation; Warren used Frankfurter's suggestion that a 1955 decision (Brown II) include the phrase "all deliberate speed."<ref> Robert L. Carter, "The Warren Court and Desegregation," ''Michigan Law Review,'' Vol. 67, No. 2 (Dec., 1968), pp. 237-248 [http://www.jstor.org/pss/1287417 in JSTOR]</ref>  

The unanimity Warren achieved helped speed the drive to desegregate public schools, which mostly came about under President [[Richard M. Nixon]]. Throughout his years as Chief, Warren succeeded in keeping all decisions concerning segregation unanimous. Brown applied to schools, but soon the Court enlarged the concept to other state actions, striking down racial classification in many areas. Congress ratified the process in the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]] and the [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]]. Warren did compromise by agreeing to Frankfurter's demand that the Court go slowly in implementing desegregation; Warren used Frankfurter's suggestion that a 1955 decision (Brown II) include the phrase "all deliberate speed."<ref>Robert L. Carter, "The Warren Court and Desegregation," ''Michigan Law Review,'' Vol. 67, No. 2 (Dec., 1968), pp. 237-248 [http://www.jstor.org/pss/1287417 in JSTOR]</ref>  

The Brown decision of 1954 marked, in dramatic fashion, the radical shift in the Court's--and the nation's--priorities from issues of property rights to civil liberties. Under Warren the courts became an active partner in governing the nation, although still not coequal. Warren never saw the courts as a backward-looking branch of government.  

The Brown decision of 1954 marked, in dramatic fashion, the radical shift in the Court's--and the nation's--priorities from issues of property rights to civil liberties. Under Warren the courts became an active partner in governing the nation, although still not coequal. Warren never saw the courts as a backward-looking branch of government.  

Warren's priority on fairness shaped other major decisions. In 1962, over the strong objections of Frankfurter, the Court agreed that questions regarding malapportionment in state legislatures were not political issues, and thus were not outside the Court's purview. For years underpopulated rural areas had deprived metropolitan centers of equal representation in state legislatures. In Warren's California, Los Angeles County had only one state senator.  Cities had long since passed their peak, and now it was the middle class suburbs that were underepresented. Frankfurter insisted that the Court should avoid this "political thicket" and warned that the Court would never be able to find a clear formula to guide lower courts in the rash of lawsuits sure to follow.  

Warren's priority on fairness shaped other major decisions. In 1962, over the strong objections of Frankfurter, the Court agreed that questions regarding malapportionment in state legislatures were not political issues, and thus were not outside the Court's purview. For years underpopulated rural areas had deprived metropolitan centers of equal representation in state legislatures. In Warren's California, Los Angeles County had only one state senator.  Cities had long since passed their peak, and now it was the middle class suburbs that were underepresented. Frankfurter insisted that the Court should avoid this "political thicket" and warned that the Court would never be able to find a clear formula to guide lower courts in the rash of lawsuits sure to follow.  

But Douglas found such a formula: "one man, one vote."<ref> James A. Gazell, "One Man, One Vote: Its Long Germination," ''The Western Political Quarterly,'' Vol. 23, No. 3 (Sep., 1970), pp. 445-462 [http://www.jstor.org/pss/446565 in JSTOR]</ref>  In the key apportionment case Reynolds v. Sims (1964)<ref> See [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=377&invol=533 REYNOLDS v. SIMS, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) ]</ref>  Warren delivered a civics lesson: "To the extent that a citizen's right to vote is debased, he is that much less a citizen," Warren declared. "The weight of a citizen's vote cannot be made to depend on where he lives. This is the clear and strong command of our Constitution's Equal Protection Clause." Unlike the desegregation cases, in this instance, the Court ordered immediate action, and despite loud outcries from rural legislators,  Congress failed to reach the two-thirds needed pass a constitutional amendment. The states complied, reapportioned their legislatures quickly and with minimal troubles. Numerous commentators have concluded reapportionment was the Warren Court's great "success" story.<ref> Robert B. McKay, "Reapportionment: Success Story of the Warren Court."  ''Michigan Law Review,'' Vol. 67, No. 2 (Dec., 1968), pp. 223-236  [http://www.jstor.org/pss/1287416  in JSTOR]</ref>  

