Changes

[[Image:Williamodouglas.jpg|right|thumb|Justice Douglas]]

[[Image:Williamodouglas.jpg|right|thumb|Justice Douglas]]

'''William Orville Douglas''' (1898-1980) was the longest serving Justice of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in history, remaining on the bench for 36 years.  Appointed by President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]], Douglas had been a law professor at [[Yale]] and [[Columbia University]].  Douglas is considered to have been one of the smarter Supreme Court Justices in history,<ref>http://www.alandershowitz.com/publications/docs/WildBill.html</ref> but also one of the most activist.<ref>"I don't follow precedents, I make

'''William Orville Douglas''' (1898-1980) was the longest serving Justice of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in history, remaining on the bench for 36 years.  Appointed by President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]], Douglas had been a law professor at [[Yale]] and [[Columbia University]].  Douglas is considered to have been one of the smarter Supreme Court Justices in history,<ref>http://www.alandershowitz.com/publications/docs/WildBill.html</ref> but also one of the most activist.<ref>"I don't follow precedents, I make

’em." (William O. Douglas, quoted by R. A. Posner, New Republic, 24 February 2003.)</ref>  He is an example of how a Justice can become increasingly liberal the longer he remains on the Supreme Court.

'em." (William O. Douglas, quoted by R. A. Posner, New Republic, 24 February 2003.)</ref>  He is an example of how a Justice can become increasingly liberal the longer he remains on the Supreme Court.

Justice Douglas wrote in the 1952 case of [[Zorach v. Clauson]]<blockquote>"The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State...  Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other-hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. ...  We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being ... When the state encourages religious instruction ... it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs.  To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe ...  We find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion. We cannot read into the Bill of Rights such a philosophy of hostility to religion."<ref>Justice [[Robert Jackson]] cynically thought that Justice Douglas was pandering to the [[Catholic]] vote in this opinion in order to run for president.  "After commenting on the lack of difference that he viewed between this case and [[McCollum v. Board of Education]], yet with two different results from Douglas, he wrote: 'Today’s judgment will be more interesting to students of psychology and of the judicial processes than to students of constitutional law.'  For Jackson, his colleague appeared to be taking this proreligion position because of his thoughts about the need to win the support of a Catholic constituency for a possible run for the presidency later that year."[http://www.alandershowitz.com/publications/docs/WildBill.html]</ref></blockquote>

Justice Douglas wrote in the 1952 case of [[Zorach v. Clauson]]<blockquote>"The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State...  Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other-hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. ...  We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being ... When the state encourages religious instruction ... it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs.  To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe ...  We find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion. We cannot read into the Bill of Rights such a philosophy of hostility to religion."<ref>Justice [[Robert Jackson]] cynically thought that Justice Douglas was pandering to the [[Catholic]] vote in this opinion in order to run for president.  "After commenting on the lack of difference that he viewed between this case and [[McCollum v. Board of Education]], yet with two different results from Douglas, he wrote: 'Today’s judgment will be more interesting to students of psychology and of the judicial processes than to students of constitutional law.'  For Jackson, his colleague appeared to be taking this proreligion position because of his thoughts about the need to win the support of a Catholic constituency for a possible run for the presidency later that year."[http://www.alandershowitz.com/publications/docs/WildBill.html]</ref></blockquote>