re John Knox, a rvw of his hatchet job on James McReynolds

notice one example of reviewer's bias: a LADY FRIEND states antisemitic feelings; both Knox and the reviewer use that persons words to tar McReynolds

Knox has tainted the study; the real question is, Was McReynolds opposed to Brandeis and Frankfurter because they were JEWS or because their policy choices and support were, in McReynolds' judgment, harmful to American interests?

ISSN 1062-7421
Vol. 12 No. 8 (August 2002) pp. 439-442 (University of Maryland, College of Behavioral and Social Sciences)

THE FORGOTTEN MEMOIR OF JOHN KNOX: A YEAR IN THE LIFE OF A SUPREME COURT CLERK IN FDR'S WASHINGTON by Dennis J. Hutchinson and David J. Garrow (Editors). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2002, xxiii, 288 pp. Cloth $32.50. ISBN 0-226-44862-2.

Reviewed by Tinsley E. Yarbrough, Department of Political Science, East Carolina University.

Parents caution their children, "Be careful what you wish for; you might get it." John Frush Knox (1907-1997) longed to become a clerk to a Supreme Court justice, and his wish came true. Knox served during the Court's watershed 1936-37 term as secretary to James Clark McReynolds, the most stridently reactionary of the "Four Horsemen," with whom working was likened to a daily walk through a mine field.

Even at seventy-five, the justice was an impressive physical specimen-tall, trim, impeccably dressed, with the countenance of a Roman senator and a host of female admirers. To his credit, the wealthy bachelor jurist also apparently had a genuine affection for children, providing financial support for over thirty child victims of the Nazi blitzkrieg in England and offering to contribute the first $10,000 to the Save the Children Fund.

But McReynolds was also one of the pettiest, most irascible, bigoted, and mediocre justices ever to sit on the high bench. He detested the Court's Jewish justices, admonishing his staff not to associate with them or their staffs. Indeed, no official Court photograph exists for 1924 simply because McReynolds refused to sit next to Justice Louis D. Brandeis, as required by Court protocol. The justice forbade his clerks, moreover, to fraternize with his "darky" messenger and cook. When McReynolds died in 1946, no member of the Court attended his funeral.

Not surprisingly, John Knox's year with the justice proved a painfully frustrating experience, relieved only by the friendship of McReynolds's servants, the attentions of one of the justice's women friends, the sympathetic indulgence of several other justices, Knox's fascination with Washington, the thrill of attempting surreptitiously to circumvent McReynolds's myriad rules and idiosyncrasies-and the detailed diary entries that would become the basis for his fascinating memoir.

Knox was almost as eccentric as his subject. Raised in suburban Chicago in the 1920s, he received a bachelor's degree from the University of Chicago, a LL.B. at Northwestern, and a LL.M. at Harvard. As a lonely high school senior, he had begun keeping a daily diary. A descendant of a Confederate veteran and fascinated with war, he also began corresponding with veterans, then turned his efforts to seeking the autographs of celebrities, and finally began corresponding with Justices Oliver W. Holmes, Willis Van Devanter, and Benjamin N. Cardozo, who not only responded but eventually granted Knox personal audiences. In fact, when
Knox was offered a clerkship with McReynolds, Justice Van Devanter was

Page 440 begins here

the intermediary, not Felix Frankfurter, who was the major conduit to a Supreme Court clerkship in that era, but had given Knox a minimal passing grade in a Harvard class and obviously enjoyed absolutely no influence with the anti-Semitic McReynolds.

Knox's career after his clerkship was as lackluster as McReynolds's judicial record. He initially landed a position with a prestigious Chicago firm but was fired when he failed the Illinois bar. Although he passed the bar on his third attempt, he never acquired a secure and permanent position with a firm. An attempt to run the faltering family mail-order book business after his father's death proved disastrous, but he eventually found his niche in the Chicago claims office of the Allstate Insurance Company, a Sears subsidiary, working there until his retirement in 1973. The dwindling value of the Sears stock on which his retirement income was
based made Knox's last years extremely precarious ones. A lonely bachelor who struggled with prostate cancer the last decade of his life, he died in 1997.

The Supreme Court Historical Society published Knox's unsigned account of Justice McReynolds's career in 1983 and a lengthy summary the next year of his recollections of Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, particularly during the 1936-37 Term. He tried for several years to interest Simon & Schuster in his memoir, but that and similar efforts were unavailing, in part because Knox was willing to release only portions of his manuscript prior to signing a contract.

Thanks to Professors Hutchinson and Garrow, the memoir is now available and well worth the wait. Knox certainly did not succeed in his stated intention to surpass Pepys as a diarist, and his work is often more revealing of its author than its subject. But it is clearly the most intimate and candid account of a clerk's relationship with a justice, that justice's lifestyle and personality, and the daily workings of the Court ever to appear in print.

By the time Knox began his clerkship, the Court's sessions were being held in the recently completed Supreme Court building. But most justices, including McReynolds, continued to work at home. Home to the justice was Suite 502, a luxurious thirteen-room apartment at 2400 16th Street, N. W. Knox began his duties there with great anticipation for a rewarding year.

But disillusionment quickly followed. McReynolds seemed decidedly more insistent that Knox master the rituals of his household and Washington society, including its complicated rules for the exchange of calling cards, than his official duties. Early in his tenure, the justice asked his clerk to draft an opinion. Knox worked diligently for days, producing draft after draft. With hardly a glance at his clerk's handiwork, McReynolds then quickly wrote his own-in Knox's view, inferior-opinion in the case.

Knox found the treatment the justice accorded his African-American messenger Harry Parker and cook Mary Diggs especially disturbing. Messengers were regularly obliged to go beyond their Court duties, acting as personal servants to their justices, but McReynolds's demands of Parker were excessive by any measure. Parker served McReynolds until the justice retired in 1941, and then became Robert H. Jackson's clerk. Two of his sons also worked at the Court. Katherine Ogden Savage, the McReynolds lady friend who befriended Knox, providing him regular

Page 441 begins here

social opportunities without the justice's knowledge, said that for years Harry Parker "did almost everything but breathe for the Justice." Mary Diggs was also extremely efficient and an exceptionally talented cook. And although both referred to McReynolds as "Pussywillow" behind his back, they were invariably respectful and scrupulously attentive to the justice's every need. McReynolds, by contrast, generally treated them with contempt and suspicion. Most demeaning of all, McReynolds enlisted Parker as a human bird dog on hunting trips, obliging his messenger to wade through icy water to retrieve the justice's kill.

McReynolds admonished Knox, for obviously social and racial reasons, not to become too familiar with his servants, but to no avail. Parker and Diggs became his closest friends and allies, offering him valuable advice in his efforts to cope with the justice. ("You can't smoke or drink," the messenger explained at one point, "and you can't have no dates with girlfriends during the year. If anybody is going to do any dating, it will be the Justice and nobody else.") When they invited Knox to share lunch with them in the kitchen while McReynolds was away, they seated the clerk at a separate table-a nod to racial tradition Knox quickly corrected.

The justice's anti-Semitism hardly escaped his clerk either. Parker told Knox of McReynolds's bitter distaste for Justices Brandeis and Cardozo, but a note to the justice from one of his women friends was perhaps most revealing. While confined in a hospital, she wrote McReynolds, "[t]he head doctor on the floor . . . has been in here a number of times to talk with me on one pretext or another. But he is a Jew! It's obvious. Imagine! ... I was, of course, REPELLED. He even touched me with his hands! What lengths these Jews will go in order to make a conquest!" When Mary Diggs showed the letter to a shocked Knox, she began laughing. "Mr. Knox, you sure do look surprised! But you know he don't like no Jews and neither do his lady friends."

Accounts of McReynolds's female relationships also provide moments of humor for his readers, if not for Knox himself. Desperate to keep each woman friend ignorant of the others, the justice was enraged when Knox confused one woman telephone caller's voice with another's. Knox's association with Mrs. Savage, who lived one floor above the justice's apartment, was entirely platonic, as he repeatedly assured an initially dubious Parker. But he was obliged to be constantly on guard lest the justice learn of their relationship, and once had to hide in a bedroom when the justice made an unexpected call at Mrs. Savage's suite.