But Douglas found such a formula: "one man, one vote."<ref>James A. Gazell, "One Man, One Vote: Its Long Germination," ''The Western Political Quarterly,'' Vol. 23, No. 3 (Sep., 1970), pp. 445-462 [http://www.jstor.org/pss/446565 in JSTOR]</ref>  In the key apportionment case Reynolds v. Sims (1964)<ref>See [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=377&invol=533 REYNOLDS v. SIMS, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) ]</ref>  Warren delivered a civics lesson: "To the extent that a citizen's right to vote is debased, he is that much less a citizen," Warren declared. "The weight of a citizen's vote cannot be made to depend on where he lives. This is the clear and strong command of our Constitution's Equal Protection Clause." Unlike the desegregation cases, in this instance, the Court ordered immediate action, and despite loud outcries from rural legislators,  Congress failed to reach the two-thirds needed pass a constitutional amendment. The states complied, reapportioned their legislatures quickly and with minimal troubles. Numerous commentators have concluded reapportionment was the Warren Court's great "success" story.<ref>Robert B. McKay, "Reapportionment: Success Story of the Warren Court."  ''Michigan Law Review,'' Vol. 67, No. 2 (Dec., 1968), pp. 223-236  [http://www.jstor.org/pss/1287416  in JSTOR]</ref>  

Frankfurter retired and President [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] named labor lawyer [[Arthur Goldberg]] to replace him. Goldberg gave Warren the fifth vote for the majority the activists wanted. [[William Brennan]], a liberal Democrat appointed by Eisenhower in 1956, was the intellectual leader of the activist faction that included Black and Douglas. Brennan complemented Warren's political skills with the strong legal skills Warren lacked. Warren and Brennan met before the regular conferences to plan out their strategy.   

Frankfurter retired and President [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] named labor lawyer [[Arthur Goldberg]] to replace him. Goldberg gave Warren the fifth vote for the majority the activists wanted. [[William Brennan]], a liberal Democrat appointed by Eisenhower in 1956, was the intellectual leader of the activist faction that included Black and Douglas. Brennan complemented Warren's political skills with the strong legal skills Warren lacked. Warren and Brennan met before the regular conferences to plan out their strategy.   

Warren’s Court ordered lawyers for indigent defendants, in [[Gideon v. Wainwright]] (1963), and prevented prosecutors from using evidence seized in illegal searches, in [[Mapp v. Ohio]] (1961). The famous case of [[Miranda v. Arizona]] (1966) summed up Warren's philosophy.<ref>See [[Miranda v. Arizona]]</ref> Everyone, even one accused of crimes, still enjoyed constitutionally protected rights, and the police had to respect those rights and issue a specific warning when making an arrest. Warren did not believe in coddling criminals; this in [[Terry v. Ohio]] (1968) he gave police officers leeway to stop and frisk those they had reason to believe held weapons.  

Warren’s Court ordered lawyers for indigent defendants, in [[Gideon v. Wainwright]] (1963), and prevented prosecutors from using evidence seized in illegal searches, in [[Mapp v. Ohio]] (1961). The famous case of [[Miranda v. Arizona]] (1966) summed up Warren's philosophy.<ref>See [[Miranda v. Arizona]]</ref> Everyone, even one accused of crimes, still enjoyed constitutionally protected rights, and the police had to respect those rights and issue a specific warning when making an arrest. Warren did not believe in coddling criminals; this in [[Terry v. Ohio]] (1968) he gave police officers leeway to stop and frisk those they had reason to believe held weapons.  

