"My name will survive as long as man survives, because I am writing the greatest diary that has ever been written. I intend to surpass Pepys as a diarist."

When John Frush Knox (1907-1997) wrote these words, he was in the middle of law school, and his attempt at surpassing Pepys—part scrapbook, part social commentary, and part recollection—had already reached 750 pages. His efforts as a chronicler might have landed in a family attic had he not secured an eminent position after graduation as law clerk to Justice James C. McReynolds—arguably one of the most disagreeable justices to sit on the Supreme Court—during the tumultuous year when President Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to "pack" the Court with justices who would approve his New Deal agenda. Knox's memoir instead emerges as a record of one of the most fascinating periods in American history.

The Forgotten Memoir of John Knox—edited by Dennis J. Hutchinson and David J. Garrow—offers a candid, at times naïve, insider's view of the showdown between Roosevelt and the Court that took place in 1937. At the same time, it marvelously portrays a Washington culture now long gone. Although the new Supreme Court building had been open for a year by the time Knox joined McReynolds' staff, most of the justices continued to work from their homes, each supported by a small staff. Knox, the epitome of the overzealous and officious young man, after landing what he believes to be a dream position, continually fears for his job under the notoriously rude (and nakedly racist) justice. But he soon develops close relationships with the justice's two black servants: Harry Parker, the messenger who does "everything but breathe" for the justice, and Mary Diggs, the maid and cook. Together, they plot and sidestep around their employer's idiosyncrasies to keep the household running while history is made in the Court.

A substantial foreword by Dennis Hutchinson and David Garrow sets the stage, and a gallery of period photos of Knox, McReynolds, and other figures of the time gives life to this engaging account, which like no other recaptures life in Washington, D.C., when it was still a genteel southern town.

Since it first appeared in 1960, the Supreme Court Review has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. Individual essays in the 1994 volume include articles by Craig M. Bradley on RICO and the first amendment; Bernard Schwartz on clear and present danger versus advocacy of unlawful action; William P. Marshall and Susan Gilles on the Supreme Court, the first amendment, and bad journalism; Paul Finkelman on Prigg v. Pennsylvania; Richard H. Fallon, Jr. on sexual harassment, content neutrality, and the first amendment; Lea Brilmayer on federalism, state authority, and the preemptive power of internal law; and C. Edwin Baker on Turner Broadcasting and content-based regulation of persons and presses.

Since it first appeared in 1960, the Supreme Court Review has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. Individual essays in the 1994 volume include articles by Craig M. Bradley on RICO and the first amendment; Bernard Schwartz on clear and present danger versus advocacy of unlawful action; William P. Marshall and Susan Gilles on the Supreme Court, the first amendment, and bad journalism; Paul Finkelman on Prigg v. Pennsylvania; Richard H. Fallon, Jr. on sexual harassment, content neutrality, and the first amendment; Lea Brilmayer on federalism, state authority, and the preemptive power of internal law; and C. Edwin Baker on Turner Broadcasting and content-based regulation of persons and presses.

Since it first appeared in 1960, the Supreme Court Review has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. Individual essays in the 1994 volume include articles by Craig M. Bradley on RICO and the first amendment; Bernard Schwartz on clear and present danger versus advocacy of unlawful action; William P. Marshall and Susan Gilles on the Supreme Court, the first amendment, and bad journalism; Paul Finkelman on Prigg v. Pennsylvania; Richard H. Fallon, Jr. on sexual harassment, content neutrality, and the first amendment; Lea Brilmayer on federalism, state authority, and the preemptive power of internal law; and C. Edwin Baker on Turner Broadcasting and content-based regulation of persons and presses.

"Some of the best researched and most thoughtful criticisms of recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court."—Ethics

Since it first appeared in 1960, The Supreme Court Review has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. Consisting of diverse essays by distinguished lawyers, historians, and social scientists, each volume presents informed analyses of past and present opinions and discusses important public law issues that have come under Court consideration.