The most interesting portions of Knox's memoir are devoted to changes in McReynolds's mood and behavior as the Court's eventful 1936-37 term progressed. Bolstered by the LITERARY DIGEST and its grossly unreliable sample survey predictions of a Republican landslide against FDR in the 1936 presidential election, the justice's spirits remained reasonably good through the early fall. But when GOP candidate Alf Landon won the electoral votes of only two states, the LITERARY DIGEST disappeared from the McReynolds household and the justice's disposition grew increasingly dark. McReynolds took some comfort from the opposition FDR's Court-packing plan provoked. But the defection of Owen Roberts to the liberal side doomed the Court's anti-New Deal coalition to permanent defeat. The "Four Horsemen" gathered at 2400 for strategy sessions and persuaded McReynolds to draft the group's

Page 442 begins here

dissent in the monumental JONES & LAUGHLIN case, which the justice delivered extemporaneously and forcefully from the bench. As time went on, though, McReynolds, never a very industrious jurist under the best of circumstances, grew increasingly indifferent to the Court's docket-and difficult for his staff to tolerate.

Whatever the frustrations of his post, Knox had fully intended to complete the term with McReynolds. But that was not to be. When the justice learned that his clerk had been studying for the bar and planned to take the examination, McReynolds issued an ultimatum: if Knox persisted with his plans, he would be discharged and his salary stopped immediately. When Knox refused, the justice promptly followed through with his threat, without so much as a goodbye to a person with whom he had close contact for most of a year. In 1938, when Knox paid a visit to Harry Parker and Mary Diggs, the messenger insisted that he say hello to the justice so that the two "could be friends again." McReynolds greeted his former clerk in a "cordial but distant manner," leaving Knox "feeling a bit chilled despite
the warm weather." He never saw the justice again. With the publication of this memoir, however, Knox has finally had the last word.

***************************************************************************
Copyright 2002 by the author, Tinsley E. Yarbrough.

John Knox's notes on James McReynolds

Excerpts from
The Forgotten Memoir of John Knox
A Year in the Life of a Supreme Court Clerk in FDR's Washington
Edited by Dennis J. Hutchinson and David J. Garrow

"John Knox was an earnest young man, fresh from Harvard Law School in 1936, who lucked his way into a Supreme Court clerkship—only 'luck' isn't quite the right word. What he did not realize until too late was that his new boss, Justice James C. McReynolds, was notorious within the court as an obnoxious grouch and as a racist and anti-Semite to boot. Mr. Knox's memoir of his clerkship, published now for the first time, offers a rare glimpse into the private world of the Supreme Court at a remarkable time in our history. …Just a few months into his clerkship, Mr. Knox found that 'a chill was gradually descending on my spirits.' Little wonder. He went on to an undistinguished legal career. The memoir he left behind, though, is a fascinating achievement."—David A. Price, The Wall Street Journal

"Fascinating.…If it is the semi-inside view of the Court in 1936-37 that brings readers to this book, it is the story of this bizarre mÉnage À quatre that will keep them hooked. The mean old judge, the ambitious but feckless secretary, the two mistreated** but keenly watchful servants, all four contained within the walls of a spiffy yet cold and claustrophobic apartment—it is a delicious combination, packed with drama, irony and drollery."—Jonathan Yardley, Washington Post Book World **how do we know they were mistreated?

"Had Balzac turned his wit on our nation's capital, the resulting novel might have been the story of John Knox.…Eccentric and exciting political and social history."—Jeff Greenfield, Harper's

"This book has novelistic force, like One L or The Paper Chase. It's about a weird quartet: the author, who is a nice young man, a bit of the obtuse narrator; his boss, McReynolds, a kind of legal Bluebeard; and the two black servants, who call McReynolds (behind his back of course) 'Pussywillow.' This is literature, rather than just history—the charm is in the telling."—Judge Richard A. Posner

"This is American history and Supreme Court history written from the inside as a drama/comedy of people and manners. Most telling for me was the view of black Americans as they study, protect, and sometimes shake their heads at the powerful white people they know as flawed human beings."—Juan Williams

John F. Knox was the secretary and law clerk to Justice James C. McReynolds of the United States Supreme Court during the term that President Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to "pack" the Court, 1936-37. [1] Knox came to the job by an unusual route. He held two law degrees, including an LL.M. from Harvard, but he owed his appointment to a habit he began in high school—writing pen pal letters to celebrities. He began with Civil War veterans and proceeded to luminaries of the day such as Helen Keller, William Howard Taft, and Admiral Byrd. Even before law school, he established an on-going correspondence with members of the Supreme Court, including Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Benjamin N. Cardozo, and Willis Van Devanter. His most sustained correspondence was with Van Devanter, one of the conservative "Four Horsemen," as they were then called.

After years of exchanging letters, Knox finally screwed up the courage to ask Van Devanter for a job. Van Devanter retained a permanent secretary and clerk, but his colleague McReynolds suffered high turnover, and the justice recommended Knox. But what Knox thought was a dream job turned out to be a constant trial. McReynolds was a severe and distant man of intense passions and biases, including naked racial bigotry and anti-semitism. Ironically Knox developed his closest relationships in the McReynolds household with the Justice's two black servants, Harry Parker, the messenger and general factotum, and Mrs. Mary Diggs, the housekeeper and cook. Although the new Supreme Court building had been opened for a year, all but two of the justices maintained their old habits of working at home and attending the Court only for oral arguments and delivery of opinions.

Knox was seared by his year with McReynolds, and at mid-life began writing his memoirs, based on his daily diary, carbon copies of letters he had written, and his meticulous memory. After ten years of work he had a 978-page manuscript, which, despite constant effort, remained unpublished at his death in 1997. The memoir is unique: no other law clerk to a Supreme Court justice has documented the experience. Knox's work is a candid, sometimes naive, account of what might be called "Upstairs, Downstairs" at the Court during a politically tumultuous period in which the country and the Court were changing dramatically. The following excerpts are drawn from the book.

*

[September 18, 1936:] Harry then became quiet, looked at me intently for some moments and then decided to change the subject of conversation. He finally said, "Say, Mr. Knox, did you ever sort of notice anything different when you hear me talking to Mary?"

"Well," I replied, after a pause to collect my thoughts, "now that you mention it, I guess I did. Sometimes I hear you and Mary talking about funny things—like, for instance, pussy-willows and queens."

"That's just it," said Harry excitedly, "and Mary and me has now decided to initiate you into our secret!"

At this announcement I straightened up a bit in my chair and began to show more interest. "Secret?" I inquired, "You mean you want me to join a club or something?"

"Naw, it ain't nothing like that!" said Harry. "What I means is that once you is initiated, the three of us can talk about the Justice and all his friends without his knowing it or understanding us!"

"Indeed!" I declared with real interest. "I'm all ears. Just what do you have in mind?"

"Well, it's like this," said Harry triumphantly. "When Mary and me is getting dinner, the Justice often pokes his head in the kitchen door to give us some last minute instructions. Or he sometimes hears Mary and me talking when we is cleaning up the dining room or fixing for me to go to market. Now all the time the Justice thinks we is just talking about some of our no count colored friends, but we ain't at all. We is really talking about him and his friends!"

"Well, you don't say so," I countered. "But how do you talk about the Justice and his friends without his knowing it if he hears you?"

"That's easy," said Harry beaming, "and that's our secret. You see, we gives secret names to everybody. Take the Justice himself, for instance. We calls him 'Pussywillow'. Now his best lady friend is 'Madam Queen'—that's Mrs. [Camilla Hare] Lippincott."

"So that explains my hearing you two talk about pussywillows and queens!" I exclaimed. "Very clever, very clever indeed!"

"And now," Harry announced dramatically, "we have given you a name, too. You are going to be Mr. Shoefenicks. After this, when you hear that word you will know we are talking about you."

And so it came to pass that from that day forward I was always referred to in private by Harry and Mary as "Shoefenicks". Why they chose this name, or from whence it came, I was never to know. Nor did I ever question their selection of such a name. If the Justice, for instance, overheard Harry and Mary discussing Shoefenicks and whether he got sick after finding too many pussywillows yesterday, McReynolds must have wondered what sort of jungle dialect was being spoken in his presence.

Following this conversation, Harry began to refer at once to Justice McReynolds as "Pussywillow" in all subsequent conversation with me. Having been "taken into" the secret, I became a part of it at once. To this day McReynolds is, in reality, "Pussywillow" to me instead of "Mr. Justice". Several times, while serving as his secretary and law clerk, I narrowly avoided addressing him as "Pussywillow".