Conservatives angrily denounced the "handcuffing of the police."<ref>Ronald Kahn and Ken I. Kersch, eds. ''The Supreme Court And American Political Development'' (2006)  [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0700614397/ref=sib_books_pg?ie=UTF8&keywords=miranda%20%26%2334%3Bcrime%20rates%26%2334%3B&p=S04N&checkSum=%252FyIgYm2ybgibk6P%252BM%252FG9LcucFd6ieUBSkCM%252FVsFiLs0%253D online at p. 442]</ref>  Violent crime and homicide rates shot up nationwide; in New York City, for example, after steady to declining trends until the early 1960s, the homicide rate doubled in the period from 1964-74 from just under 5 per 100,000 at the beginning of that period to just under 10 per 100,000 in 1974. After 1992 the homicide rates fell sharply.<ref> Thomas Sowell, ''The Vision of the Anointed: Self-congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy'' (1995)  [http://books.google.com/books?id=ISTtFtcIkKAC&pg=PA29&dq=homicide+%22warren+court%22&lr=&num=30&as_brr=0&ei=BvhqSNuHHpOkiwHp99SCBg&sig=ACfU3U2Pv3ET0J8J_NHq2uTqH_GJxcCbDw online at p. 26-29]</ref>

Conservatives angrily denounced the "handcuffing of the police."<ref>Ronald Kahn and Ken I. Kersch, eds. ''The Supreme Court And American Political Development'' (2006)  [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0700614397/ref=sib_books_pg?ie=UTF8&keywords=miranda%20%26%2334%3Bcrime%20rates%26%2334%3B&p=S04N&checkSum=%252FyIgYm2ybgibk6P%252BM%252FG9LcucFd6ieUBSkCM%252FVsFiLs0%253D online at p. 442]</ref>  Violent crime and homicide rates shot up nationwide; in New York City, for example, after steady to declining trends until the early 1960s, the homicide rate doubled in the period from 1964-74 from just under 5 per 100,000 at the beginning of that period to just under 10 per 100,000 in 1974. After 1992 the homicide rates fell sharply.<ref>Thomas Sowell, ''The Vision of the Anointed: Self-congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy'' (1995)  [http://books.google.com/books?id=ISTtFtcIkKAC&pg=PA29&dq=homicide+%22warren+court%22&lr=&num=30&as_brr=0&ei=BvhqSNuHHpOkiwHp99SCBg&sig=ACfU3U2Pv3ET0J8J_NHq2uTqH_GJxcCbDw online at p. 26-29]</ref>

===First Amendment===

===First Amendment===

The Warren Court's activism stretched into a new turf, especially First Amendment rights. The Court's decision outlawing mandatory school prayer in [[Engel v. Vitale]] (1962) brought vehement complaints that echoed into the 21st century.<ref> See [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=370&invol=421 ENGEL v. VITALE, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) ]</ref>

The Warren Court's activism stretched into a new turf, especially First Amendment rights. The Court's decision outlawing mandatory school prayer in [[Engel v. Vitale]] (1962) brought vehement complaints that echoed into the 21st century.<ref>See [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=370&invol=421 ENGEL v. VITALE, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) ]</ref>

Warren worked to nationalize the Bill of Rights by applying it to the states. Moreover, in one of the landmark cases decided by the Court, [[Griswold v. Connecticut]] (1963), the Warren Court announced a constitutionally protected right of privacy.<ref> See [http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0381_0479_ZS.html [[Griswold v. Connecticut]] (No. 496) 151 Conn. 544, 200 A.2d 479, reversed]</ref>  No one at the time expected the court, after Warren’s retirement,  would use the decision to allow abortion.

Warren worked to nationalize the Bill of Rights by applying it to the states. Moreover, in one of the landmark cases decided by the Court, [[Griswold v. Connecticut]] (1963), the Warren Court announced a constitutionally protected right of privacy.<ref>See [http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0381_0479_ZS.html [[Griswold v. Connecticut]] (No. 496) 151 Conn. 544, 200 A.2d 479, reversed]</ref>  No one at the time expected the court, after Warren’s retirement,  would use the decision to allow abortion.

With the exception of the desegregation decisions, few decisions were unanimous. The eminent scholar John Marshall Harlan took Frankfurter's place as the Court's self-constraint spokesman, often joined by Potter Stewart and Byron R. White. But with the appointment of Thurgood Marshall, the first black justice, and Abe Fortas (replacing Goldberg), Warren could count on six votes in most cases.  

