Radiolab Presents: More Perfect – The Political Thicket

Episode Date: June 10, 2016
Hosts: Jad Abumrad, Susie Lechtenberg
Podcast: Radiolab / WNYC Studios

Overview

This episode of Radiolab Presents: More Perfect dives into the landmark Supreme Court case Baker v. Carr (1962), exploring how it thrust the Court into the heart of American politics—what Justice Felix Frankfurter called "the political thicket". The episode uses vivid storytelling, interviews, and archival audio to recount the case’s dramatic impact, focusing on the personal and ideological struggles among the justices, and tracing the decision’s reverberations through later American political history.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Setting the Stage: The Importance of Baker v. Carr

• Retirement of Chief Justice Earl Warren:

  • Susie Lechtenberg sets the scene in 1969 with Chief Justice Warren’s retirement.
  • When asked for the most important decision of his tenure (03:29), Warren astoundingly points to Baker v. Carr—over even Brown v. Board of Education or Miranda.
  • “I think that that case is perhaps the most important case that we've had since I've been on the court.” – Earl Warren [04:28]

• Why was Baker v. Carr so important?

  • The case dealt not with headline-grabbing issues like desegregation, but with the reapportionment of legislative districts, fundamentally altering who had political power in America.

2. Ideological Lines: The Justices and Their Clashes

• The Dramatis Personae:

  • The episode introduces three key justices:
    • Felix Frankfurter (the conservative) – described as condescending, egotistical, intellectually devious, and fiercely committed to judicial restraint.
    • William O. Douglas (the liberal) – a mountain-climbing, womanizing champion of civil liberties… and equally abrasive.
    • Charles Whittaker (the swing vote) – a non-ideological, self-made, Midwestern justice caught in the crossfire.

• Notable Justice Dynamics:

  • Frankfurter and Douglas despised each other, both personally and ideologically.

    • “I always call him a bantam rooster.” – Alan Kohn (Frankfurter’s clerk), [07:44]
    • On Douglas: “A habitual womanizer, heavy drinker, and uncaring parent...” – NYT description, quoted at [09:25]

  • The feud stemmed largely from deep disagreements:

    • Frankfurter believed courts should not intervene in political matters.
    • Douglas argued courts must protect rights when the political process fails.

3. The Plight of Charles Whittaker: The Court’s Human Cost

• Whittaker’s Background:

  • Grew up poor, put himself through school by selling animal pelts, simultaneously attended high school and law school ([12:43]).
  • Became a hardworking, polite, and non-ideological justice.

• The Pressures of the Job:

  • Lacking a strong ideology, Whittaker became the focal point for lobbying from both sides.
  • He struggled intensely with the indecisiveness required by messy Supreme Court cases, a struggle that would soon break him.

4. What Was Baker v. Carr? Why Did It Matter?

• The Issue:

  • Tennessee hadn’t reapportioned its legislative districts since 1901—leading to vast disparities in representational power between urban, minority-heavy cities and rural, white areas ([23:39]).
  • "At that time, a person in the city in Tennessee had 1/23rd as much of a voice in the legislature as a person living in the countryside." – Susie Lechtenberg [24:31]

• Underlying White Supremacy:

  • This “choked” growing urban (and Black) populations out of political power ([24:53]).
  • “Underlying all of the reapportionment litigation, at least in the south, was white supremacy.” – Doug Smith [24:53]

• Legal Stalemate:

  • Liberals: This dilution of urban votes was an injustice requiring Supreme Court intervention.

  • Conservatives (Frankfurter): This was a “political question” and the court should not intervene, for fear of entering the “political thicket” ([27:00]).

  • “The political question doctrine says no federal court can decide this issue at all... What could be more fundamentally political than the makeup of a legislature?” – Historian/Commentator [27:17]

5. The Political Thicket Metaphor

• Frankfurter warned that, if the Court involved itself, "pretty soon we'll be rewriting the entire US Legislative map." ([26:44])
• “The court's gonna get stuck in what he called the political thicket.” – Susie Lechtenberg [30:20]
• “And the imagery of the thicket is that the deer… goes into the thicket, gets entangled, and can never get out. ... Someday the courts will be forced to declare winners and losers of very high profile elections.” – Historian/Commentator [30:32]

6. The Drama Inside the Court

• Whittaker Torn:

  • Caught between the sides, Whittaker was lobbied mercilessly, especially by the overbearing Frankfurter ([32:05]), who gave a legendary 90-minute harangue aiming directly at him. Other accounts say Frankfurter harangued him “for hours.”
  • Hugo Black: “We're all boys grown tall. We're not the gods who sit on high and dispense justice.”, urging Whittaker not to feel too pressured ([32:37]).