With the Justice, or rather "Pussywillow", gone to play golf, and it being a Friday, I continued my conversation with Harry in a leisurely manner. After a pause, during which I looked up toward Harry as I sat there at the typewriter, I said slowly, as if groping for words, "You know something, Harry. I think I'll call up Justice Brandeis and ask to meet him. He's not so busy now as he will be after the Court opens, and maybe he would have time to see me."

In one shattering moment, however, Harry's expression changed. His face took on a look almost of horror. "Justice Brandeis! Have you gone out of your mind?"

"Of course, Justice Brandeis. Why not? He's going to be 80 years old in November, and I'd like to meet him. Besides, his new secretary was at Harvard when I was there."

Harry made a helpless, dazed sort of gesture with his right hand, as he stood there in the doorway of my room, and he said, "Sometimes I think I never will be able to teach you nothing at all about Washington! Don't you know that we has absolutely no relations with Justice Brandeis?"

"What do you mean, we don't have any relations with him? Doesn't he come over here now and then to discuss cases that are up for decision?"

"Come over here?" exclaimed Harry in amazement. "Oh you got so much to learn! Of course, he never comes over here. Don't you realize that Justice Brandeis is Jewish?"

"Yes, but what about it?" I inquired innocently.

"Why," said Harry emphatically, "there's been only one Jewish fellow who ever got to come to this apartment, and he was Mr. Garfinckel who had the department store. You know, Garfinckel's downtown where they don't have no basement in the store."

In a tone of quiet sarcasm I said, "And how did Mr. Garfinckel ever get in here? Did he sell some merchandise wholesale to the Justice?"

This question caused Harry to pause for some moments before replying. "Say, maybe that was why he came here. I always did think it kind of funny like. Pussywillow sure don't like to buy nothing if he can get out of it, and even some of the furniture here was given to him. Take that Japanese screen, for instance. One of his lady friends sent us that a couple of years ago."

"Now Harry," I ventured, "do you really mean to say that the Justice, I mean Pussywillow, is at outs with Brandeis because he's Jewish. And does that mean Cardozo doesn't come over here either?"

Without replying to the first question, Harry immediately commented, "Now Justice Cardozo, he's a sort of special case. He couldn't come over here even if he wasn't Jewish because the Justice is real mad at him."

"Mad at Cardozo? What did he ever do to upset Pussywillow?"

"Well," said Harry thoughtfully. "It was some time ago—soon after Justice Cardozo came to Washington. Pussywillow wrote an opinion and circulated it around to the other eight Justices, as he was supposed to do, of course, but Cardozo went and made a suggestion or two about improving the wording of a few sentences. That was when he was real new to the Court, too, and Pussywillow had been here for many years. Well, Pussywillow never had no more to do with Cardozo after that, and I guess they're not even on speaking terms to this day."

"Oh Harry," I said, shaking my head slowly back and forth, "sometimes I wonder how these cases ever get decided at all. Is everybody mad at everybody else on the Supreme Court of the United States?"
***

[September 26, 1936:] The next morning my first glimpse of Justice McReynolds was when he summoned me to his study and rather impatiently shoved a letter across the desk in my direction. "Take care of this. Somebody wants my autograph. I've signed my name on a piece of paper here, and you can send it to this child. It's nonsense, that's what it is, wanting stranger's autographs—and for what?"

This was my first introduction to a phenomenon that I was to see much of during the months to come—requests from strangers for the autograph of the Justice. It finally became rather burdensome to answer such requests by return mail and always accompany my answers with the autograph of the Justice. In the Spring of 1937 these requests became very numerous following President Roosevelt's attack upon the Supreme Court. Yet never once did I venture to suggest to McReynolds that the matter would be simplified if he would only give me 25 or 30 autographs at one time, which I could keep "in reserve" for future requests. "If I asked him to sign his name on pieces of paper that many times and all at once, I suppose he would fire me for sure!" I rationalized to myself.

There was, however, something intriguing about this very first request for an autograph. In fact, the next time Harry stopped by the door of my office that day to ask if the Justice or I had any errands for him, I showed Harry the letter. "Nobody ever asks for my autograph," he said with a chuckle. "Say, why don't you send him my signature, too, along with your autograph and the Justice's?" And at the very thought of such a thing, Harry threw back his head, smiled from ear to ear and gave a hearty laugh. McReynolds was at that time sitting in his study but not near enough to hear what we had been talking about. Yet almost immediately the buzzer on my desk began ringing with an insistent hissing sound. Grabbing my shorthand pad, I walked in at once to the Justice's study after throwing a knowing glance at Harry. He then turned and walked back toward the kitchen.

"I don't want to dictate any letter," McReynolds said rather impatiently, "but I do feel that this is the time to speak about one thing. I realize you are a Northerner who has never been educated or reared in the South, but I want you to know that you are becoming much too friendly with Harry. You seem to forget that he is a negro and you are a graduate of the Harvard Law School. And yet for days now, it has been obvious to me that you are, well, treating Harry and Mary like equals. Really, a law clerk to a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States should have some feeling about his position and not wish to associate with colored servants the way you are doing." And with a genuine sigh McReynolds continued, "Of course, you are not a Southerner, so maybe it's expecting too much of someone from Chicago to act like a Southerner, but I do wish you would think of my wishes in this matter in your future relations with darkies."

"Yes, sir," I said, in a low and almost inaudible voice. I then turned and left the room as the Justice indicated that he did not wish to discuss the matter further. Walking back to my office I sat down at the typewriter but began running my fingers absent-mindedly through my hair and saying to myself, "What's the matter with me anyway? Am I a coward or something? Why don't I march right back in there and tell him that I am a Southerner! Of course, I wasn't born down South, I never lived down South, and I know very little firsthand about the South. But, at least many of my ancestors were born in North Carolina and Virginia during the 1700's, my great-great grandfather was married in Warrenton, Virginia, after his return from the Revolutionary War, my grandfather was born in Richmond in 1833, and a small Confederate flag hangs on one of the walls in my home next to autographed pictures of Generals Lee and Beauregard. Why, I not only know many Confederate veterans personally, but I even know a member of General Robert E. Lee's staff. I'm not just a Northerner; I'm a Southerner, too!" But on second thought I decided not to go back into the Justice's study and revive the conversation, and in fact he was destined never to know anything about my ancestors, the Confederate flag, or my Confederate friendships. Nor did Harry or Mary ever learn of this conversation of mine with the Justice.
***

[Late September, 1936, McReynolds cleared his throat and said:] "You asked me—umph—about what advice I would give to someone just starting out to practice law."

"Oh yes, I remember," I replied hastily.

I turned suddenly in my chair and looked intently at the Justice. I had, in fact, not even had time to rise upon his entrance into the room and then wait until he indicated that I should be seated again. There also flashed through my mind the realization that he could never be quite at ease in the presence of his law clerk—at least when he was talking to the clerk as "man-to-man". And somehow at that moment I felt a genuine burst of admiration for him, for I suddenly realized the care he had apparently taken in mulling over my question.

"I'm glad to see you are so earnest about the law," McReynolds said in a brusque sort of way. "You must be or you wouldn't have asked the question in the first place." Then with an almost inaudible sigh the Justice continued, "I think, first of all, that honesty and integrity are the most important things for a young lawyer to keep in mind. A man must have sound principles and stand by them these days, and he should not endorse every wild scheme that comes along. I suppose you know that Washington is full of impractical lawyers, and I must say that many of them seem to have come from Harvard. You might as well realize right now that I think the Harvard Law School is highly overrated!"

McReynolds drew a long breath and then continued. "I also hope that you did not come under the influence of Frankfurter when you were in law school. There was some doubt in my mind about Justice Van Devanter's selection of any law clerk who graduated from a school where Frankfurter teaches. He is certainly one man not to be trusted! Even though he is dangerous to the welfare of this country, he evidently has a powerful influence at the White House."

"I only had Professor Frankfurter for one class at Harvard," I managed to reply. "There were about two hundred students in that class, and I am sure he did not even know that I existed." I was just about to add, however, that I did consider Frankfurter a very stimulating and interesting professor, but on second thought I decided to remain silent on this point.

"But with or without Frankfurter's help," the Justice continued, "the present administration has made many mistakes. Now just suppose we review a few of them. I was a Democrat when I was appointed to the Court, but I must recognize this administration for what it is. It began, for instance, by repudiating the campaign platform of 1932. That was the first betrayal. Then it recognized Soviet Russia. Imagine restoring diplomatic relations with that country! Justice Van Devanter was over there last year, and he even saw pregnant women working on the railroads in section gangs. And yet the Communists propose to infiltrate their ideas throughout the world. And Roosevelt recognizes them and installs the Soviets in the old embassy of the Czars right here on Sixteenth Street!"