With the exception of the desegregation decisions, few decisions were unanimous. The eminent scholar John Marshall Harlan took Frankfurter's place as the Court's self-constraint spokesman, often joined by Potter Stewart and Byron R. White. But with the appointment of Thurgood Marshall, the first black justice, and Abe Fortas (replacing Goldberg), Warren could count on six votes in most cases.  

In November 1963 President Johnson demanded in the name of patriotic duty that Warren head the governmental commission that investigated the assassination of John F. Kennedy. It was an unhappy experience for Warren, who did not want the assignment. As a judge, he valued candor and justice, but as a politician he recognized the need for secrecy in some matters. He insisted that the commission report should be unanimous, and so he compromised on a number of issues in order to get all the members to sign the final version. But many conspiracy theorists have attacked the commission's findings ever since, claiming that key evidence is missing or distorted and that there are many inconsistencies in the report.

In November 1963 President Johnson demanded in the name of patriotic duty that Warren head the governmental commission that investigated the assassination of John F. Kennedy. It was an unhappy experience for Warren, who did not want the assignment. As a judge, he valued candor and justice, but as a politician he recognized the need for secrecy in some matters. He insisted that the commission report should be unanimous, and so he compromised on a number of issues in order to get all the members to sign the final version. But many conspiracy theorists have attacked the commission's findings ever since, claiming that key evidence is missing or distorted and that there are many inconsistencies in the report.

==Retirement==

==Retirement==

In June 1968, Warren, fearing that Nixon would be elected president that year, worked out a retirement deal with President Johnson. Associate Justice [[Abe Fortas]], who was secretly Johnson's top adviser, brokered the deal in which Fortas would become chief justice. The plan was foiled by the Senate, which ripped into Fortas's record and refused to confirm him.  In 1969 Warren learned that Fortas had made a secret lifetime contract for $20,000 a year to provide private legal advice to Louis Wolfson, a friend and financier in deep legal trouble; Warren immediately demanded and got Fortas' resignation.<ref>Artemus.Ward, "An Extraconstitutional Arrangement: Lyndon Johnson and the Fall of the Warren Court" ''White House Studies'' 2002 2(2): 171-183 </ref>  Warren presided over the Court's October 1968 term and retired in spring 1969; Nixon named Warren E. Burger to succeed him.  

In June 1968, Warren, fearing that Nixon would be elected president that year, worked out a retirement deal with President Johnson. Associate Justice [[Abe Fortas]], who was secretly Johnson's top adviser, brokered the deal in which Fortas would become chief justice. The plan was foiled by the Senate, which ripped into Fortas's record and refused to confirm him.  In 1969 Warren learned that Fortas had made a secret lifetime contract for $20,000 a year to provide private legal advice to Louis Wolfson, a friend and financier in deep legal trouble; Warren immediately demanded and got Fortas' resignation.<ref>Artemus.Ward, "An Extraconstitutional Arrangement: Lyndon Johnson and the Fall of the Warren Court" ''White House Studies'' 2002 2(2): 171-183</ref>  Warren presided over the Court's October 1968 term and retired in spring 1969; Nixon named Warren E. Burger to succeed him.  

Scholars agree that as a judge, Warren does not rank with intellectual giants such as [[Louis Brandeis]], Black, Brennan or [[William Rehnquist]] in terms of jurisprudence. His opinions were not always clearly written, and his legal logic was often muddled. His strength lay in his clear vision that the Constitution embodied natural rights that could not be denied to the citizenry and that the Supreme Court had a special role in protecting those rights.  

Scholars agree that as a judge, Warren does not rank with intellectual giants such as [[Louis Brandeis]], Black, Brennan or [[William Rehnquist]] in terms of jurisprudence. His opinions were not always clearly written, and his legal logic was often muddled. His strength lay in his clear vision that the Constitution embodied natural rights that could not be denied to the citizenry and that the Supreme Court had a special role in protecting those rights.  