"Some of the best researched and most thoughtful criticism of recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court."—Ethics

The Supreme Court Review keeps you at the forefront of the Court's most significant decisions by surveying its origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law and compelling you to consider the impacts of legal institutions and judicial opinion. Diverse essays of informed analyses of past and present opinions document the complexities of the Court and relevant public law issues. Legal scholars, lawyers, judges, historians, political scientists, economists, and journalists have won acclaim for their contributions to each volume.

Since it first appeared in 1960, The Supreme Court Review has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. Consisting of diverse essays by distinguished lawyers, historians, and social scientists, each volume presents informed analyses of past and present opinions and discusses important public law issues that have come under Court consideration.

Since its inception in 1960, The Supreme Court Review has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court's most significant decisions. Recent volumes have considered issues such as the 2000 elections in Florida, Federalism and state sovereignty, the Boerne v. Flores case, and numerous Fourth Amendment issues. Distinguished participants analyze current and previous public issues, sentiments, and the implications of Court decisions.

The Supreme Court Review receives accolades for providing authoritative discussion of the Court's most significant decisions and their resonating impacts. Recent scholarship addresses school vouchers via Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, Federalism and state sovereignty, the current state of political parties, and judicial passivity. Distinguished participants across the field of Law analyze current and previous public issues, sentiments, and implications addressed under Court consideration.

Since its inception in 1960, The Supreme Court Review has been lauded for providing authoritative discussions of the Court's most significant decisions. Distinguished participants hereanalyze current and previous public issues and sentiments and discuss the implications of court decisions.

For forty-five years The Supreme Court Review has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court’s most significant decisions. Recent volumes have considered issues such as the 2000 presidential election, cross-burning, federalism and state sovereignty, the United States v. American Library Association case, and numerous First and Fourth amendment cases. Distinguished participants analyze current and previous concerns and attitudes and discuss the implications of court decisions.  

For forty-eight years, The Supreme Court Review has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court’s most significant decisions. The Review is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, at the forefront of studies of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. Recent volumes have considered such issues as the 2000 presidential election, cross burning, federalism and state sovereignty, the United States v. American Library Association case, failed Supreme Court nominations, and numerous First and Fourth amendment cases.

For forty-nine years, the Supreme Court Review has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court’s most significant decisions. The Review is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, one that strives to keep on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. Recent volumes have considered such issues as the 2000 presidential election, cross burning, federalism and state sovereignty, the United States v. American Library Association case, failed Supreme Court nominations, and numerous First and Fourth amendment cases.

For fifty years, The Supreme Court Review has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the court's most significant decisions. The Review is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. Recent volumes have considered such issues as post-9/11 security, the 2000 presidential election, cross-burning, federalism and state sovereignty, failed Supreme Court nominations, and numerous First- and Fourth-Amendment cases.

 

For fifty years, The Supreme Court Review has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court's most significant decisions. The Review is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. Recent volumes have considered such issues as post-9/11 security, the 2000 presidential election, cross burning, federalism and state sovereignty, failed Supreme Court nominations, the battles concerning same-sex marriage, and numerous First and Fourth amendment cases.

For more than fifty years, The Supreme Court Review has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court's most significant decisions. An in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, The Supreme Court Review keeps at the forefront of the reforms and interpretations of American law. Recent volumes have considered such issues as post-9/11 security, the 2000 presidential election, cross burning, federalism and state sovereignty, failed Supreme Court nominations, the battles concerning same-sex marriage, and numerous First and Fourth Amendment cases.

For more than fifty years, The Supreme Court Review has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. The Supreme Court Review is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. It is written by and for legal academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians, economists, policy planners, and sociologists.

For more than fifty years, The Supreme Court Review has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court’s most significant decisions. The Supreme Court Review is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. It is written by and for legal academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians, economists, policy planners, and sociologists.
 

Since it first appeared in 1960, The Supreme Court Review (SCR) has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. SCR is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. SCR is written by and for legal academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians, economists, policy planners, and sociologists.