I remained silent, fascinated by the flow of conversation that I had so unwittingly released. "Shortly after we recognized soviet Russia," McReynolds continued, "we took another step down the road to Socialism and the destruction of states' rights!"

"What happened?" I ventured to suggest.

"Why a large bureaucracey began to mushroom here in Washington, and with this growth in the Federal government there has been a greater and greater centralization of power in this city. And another thing! Before he was elected the President pledged that he would cut government expenditures by, I believe, twenty-five per cent. The national debt then stood at about 21 billion dollars. But the President did just the opposite of what he had pledged himself to do. In fact, he has squandered money so fast that Congress last year had to enact a law making 45 billion dollars the national debt limit. Imagine 45 billion dollars! Why this is a sum so vast that it cannot even be comprehended!"

I could not imagine the sum of 45 billion dollars, either, except to assume that if this amount was all in dollar bills they would probably reach from Washington to the moon.

"I remember reading about your dissenting views in the gold clause cases last year," I next said.

At this statement McReynolds' eyes began flashing, and memories crowded upon him with ever increasing rapidity. "We were assured that this country would not be taken off the gold standard! [2] Not only Roosevelt promised that but also Garner and even Carter Glass. But these promises were repudiated! The dollar was depreciated to sixty cents. This meant that mortgages were depreciated, as were bank deposits and insurance funds. I want you to realize that this Administration has deliberately sought to repudiate its national obligations and to confiscate private rights. As I said last year, when the gold cases were decided, this can only lead to the moral and financial breakdown of the country!"

"What do you think the results of the Schechter decision [invalidating the administration's National Industrial Recovery Act] have been?" I next suggested.

"Well," McReynolds continued, "for one thing businessmen throughout the country have become more and more confident because of the Court's decision in that case. The decision stimulated industry, which had been hampered by the N.R.A. laws." And then after a momentary pause McReynolds said, "But I guess I have strayed a little from the subject! I just want you to realize, however, that if it were not for the Court this country would go too far down the road to Socialism ever to return. We have been at the crossroads for several years, and it is our great misfortune to have a man as President who ignores the Constitution and dominates a weak and politically-minded Congress. A man like Roosevelt can do great harm to this country, but I feel that the worst is now over. And so, getting back to what advice I would give you, let me see, well I think a young lawyer should make all the contacts that he can—but in sincerity, of course. They will help him in building up a clientele later on. He should also be able to analyze the merits or defects of each individual judge before whom he may practice. This will be of great aid to him throughout his legal career."

There was another momentary pause, and McReynolds now seemed to be groping for something to say next. Then he suddenly blurted out, "Also don't be a bachelor! I think a lawyer can be more successful as a general rule if he has a wife and family to work for. They will keep him alert and on his toes, and there will be the companionship of his wife through the years. And another thing! Don't ever wear a red tie. It is much too effeminate for a lawyer to do. I don't like red ties!"

At this statement I could not refrain from glancing down at my own tie even though I knew that it could not be red. While at Harvard I had heard that red ties were somehow taboo, and as a consequence I was careful never to purchase a tie with any red in it. The one I happened to be wearing on that particular September day was, I was glad to note, an innocuous blue in color.

The Justice then closed the conversation by saying that there were a lot of crackpot theorists in Washington who were bent on ruining the government if given half a chance. He enumerated several of them by name, and having done that he suddenly stood up and left the room. The conversation was over, but before he disappeared into his own study I did manage to thank him for answering my question in such detail. Then as soon as he had gone, I began to sketch out on the typewriter a short memorandum of his conversation so that I would not forget what he had just said.
***

[Late September, 1936:] The next time Justice McReynolds called me into his study for some dictation, I mentioned my surprise at learning how many campaign promises the President had broken. After some reflection the Justice slowly replied, "No trait in Roosevelt is more dangerous than the fact that he does one thing while planning just the opposite." And shaking his head back and forth he concluded, "I don't know where all this is going to end!"

Noticing a copy of the current issue of "The Literary Digest" on the Justice's desk I chanced to remark, "It will probably end in Roosevelt's defeat. What does this week's 'Digest' poll say about Landon's chances?"

McReynolds then handed me the October 3, 1936, issue of "The Literary Digest". On page 7 there was an article entitled "Landon Holds Lead in 'Digest' Poll. Kansan Ahead in 21 States, Roosevelt in 10, Lemke in None."

"Landon seems to be gaining," the Justice ventured, "I think we may be due for a change. Let's hope so at least!"

To this I replied, "I notice Roosevelt said last week that he expects to balance the budget in a year or two without imposing any additional new taxes."

"I suppose he said that in one of his campaign speeches," McReynolds remarked dryly. "Well, then, you can just be sure he is getting ready to spend some more money!"

I then left the Justice's study to peruse the copy of "The Literary Digest" which he had given me. And at the moment it seemed that McReynolds might even be right in anticipating Landon's election. "The Digest" polls in the past had proved remarkably correct. In 1920, 1924, 1928 and 1932 not only had the "Digest" picked the correct Presidential winner, but it had forecast the actual popular vote within such a small percentage of error that the magazine's polls were considered extremely accurate by 1936. For instance, the percentage of error in the 1932 poll had been less than 1%.

Not only did the "Digest" predict that Landon was leading in 21 states, but these states carried an electoral vote of 290. On the other hand, the 10 states in which Roosevelt was alleged to be leading contained only 111 electoral votes. Then, too, Al Smith had just made a stirring speech in Carnegie Hall telling a New York audience that "the remedy for all the ills that we are suffering from today is the election of Alfred M. Landon". The fact that the Democratic candidate of 1928 would endorse a Republican candidate in 1936 carried great weight with me. "Maybe he will influence several million votes throughout the country," I thought. "If Smith could swing New York State to Landon, Roosevelt might be seriously hampered."

In the evenings, however, I would tune in on some of Landon's campaign speeches [using the] small radio in my apartment. But when I listened to his voice and delivery I began to have grave doubts again that he could win against Roosevelt. It was like trying to imagine a pygmy attempting to lasso an elephant. And all the while Jim Farley remained very calm and kept saying that whatever Al Smith or Alf Landon did was quite immaterial, and that Roosevelt's victory in 1936 would be an even greater one than his 1932 success. Yet Justice McReynolds continued to place his faith in "The Literary Digest" polls. It was the only magazine that I ever saw on the desk in his study. He read each issue carefully and compared Landon's chances week by week with those of the occupant of the White House. The "Digest's" predictions were something to hold to, and to keep faith in. They were, in fact, like a guiding star which seemed to forecast the early end of the four year New Deal nightmare.
***

[Mid-November, 1936, after being introduced to Mrs. Katherine Ogden Savage, a wealthy widow who lived one floor away from McReynolds in the same apartment building:] At dinner held by Mrs. Savage on Saturday, November 14th, I sat near the Admiral from the Navy Department. I noticed Mrs. Savage's Negro maid eyeing me rather sharply. She was busily serving someone on the opposite side of the table, and she had just heard me tell the Admiral that I was Justice McReynolds' secretary. In no time at all this same maid informed Harry of what she had learned. A few days later he took me aside in the kitchen of McReynolds' apartment and in a very serious tone of voice asked me if I had ever heard of a Mrs. Francis M. Savage.

"Why Harry," I exclaimed in surprise. "Don't you remember? You introduced me to her when I went to Court the other day."

"That I did," Harry replied glumly, "and I'm real sorry to hear you have become a gigolo so soon."

"A gigolo?" I inquired in surprise. "Just what do you mean?"

"You know what I mean!" replied Harry. "Mrs. Savage is a widow twice your age. She is also a friend of Pussywillow's. You were seen eating with her in the dining room downstairs—right out in public where everybody could see you! And then you even went to dinner in her apartment! I know because her maid told me."

It took some time and considerable discussion before Harry was prepared to concede that perhaps I wasn't exactly a gigolo after all, but he was certain that the whole affair had an element of great disaster in it. "No good will come of this!" he said, shaking his head from side to side. "Mark my word, when Pussywillow hears about you and Mrs. Savage, you will really be in trouble—and just when everything is going nice and calm like now that the Court is hearing arguments again. In fact, you won't last until Christmas. You'll be looking for a nice new job by the time snow comes!"