==Bibliography==

==Bibliography==

* Belknap, Michael, ''The Supreme Court Under Earl Warren, 1953-1969'' (2005), 406pp [http://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Court-Warren-1953-1969-Justiceships/dp/1570035636/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214941025&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]

* Belknap, Michael, ''The Supreme Court Under Earl Warren, 1953-1969'' (2005), 406pp [http://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Court-Warren-1953-1969-Justiceships/dp/1570035636/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214941025&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]

* Brest, Levinson, et al. ''Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking, Cases & Materials,'' 5th Ed., pp 898-950.

* Brest, Levinson, et al. ''Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking, Cases & Materials,'' 5th Ed., pp 898–950.

* Cray, Ed. ''Chief Justice: A Biography of Earl Warren'' (1997), the most comprehensive biography; highly favorable; strong on politics [http://www.amazon.com/Chief-Justice-Biography-Earl-Warren/dp/0684808528/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214941025&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]

* Cray, Ed. ''Chief Justice: A Biography of Earl Warren'' (1997), the most comprehensive biography; highly favorable; strong on politics [http://www.amazon.com/Chief-Justice-Biography-Earl-Warren/dp/0684808528/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214941025&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]

* Horwitz, Morton J. ''The Warren Court and the Pursuit of Justice'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/Warren-Court-Pursuit-Justice/dp/0809016257/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214948731&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]

* Horwitz, Morton J. ''The Warren Court and the Pursuit of Justice'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/Warren-Court-Pursuit-Justice/dp/0809016257/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214948731&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]

* Lewis, Anthony. "Earl Warren"  in Leon Friedman and Fred L. Israel, eds. ''The Justices of the United States Supreme Court: Their Lives and Major Opinions. Volume: 4.'' (1997) pp 1373-1400; includes all members of the Warren Court. [http://www.questia.com/read/99223171?title=The%20Justices%20of%20the%20United%20States%20Supreme%20Court%3a%20Their%20Lives%20and%20Major%20Opinions%20-%20Vol.%204 online edition]

* Lewis, Anthony. "Earl Warren"  in Leon Friedman and Fred L. Israel, eds. ''The Justices of the United States Supreme Court: Their Lives and Major Opinions. Volume: 4.'' (1997) pp 1373–1400; includes all members of the Warren Court. [http://www.questia.com/read/99223171?title=The%20Justices%20of%20the%20United%20States%20Supreme%20Court%3a%20Their%20Lives%20and%20Major%20Opinions%20-%20Vol.%204 online edition]

* Newton, Jim. ''Justice for All: Earl Warren and the Nation He Made'' (2006), solid biography by journalist  [http://www.amazon.com/Justice-All-Earl-Warren-Nation/dp/B000R7O2W8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214941025&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]

* Newton, Jim. ''Justice for All: Earl Warren and the Nation He Made'' (2006), solid biography by journalist  [http://www.amazon.com/Justice-All-Earl-Warren-Nation/dp/B000R7O2W8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214941025&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]

* Patterson, James T. '' Brown v. Board of Education: A Civil Rights Milestone and Its Troubled Legacy'' (2001) [http://www.questia.com/read/111458889?title=Brown%20v.%20Board%20of%20Education%3a%20A%20Civil%20Rights%20Milestone%20and%20Its%20Troubled%20Legacy online edition]  

* Patterson, James T. '' Brown v. Board of Education: A Civil Rights Milestone and Its Troubled Legacy'' (2001) [http://www.questia.com/read/111458889?title=Brown%20v.%20Board%20of%20Education%3a%20A%20Civil%20Rights%20Milestone%20and%20Its%20Troubled%20Legacy online edition]  

{{USChiefJustices}}

{{USChiefJustices}}

{{Supreme Court|warren=y}}

{{Supreme Court|warren=y}}

{{DEFAULTSORT: Warren, Earl}}  

{{DEFAULTSORT:Warren, Earl}}  

[[Category:United States Supreme Court Justices]]  

[[Category:United States Supreme Court Justices]]