• Whittaker’s Breakdown:

  • Whittaker wrote both an opinion in favor and against intervention ([34:20]).
  • Under immense pressure, he suffered a nervous breakdown, disappearing from the court and retreating to the woods for weeks ([37:23]).
  • His family recalls him becoming borderline suicidal—“there was an instance in which my brother found my father going upstairs to get a shotgun.” – Kent Whitaker [40:21]

• Outcome:

  • Whittaker resigns from the court for medical reasons before Baker v. Carr is decided ([41:02]).
  • The final vote was 6-2 in favor of intervention ([42:49]).

7. Aftermath and Legacy

• The Court Intervenes:

  • The decision establishes the idea that reapportionment (and by extension, voting rights) is something the courts can and should rule on ([43:05]), opening the judicial “thicket.”

• Two Justices Broken:

  • Whittaker never recovers to return to the bench ([48:16]).
  • Felix Frankfurter suffers a massive stroke less than two weeks after the ruling—his secretary finds him “sprawled on the floor of his office” ([43:27]), and he firmly believed the ruling caused his decline.

• Warren Court Revolution:

  • The departures of Whittaker and Frankfurter allow President Kennedy to appoint more liberal justices, enabling the Warren Court to shape civil rights, criminal justice, and First Amendment law ([44:40]).

• Baker v. Carr’s Shadow:

  • The episode draws a direct line from this case to modern politicization—culminating in the Supreme Court’s pivotal 2000 Bush v. Gore decision ([46:10]).
  • “I think Phil Frankfurter would have said, ‘see… eventually you will be deciding a partisan question. Which presidential candidate essentially received the most votes?’” – Historian/Commentator [46:30]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the importance of Baker v. Carr:

  • “He thought that case, whatever it is, is more important than the case that desegregated the schools.” – Jad Abumrad [04:35]

• Depictions of the Justices:

  • “One of the most condescending, egotistical of justices.” – Historian/Commentator on Frankfurter [07:51]
  • “A habitual womanizer, heavy drinker, and uncaring parent… cheating on each of his first three wives.” – On Douglas [09:25]
  • “He was just open in his disdain for Frankfurter.” – Historian/Commentator, on Douglas’s antagonism [10:07]

• Frankfurter’s warning:

  • “The court must not enter the political thicket.” – Historian/Commentator [30:28]

• On urban vote dilution:

  • “A person in the city In Tennessee had 1/23rd as much of a voice in the legislature as a person living in the countryside.” – Susie Lechtenberg [24:31]

• On Whittaker’s torment:

  • “I think there was some thought that he might side with the guy who talked with him last.” – Interviewee/Expert [16:42]
  • “He was a nervous Wreck. And like a cat on a hot tin roof…” – Interviewee/Expert [36:36]

• On Baker’s legacy:

  • “Eventually you will be deciding a partisan question.” – Historian/Commentator [46:30]
  • “If Bush v. Gore is the price we have to pay for the courts making the overall political system work somewhat more tolerably properly, it’s a price I’m willing to pay.” – Quoted student reflecting on Baker v. Carr’s legacy [47:40]

Chronological Highlights & Timestamps

• [02:48] – Susie Lechtenberg opens the story: June 25, 1969; Chief Justice Earl Warren’s surprising Baker v. Carr statement.
• [06:00] – Audience question at panel: “Has the court always been this political?”
• [07:10-10:14] – Introduction and sketches of Frankfurter and Douglas.
• [11:42] – Charles Whittaker enters as the ideological swing justice.
• [23:00] – Baker v. Carr is argued at the Supreme Court.
• [24:53] – The hidden connection to white supremacy and Jim Crow.
• [27:17] – The “political question doctrine” explained.
• [30:20] – “Political thicket” metaphor and its dangers.
• [31:08] – Justices in conference, Whittaker is the potential swing.
• [32:05-32:25] – Frankfurter’s legendary, overbearing speeches to win Whittaker.
• [34:20] – Whittaker writes memos on both sides, showing deep division.
• [36:36] – Whittaker’s nerves unravel, stress leads to breakdown.
• [37:23] – Whittaker disappears from the Court, retreats to a cabin.
• [40:21] – Family describes Whittaker’s suicidal crisis.
• [41:02] – Whitaker retires for health reasons, having never cast a vote in Baker v Carr.
• [42:49] – Decision: 6-2, the Court enters the political thicket.
• [43:27] – Frankfurter suffers a stroke, blaming Baker v. Carr.
• [44:40] – Kennedy’s new appointments set up Warren Court revolution.
• [46:10-46:45] – Direct line to Bush v. Gore.
• [48:12-48:42] – Personal coda: Douglas, Frankfurter, and Whittaker’s later years.

Conclusion & Impact

The Political Thicket details a turning point where the Supreme Court assumed a decisive role in American democracy, with immense personal cost to some justices. Through Baker v. Carr, the Court established its duty to protect voting rights—even at the cost of plunging into fraught political questions. The episode traces the line from this 1962 case, through civil rights revolutions, all the way to Bush v. Gore, showing how the “political thicket” now entangles the Supreme Court as a central force in American political life.

For listeners seeking a nuanced, human, and historical perspective on the Supreme Court’s relationship to American democracy and politics, this is essential listening.