"The Justice won't need to hear of it," I said, "that is unless somebody tells him."

"Well, nobody's going to snitch on you," replied Harry, "but some day soon Pussywillow will come walking down the lobby swinging his cane and see his secretary as big as life eating right there in the dining room with his lady friend from upstairs. And when that happens it sure will be curtains for you!"

"I'm prepared to take the risk," I finally replied. "After all, he only plays golf with Mrs. Savage. He isn't married to her, and he can't tell her who to invite to dinner."

"O. K." Harry concluded with a sigh, "but don't say I didn't warn you! Pussywillow is real jealous of all of his lady friends—even the ones he only sees on a golf course." And with that statement the subject of Mrs. Savage was closed for the time being. In fact, a few minutes later McReynolds arrived home from Court, and soon he was immersed in dictating a letter to me.
***

[Mid-January, 1937:] Not long after the White House reception [for the judiciary on January 12, 1937] I noticed a subtle change beginning to take place in the Justice's conduct of his affairs, and as the month progressed McReynolds began to exhibit marked signs of irritability and uneasiness. I finally wrote in my diary as follows:

. . . The Justice has been tipped off to something, but I don't know yet what it is. He is either fearing inflation or being forced to resign. He has had me go through his records back to 1903, he has been calling up his stock brokers, etc. A millionaire from Wall Street came down to advise him to ship part of his money to Canada and England. Beyond that I don't know what happened but will find out in due time, I suppose . . . Something is wrong somewhere . . . There may be a blow-up somewhere along the line . . .

Since McReynolds was in contact with a number of prominent people in Washington, I finally assumed that someone from Capitol Hill was upsetting him considerably by forecasting what the President's plans for the country might be. The Justice, for instance, was a friend of Representative Hatton W. Sumners of Texas, the able Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Was Sumners the one who was causing the Justice such uneasiness? I assumed that he was, and for years I felt that Sumners was the one who had warned the Justice, [but Congressman Summers denied "ever discussing the matters" when I corresponded with him in 1961]. In any event, shortly after President Roosevelt's message to Congress on January 6, 1937, Sumners revived a bill which he had previously introduced in the House of Representatives. He may have read between the lines of the President's message and anticipated Roosevelt's impending assault upon the Supreme Court. In his revived bill Representative Sumners looked toward the day when some of the Justices might resign but still need a guaranteed income each year. This bill, therefore, sought to establish a retiring Justice in a new position in which he would exercise certain minor judicial functions. In return, the Justice would be guaranteed a certain salary which would not be subject to reduction.

Now it so happened that while serving as Attorney General in 1913 Justice McReynolds had recommended the passage of a bill providing that when any federal judge, except justices of the Supreme Court, failed to avail himself of the privilege of retiring at the age provided by law, the President should appoint another judge to preside over the affairs of the Court and have precedence over the older one. "This," said McReynolds, "will insure at all times the presence of a judge sufficiently active to discharge promptly and adequately all the duties of the court." McReynolds had made this recommendation to President Wilson in 1913, but no action had ever been taken on it. Now in 1936 McReynolds, as the arch conservative member of the Supreme Court, was on the verge of finding these words turned against him by the occupant of the White House. Whether he knew this or surmised it during the month of January, 1937, I have no way of knowing for sure. But for many years I have assumed that he did know for he became more and more uneasy as he occupied himself with day by day routine Court work. He was busily preparing three decisions which he expected to read at the next opinion day—February 1, 1937—but writing these decisions was certainly not the cause of his growing uneasiness. I finally began to wonder just what was really going to happen after the Inauguration scheduled for Wednesday, January 20, 1937.
*

On February 5, 1937, Roosevelt announced the judicial reform legislation, which immediately caused a political crisis for the President and daily speculation on if and how the Court would respond. The proposal died in Congress during the summer, but not before the Court issued a series of dramatic decisions more sympathetic to the New Deal and to the directions of social reform that had been developing simultaneously at the state level. The "Old Court," dominated by McReynolds and the other Four Horsemen, was no more.

*

Notes

1. Buoyed by an overwhelming landslide re-election in November 1936, Roosevelt proposed legislation in February of 1937 that would have added one new justice for each who was then aged 70 or older. If enacted, Roosevelt would have realized six appointments to the Court and a comfortable majority in an institution which had found one constitutional obstacle after another to various New Deal programs.
2. [Editors' note: McReynolds ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 1896 as a "Gold Democrat," breaking with the Party's Presidential nominee, William Jennings Bryan, who campaigned for free silver and against the the opposition's policy which he derided as a "Cross of Gold."]

Copyright notice: ©2002 Excerpted from The Forgotten Memoir of John Knox: A Year in the Life of a Supreme Court Clerk in FDR's Washington, edited by Dennis J. Hutchinson and David J. Garrow, published by the University of Chicago Press. ©2002 by Dennis J. Hutchinson and David J. Garrow. All rights reserved. This text may be used and shared in accordance with the fair-use provisions of U.S. copyright law, and it may be archived and redistributed in electronic form, provided that this entire notice, including copyright information, is carried and provided that the University of Chicago Press is notified and no fee is charged for access. Archiving, redistribution, or republication of this text on other terms, in any medium, requires the consent of the University of Chicago Press.

John Knox
The Forgotten Memoir of John Knox: A Year in the Life of a Supreme Court Clerk in FDR's Washington
Edited and with a Foreword and Afterword by Dennis J. Hutchinson and David J. Garrow
©2002, 310 pages, 18 halftones
Cloth $32.50 ISBN: 0-226-44862-2
Paper $17.50 ISBN: 0-226-44863-0

John Knox, loser.

John Frush Knox
Born 1907
Oak Park, Illinois
Died 1997
Oak Park, Illinois
Occupation memoirist
Nationality American
Subjects United States Supreme Court justices and culture

John Frush Knox (1907 – 1997)[1] served as secretary and law clerk to United States Supreme Court Justice James Clark McReynolds from 1936 to 1937. He is chiefly known for his memoir of that experience. ***but more importantly, McReynolds is chiefly known from Knox's memoir, and perhaps, McReynolds is slandered by Knox's misinterpretations.

Knox was born in 1907, in Oak Park, Illinois.[2] In high school, he began writing pen pal letters to celebrities. He began with Civil War veterans and proceeded to such luminaries of the day as Helen Keller, William Howard Taft, and Admiral Byrd. He established an on-going correspondence with members of the United States Supreme Court, including Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Benjamin N. Cardozo, and Willis Van Devanter. His most sustained correspondence was with Van Devanter, one of the conservative "Four Horsemen" of the Supreme Court.[3]

Knox did undergraduate work at the University of Chicago (Ph.B. 1930) and then studied law at Northwestern University School of Law (J.D. 1934) and the Harvard Law School (LL.M. 1936).[4] He was an indefatigable diarist, generating more than 750 pages of scrapbook, commentary and written recollection by the time he reached college. At one time, Knox claimed that he intended to surpass Samuel Pepys as a diarist.[1]
[edit] The year in Washington

After his graduation from Harvard, Knox sought employment with Van Devanter. Van Devanter recommended Knox to fellow justice James Clark McReynolds, who suffered from high employee turnover (Knox soon found out why).[3] Knox served as private secretary and law clerk to McReynolds during the Supreme Court's October 1936 term. Knox would later write a long memoir of that experience, A Year in the Life of a Supreme Court Clerk in Franklin D. Roosevelt's Washington, centered mostly on his relations with McReynolds and McReynolds's two black servants, but also containing observations on other members of the Supreme Court at that time, and the historical period in general.[1] Such memoirs are unique; few other law clerks to Supreme Court justices have documented the experience, and Knox's memoir, though not the first published, represents the earliest such document.
[edit] Subsequent career

Knox’s clerkship ended when McReynolds fired him for taking time off to sit for the Washington, D.C. bar examination, which Knox failed. The remainder of his life was a succession of personal and professional disappointments.[2] He returned to Illinois in 1937. He initially landed a position with a prestigious Chicago law firm but was fired when he failed the Illinois bar examination. Although Knox finally passed the exam (on his third attempt), he never acquired a secure and permanent position with a firm. An attempt at running his family's already faltering mail-order book business after his father's death proved disastrous, but Knox eventually found his niche in the Chicago claims office of the Allstate Insurance Company, a Sears subsidiary, working there until his retirement in 1973.[5]

Knox was a member of the Bars of Illinois, New York and of the Supreme Court of the United States. He also belonged to the Society of Mayflower Descendants, the Society of Colonial Wars, the Sons of the American Revolution, the Sons of the Revolution, and the Society of the War of 1812. Knox's club at Harvard was Lincoln's Inn.[4]

The dwindling value of the Sears stock on which Knox's retirement income was based made his last years difficult. A lonely bachelor who struggled with prostate cancer the last decade of his life,[5] Knox died in 1997 in Oak Park, leaving many of his papers (including his letters from Civil War Veterans) to Harvard Law School.[4]
[edit] References

1. ^ a b c "Knox, John: The Forgotten Memoir of John Knox". http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/14805.ctl.
2. ^ a b "New Hutchinson book opens window on FDR’s New Deal, opposition it faced in Court". http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/030109/hutchinson.shtml.
3. ^ a b "Excerpts from The Forgotten Memoir of John Knox". http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/448622.html.
4. ^ a b c "Knox, John, 1907-. Papers, 1920-1980: Finding Aid.". http://oasis.harvard.edu:10080/oasis/deliver/~law00008.
5. ^ a b "Review of Knox's memoir". http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/hutgar.html.

[edit] Bibliography

* Knox, John (2004). Dennis J. Hutchinson & David J. Garrow, eds.. ed. The Forgotten Memoir of John Knox: A Year in the Life of a Supreme Court Clerk in FDR's Washington. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-44863-0.
* Knox, John (1984). "A Personal Recollection of Justice Cardozo". Supreme Court Historical Society Quarterly.

Two Movies: One Percent; Inside Job

Inside Job:

Iceland’s crash offers lessons

Published: Tuesday, December 14, 2010

watch the entire movie at movies77.net
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/8374331

LOOKING for a good movie? I highly recommend a documentary playing in theaters now, called “Inside Job.” It’s about the financial collapse in the U.S. and includes interviews with some key players involved, explaining the incestuous relationships among banks, rating agencies, government officials and paid consultants.

One of the more eye-opening interviews is with Frederick Mishkin, former Federal Reserve governor (2006-2008) and current professor at the Columbia School of Business. In it, he is asked about a paper he co-authored in 2006 titled, “Financial Stability in Iceland,” in which he writes in glowing terms about the country’s strong and stable financial markets. This was mere months before the country’s banks and economy collapsed under enormous debt. He is then asked what, in his research, made him believe Iceland’s market was so stable. After fumbling for an answer, he came up with, “... You talk to people, you have faith in the central bank. ...” He then was asked how much money the Icelandic Chamber of Commerce paid him to write the report, and the answer is $124,000.

This certainly leads one to reconsider how much prescience and practical knowledge those in control of monetary policy really have. But there’s more. The next question the interviewer asks leaves the poor man momentarily speechless. Immediately after the $124,000 question, Mishkin is presented a copy of his resume, on which the title of the 2006 report has been changed to “Financial Instability in Iceland,” All Mishkin could do was mumble something about a “typo.”

You can watch a clip of the interview by pasting the following link into your browser, but I recommend you go see the whole movie. Visit. http://video.yahoo.com/watch/8114601/21504678.

'Inside Job' Iceland @ Yahoo! Video

I bring this up not to attack Mishkin, but to highlight the fact that central bankers can get things wrong. And in the case of the bailout fever that firmly grips the U.S. and is spreading quickly in Europe, evidence is emerging that our monetary policy chiefs are exactly that: Wrong. Again.

Take Iceland. The country let its banks fail, it didn’t use taxpayer money to bail them out, and the country and its currency have paid a heavy price. However, Iceland’s budget deficit just a couple of years past the crash will be 6.3 percent this year and will vanish by 2012, the European Commission estimates. Contrast this with Ireland, which will leave a 32 percent deficit as estimated by the EC. How long will this debt burden the economy? How long will banks be frozen, leading to stagnation? If Japan is any guide, it could be decades.

What Iceland is showing us, however, is that while letting banks and corporations fail produces some short-term volatility, the destruction of bad debt is a necessary precursor to the reformation of capital. Iceland tore off the Band-Aid in one quick tear. Now it can move on.

With Iceland’s OMX share index up 17 percent this year, economist Paul Krugman says Iceland may be an example of “bankrupting yourself to recovery.”

The ironic part about the whole debate going on between pro-bailout and anti-bailout pundits in Europe and the U.S. is that we have a real life example, in Iceland, to observe and learn from. Perhaps we should give it some weight before we condemn our economies to decades of stagnation, and our children and grandchildren to mountains of our debt.

Just like a good movie, everyone wants a good ending.

re John Pilger and Ray McGovern, linked on RFI

Dan Cooper @ 11:10 pm Feb 24, regarding John Pilger's conversation with Ray McGovern, and the use of the forbidden word, fascism.

Pilger wrote this:

"Fascism is a difficult word, because it comes with an iconography that touches the Nazi nerve and is abused as propaganda against America’s official enemies and to promote the West’s foreign adventures with a moral vocabulary written in the struggle against Hitler. And yet fascism and imperialism are twins. In the aftermath of world war two, those in the imperial states who had made respectable the racial and cultural superiority of “western civilisation”, found that Hitler and fascism had claimed the same, employing strikingly similar methods. Thereafter, the very notion of American imperialism was swept from the textbooks and popular culture of an imperial nation forged on the genocidal conquest of its native people. And a war on social justice and democracy became “US foreign policy”.

McGovern -- and Pilger -- are heroes, no doubt about it. And Pilger recites the Hitler narrative as we have all been trained to understand it.

But look again.
1. As John Dower explains in "Cultures of War," the US and Great Britain engaged a policy and acts that deliberately strove to terrorize the civilian populations of Germany and Japan. Tens of thousands of innocent German civilians, and civilian infrastructure, in Dresden was destroyed by British and US aerial bombardment. The goal was to demoralize the civilian population. In Japan, over 60 cities were destroyed by aerial bombardment that was so carefully planned that mock-ups of typical workers houses were built and destroyed to test the size and type of aerial attack necessary to destroy CIVILIANS and civilian infrastructure.

The tactic, "Shock and Awe," is standard operational procedure, on the shelf of the Department of Defense. US forces deployed Shock and Awe over Baghdad in 2003, and Israel used Shock and Awe to destroy Lebanon and Gaza.

The US did not learn these tactics from Hitler.

2. Pilger wrote that "In the aftermath of world war two, those in the imperial states who had made respectable the racial and cultural superiority of “western civilisation”, found that Hitler and fascism had claimed the same, employing strikingly similar methods.


It would be helpful for Mr. Pilger to check the facts and parallel chronologies of the arrival in late-19th century Germany of wealthy Jewish financiers, who rode the tide of German unification after the Franco-Prussian war, and who, by one means and another that closely resemble 'predatory capitalism' whiplashed the German economy, destroying the lives and futures of tens of thousands of middle class Germans, while establishing the Jewish financiers and their merchant cohort in splendor in Berlin. Those financiers initiated a huge wealth gap, that Germans suffered under for 50 years. Eventually, Hitler came to the fore to lead Germans in resistance to the Jewish-led control over Germany's corporate and government spheres. We KNOW that Jews dominated the German economy because when Samuel Untermyer declared "Judaism's war on Germany," he was convinced the economic strangulation imposed on Germany would succeed because, in his words, "

C Span Feb 25 2011, "Our Goal is to Educate . . ."

Steve Scully, 7:45 am: "Our goal is to educate - - -"

see also, The Forgotten Memoirs of John Knox, secretary to McReynolds

So said Scully in response to a caller who said he hopes Washington Journal disappears because it gives a voice to ignorant people like "racist Tea Partiers."

8:48 am: caller -- complaining about Trumka, says Scully is "most liberal of all." Scully says "we have all sides on this program 7 days a week . . ." Caller's complaint is that Scully does not fairly represent Republicans.

Caller: 8:57 am: Last time prices went very high what was driving it was speculation. Same thing is happening now, it's not scarcity, it's an opportunity. We can't even see who is doing the speculating.

Guest (John Felmy, American Petroleum Institute): Yes you can see, commodities trading is heavily regulated.

9:06 Wyoming caller in praise of oil companies--all they do for the community. Felmy echoes, says must

____

I agree with the caller at 8:48, that Scully is "about the worst," but not because he's "liberal" or against Republicans; my opinion echoes that of Chris Hedges, that those terms and distinctions are meaningless.

Scully is "about the worst" because he does not even acknowledge to himself how sedulously he is defending the status quo, and protecting Israel and zionism at all costs.
Brian Lamb similarly defends Jews -- yes, Jews.
In an interview of the author of the biography of Sandy Weil, Lamb expressed disgust that WEIL was engaging in anti-anti semitic talk and behavior.

And in an interview of M Urofsky, biographer of Louis Brandeis, Lamb and Urofsky discussed Brandeis's resignation from the Supreme Court in 1939, and the letter of farewell that all of the justices save one, McReynolds signed. Lamb expressed disgust that McReynolds would refuse to sign the letter, attributing it to antisemitism but without saying the word -- Lamb did not SAY the judge was antisemitic or hated Jews, he merely implied it by his body language and tenor and context of the conversation. Urofsky, however, supplied the missing piece -- he said, "McReynolds would say, 'that Jew . . .'" referring to Brandeis.

Does the possibility exist that McReynolds had a profound ideological or moral concern that Brandeis had acted or was acting in ways detrimental to American interests, and THAT was the source of his refusal to sign the letter? ** see "Forgotten Memoir John Knox"

Lies are what the world lives on, and those who know the truth and live their lives in accord are finally, not the many but the few. ~ Joseph Campbell, "Myths to Live By"

__________
see List of US Supreme Court Justices

____________

McReynolds, James Clark

McReynolds, James Clark (mukren'uldz) [key], 1862–1946, U.S. Attorney General (1913–14) and Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1914–41), b. Elkton, Ky. He received his law degree from the Univ. of Virginia in 1884. He was a professor of law at Vanderbilt when he was appointed Assistant Attorney General by Theodore Roosevelt. He served from 1903 to 1907, and later, while practicing law, he was a special assistant to the Attorney General in several antitrust cases. He continued his active antitrust work as Attorney General. Appointed by President Wilson to the Supreme Court, he opposed most expansions of the power of the federal government, firmly supporting laissez-faire economic policies. He particularly opposed the New Deal legislation, which he believed violated the Constitution. As a result, he was a key target in President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's unsuccessful attempt to reconstitute the Supreme Court. Considered a difficult and rather unfriendly man, McReynolds was an anti-Semite who thoroughly disliked his fellow justices Louis Brandeis and Benjamin Cardozo.

The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2007, Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.

Read more: James Clark McReynolds — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0831041.html#ixzz1EzLttFUO

American President: An Online Reference Resource for U.S. Presidents
↑ Woodrow Wilson Front Page
James C. McReynolds (1913–1914): Attorney General

The son of a surgeon, James Clark McReynolds was born on February 3, 1862, in Elkton, Kentucky. He graduated from Vanderbilt University in 1882 and followed in the footsteps of the President he would serve, Woodrow Wilson, by studying law at the University of Virginia, earning his degree in 1884. McReynolds entered the political arena when he served briefly as private secretary to U.S. Senator Howell E. Jackson. He returned to his law practice in Nashville, Tennessee, before losing in a bid for Congress as a "gold" Democrat in 1896.

McReynolds taught law at Vanderbilt University from 1900 to 1903, at which time he was appointed assistant U.S. attorney general by President Theodore Roosevelt. As special counsel for the government from 1907 to 1912, McReynolds prosecuted violators of the Sherman Antitrust Act. President Woodrow Wilson named him attorney general on March 5, 1913.

When Associate Justice Horace Lurton resigned from the Supreme Court in August 1914, Wilson tapped McReynolds to take his place. McReynolds served on the high court for twenty-six years, until February 1, 1941, voting down most New Deal measures during the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt. He died on August 24, 1946, in Washington, D.C.

Hillary Clinton - It's Been A Hard Day's Night

Face Falls Apart




Egypt Falls Apart Jan 2011





Libya Feb 2011








Dolled Up for Dinner with China

Jewish Settlers in Occupied Saffa, Palestine, Shoot Palestinian teen, leaving him Brain Dead

Jewish settlers in occupied Saffa, Palestine, shoot two Palestinian youths, leaving one brain dead


by Philip Weiss on January 28, 2011, 9am (report from Ahmed Oudeh of Palestine Project): http://mondoweiss.net/2011/01/jewish-settlers-in-occupation-shoot-two-palestinian-youths-leaving-one-brain-dead.html


Around 100 settlers from Bat Ayn settlement descended upon the Palestinian villages of Saffa and nearby Beit Ommar in the southern West Bank, shooting 17-year-old Yousef Fakhri Ikhlayl (left) in his head, leaving him critically injured. Doctors have announced that Yousef is currently brain-dead in a Hebron hospital.
Settlers also shot 16-year-old Bilal Mohammad Abed Al-Qador with live ammunition in his arm.
The large group of armed settlers began shooting towards Palestinian homes in Saffa at around 9am, leaving Bilal injured. At the same time, a second group of settlers attacked an area of Beit Ommar called Jodor. Yousef was shot in the head in this area while he was standing in grapes vines he had planted on his family’s land.
Dozens of Palestinians from Beit Ommar and the nearby village of Surif began coming to the area to defend their communities. Seven jeeps of Israeli Forces also arrived in the area and escorted the settlers back to Bat Ayn.
This is the second settler attack with live ammunition on Palestinians in as many days. On January 27th, Uday Maher Qadous was shot and killed in Iraq Burin, in the Nablus district, by armed settlers as he was working his land.
Yousef Fahkri Ikhlayl is from the village of Beit Ommar and has worked on initiatives with the Palestine Solidarity Project, an ant-occupation organization in Beit Ommar. In the summer of 2010, Yousef attended the Center for Freedom and Justice’s Freedom Flotilla Summer Camp where he engaged in educational projects, community service, and unarmed demonstrations against the Israeli occupation. In the fall of 2010 Yousef was a participant in a youth photography class also sponsored by the center.
“Yousef was a kid who hoped for a better future for Palestine. His life was ended prematurely by right-wing extremists. People around the world should be outraged by his shooting, and should work to bring his attackers to justice. “ -Bekah Wolf, American citizen who worked with Yousef in the Center for Freedom and Justice
Settlers from Bat Ayn routinely attack and harass Palestinians in the Beit Ommar area. In January 27th, 2011 settlers in the area destroyed several hundred olive trees belonging to Palestinian farmers.

Ultrazionist Jews in Israel video, Louis Theroux

from comments section: "It would appear that God's Chosen are the most unholy alliance ever gathered upon the face of this Earth. Identical to Nazis, everyone of them, but then there were over 150,000 Jews in the German SS and the rest of the German army, many with very high ranks. Most of modern Jews are Ashkenazi thieves, with no relation to Israel in 1000,000 years. Damn the ROTHSCHILD'S AND THEIR FUNDING OF THIS UNHOLY STATE. Thank you Louis"

see Yoram Peri, "The Generals in the Cabinet Room"

Israeli Soldier - Palestinian Girl

Bi'Lin, Occupation, Protests, Israeli violence

Dehumanized and Dehumanizing Israeli Soldiers

Israelis ban journalists from Gaza; Israelis celebrate war

AbuLaish to Sue Israel over Killing of His Daughters

They Do Not Want to Know the Truth

from DailyKos, by Assaf, who posted the video of Abulaish talking with the Israeli journalist. Assaf also posted some comments of his own, below the transcript.

Transcript of first 2 minutes:

Eldar: ...we have on the line Dr. Abu El-Aish, we have been talking with him over the past period... he [his home] was just shelled, his family is wounded, maybe I can replay...

Dr. Abu El-Aish: No one can get to us... (unclear)... Ya Rabi, Ya Rabi (my god).. [he continues to cry throughout while Eldar talks to the audience]

Eldar: They killed his family, over the past few days we have been... I think I'm a bit overwhelmed too because,... (tearing up) Dr. Abu El-Aish is a Tel Hashomer physician, [to the doctor] Abu El-Aish we are now in the studio, [back to the audience] and he kept fearing his family would get hurt, once this week he went on air to Gabi Gazit [another anchor], because this was the only way [apparently referring to the previous near-miss incident].... In short, he was now hit, who was hurt Abu El-Aish?

Dr. Abu El-Aish: My girls, Ya Allah, Ya Allah

[around 1:00 into clip]

Eldar: He has eight children whom he has protected throughout the war, at his home in Beit Lahiya, maybe the only thing we can do is to ask someone who can, maybe in the IDF, Abu El-Aish can you tell me where your house is, maybe they will enable ambulances to get there

Dr. Abu El-Aish: (unclear) ...to save them, to save them, but they are dead already they were hit in the head, it was in their heads [died] on the spot, on the spot, Shlomi, Ya Allah, ... what have we done, what have we done [repeatedly]... they killed the family... [more screams in the background]

The elipsis (...) marks in the anchor's speech are mostly not ommissions, rather Eldar was himself shaken and kept jumping mid-sentence to start new ones.

An IDF infantry regiment apparently responsible for the shelling,
has quickly claimed that there was sniper fire from the doctor's house. Previous such claims during this war (most notably with the UNRWA shelter
bombed a week ago killing from 30 to 40 civilians) have turned out to be bogus. They appear to be little more than a standard cover-all designed to hold until public attention turns elsewhere.

Meanwhile, as if on another planet, Israel Foreign Minster flew to the US in order to sign a cease-fire agreement with... Secretary Rice. I wonder how this is supposed to help stop the killing.

Please help stop this. Call your Senators. Call your House members and ask them to support the Kucinich bill to end the fighting. Call your Israeli consulate: apparently America is the only place whose opinion might matter to them, so please let them know what you think.

Please help stop this. There is no reason for this to go on even one more second.

UPDATE:

At the end of the clip Eldar asks to leave the studio and continue talking with the doctor in private. If I am not mistaken this happened Friday night (tonight) which is prime time news time of the week in Israel.

I understand there may be tech difficulties playing the clip. Mine didn't auto-play because of some missing media player upgrade, so I had to click a link inside the video frame (second link; the first one goes to a download page).

Also if there's anyone Youtube-savvy enough to cut the clip and post it there and bring the link here, that would help - thanks.

Also, if you are a native Arabic speaker and think I made a mistake transliterating the doctor's name, please let me know.

UPDATE 2:

My friend Tom to whom I sent this story, sent me back a related story running today on Democracy Now: Palestinian NASA astrophysicist from Gaza, whose 10-year old son was killed. This happened on the 3rd day of bombing - but the story is first aired today. He was just making arrangements to bring his family to America.

Thanks to the hands that brought this story to the rec list. I post this story here, because the world - and that includes the DKos world - needs to know what is happening,and that the people getting killed in Gaza are people just like you and me, stuck between the hammer and the anvil. The reality is complex, every reality is complex. The Israeli anchor was visibly shaken almost beyond words, and tried to help the doctor and his family, regardless of his own opinion about the war, Hamas, who's to blame, etc.

To the shrill few who have nothing but "Hamas fault, Hamas fault" to say to all these stories: even my 3-year-old toddler is beyond the stage of denying any responsibility for his actions.

I have been an IDF combat soldier, I have been to Gaza, there is no way in heck the IDF and Israeli government should be allowed to explain away all of this. The IDF spokesman unit in particular has lost all credibility over the past 8 years.

So grow up already.

(and to those who think this is a great occasion to say how Israel is the worst thing that happened to mankind: besides being wrong, you are not helping, in case you haven't noticed)

Y Net


Bereaved Gaza doctor to sue Israel

Izzeldin Abuelaish, who lost daughters in Operation Cast Lead, says state leaves him no choice

Uri Misgav
Published: 12.23.10, 20:31 / Israel News

Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish, who lost three daughters when the IDF fired shells at his home during Operation Cast Lead, will file on Sunday a massive damages claim against the State of Israel.

Gaza Conflict
Gaza doctor: I shall not hate / Ali Waked
Dr. Izeldeen Abuelaish, who lost three daughters during IDF offensive, war writes of hope, faith in humanity despite pain
Full Story


"I didn't want to file the lawsuit, and until now I didn't want to discuss it," he told Yedioth Ahronoth in a phone interview from Toronto, Canada, where he immigrated following the tragedy. "I tried to take every step that would allow me to close this with love and goodwill, but they didn't leave me a choice. According to the law, the statute of limitations will apply to this case within a few weeks – but there is no statute of limitations on the blood of my daughters. It will stay with me forever. It's a catastrophe that's impossible to forget."


Abuelaish, a Palestinian gynecologist, has worked in Israeli hospitals for nearly two decades. On January 16, 2009, in the height of Operation Cast Lead, the IDF fired two shells into the window of his home, killing three of his daugters: 20-year-old Bessan, 15-year-old Mayar and 14-year-old Aya. His 17-year-old niece Nour was also killed in the attack, and his 18-year-old daughter Shada and other family members were injured. The Israeli public heard the horrifying incident in a live broadcast, as Abuelaish was preparing at that moment for a phone interview with an Israeli television channel.


Abuelaish instructed his lawyer to avoid a lawsuit and reach a settlement with the security forces, which would include recognition and compensation. But no such settlement was reached: The Defense Ministry's legal adviser, Ahaz Ben-Ari, announced this week that Abuelaish does not deserve compensation.



"Despite the severe outcome, from a legal standpoint our stance is that the operation during which Dr. Abuelaish's family members were hurt was an operation of war," Ben-Ari said. "Therefore, the State of Israel does not carry the responsibility for the damage it caused."



'Palestinians and Israelis are Siamese twins'

Attorney Michael Sfrad, who represents Abuelaish, called the ruling a disgrace. "The Defense Ministry's decision does not only demonstrate cruelty and insensitivity, it also lacks wisdom," he said. "The State of Israel will suffer an immense blow from such a lawsuit, and eventually it will have to pay compensation. I am not just angry as Dr. Abuelaish's lawyer, I am ashamed as an Israeli."


Abuelaish told Yedioth Ahronoth that he has not lost hope for reconciliation and peace. "I wake up in the morning and hear my daughters telling me, 'don't be angry, turn the anger into something positive. Save lives, continue with the message that you brought us up with,'" he said. "I swear to God and swear to my daughters that I will not stop until I meet them and can tell them, 'I brought you justice, and your blood wasn't (spilled) for nothing but changed something in the world.'


"The situation will not change if we don't change something in our heart, thoughts and soul. We need to think of our children and our future," he added. "Palestinians and Israelis are like Siamese twins – attached at the heart and at the head. We must move forward, build bridges and get over barriers. We have no choice."



A Defense Ministry spokesperson said in response that "The Defense Ministry's hearts go out to the family that was stricken by the tragedy. Unfortunately, we can only act according to the law, and we will gladly assist Dr. Abuelaish as much as we can correspondingly."

Just take a look at the photo of Abu Laish that YNet chose/cropped/published: it makes him look like an animal. God damn Pisrael.

But it gets worse:

Report: Hamas may have murdered children of Gaza doctor

* Posted by Israel Insider on January 20, 2009 at 10:00pm
* View Israel Insider's blog

Medical evidence indicates that the shrapnel that hit a member of the family of Gaza gynecologist Ezzaldeen Abulaish came from a terrorist weapon, not the military-grade ordnance used by the Israel Defence Forces.

Abulaish lost three children and a niece in an explosion that he ascribed to an Israeli tank shell.

Channel 1 Israeli government television reported Sunday night that medical imagery taken at Barzilay Hospital, where his wounded niece was taken, indicates that a round object that appeared to be a ball bearing was lodged in her brain. Ball bearings are used by Hamas in their munitions along with other sharp objects to maximize their lethal effects. The IDF uses nothing similar in its tank shells.

The IDF admitted that shells were fired at a sniper in or near the building. However, it is also conceivable that the Gaza Doctor, who was an outspoken critic of Hamas, and on excellent terms with Israeli reporters and medical personnel, was in fact targeted along with his family, by the Islamic terrorist organization.

Hamas used the fighting as a cover for settling scores with political enemies and what it termed "collaborators" by summary executions. At least 8 Fatah activists were reported lynched by Hamas, and the possibility that Hamas might have set off a bomb to kill an Israel-friendly peace activist and get Israel blamed for the event can hardly be discounted. Similar murderous actions are suspected of having been carried out near the UN school where victims were killed by an explosion not considered consistent with an IDF shell that fell near but not on the school.

Hezbollah is believed to have exploited a similar incident in the village of Kana in the 2006 to get Israel blamed for killing women and children, some of whom may have been dead before the explosion.

The possibility that Abulaish may have been targeted by Hamas is increased by the fact that the Doctor had been featured prominently on Israeli TV just a day or two before worrying that an Israeli tank was near his house. In that case the IDF moved the tank and marked the house as not being a target.

The evidence has been turned over to the military's ballistics experts, and a final determination is expected to be issued in the coming days.

The Heroes of Egypt Feb 2011 Video Egyptians Protesting in London - moving