Beaten. American history goes on in several different directions. What is he doing for Foreign Policy . He is the one you could write novels about. He was on the Supreme Court. He left the Supreme Court. He ran for president. Then he went back to the Supreme Court. When of the finest minds on the courts. Why use . Andrew jackson said that he looks like god and talks like god. Charles evans hughes the republican president ial nominee soon after the national convention. Tonight, we looked at the life and legacy of Charles Evans hughes who was a twoterm governor, secretary of state, and twice a Supreme Court justice. He was of the Senior Partners to talk a little bit about Charles Evans hughes and his support for women voting. Also very proud and the original edition of the independent weekly magazine that came out the week after justice used to see the republican nomination for the presidency. Justice hughes got the republican nomination for the presidency. Mrs. Hughes, she is on here in support of womens suffrage, which she supported as well. With the things we were not aware of the Republican Party platform in 1916 was that each state would have the right to determine whether or not women would have the right to vote. Does this Hughes Justice hughes said he would go beyond the Republican Party platform and support the susan b. Anthony and in sense of him. He was considered quite a great orator. Lets listen to what he sounded like. Bigotry and racial animosities and intolerance are the deadly enemies of true democracy. There can be no friendly cooperation if they exist. They are enemies more dangerous than any external force. Yes. Another thing we want to highlight was the importance of wasis used importancejus the importance of mrs. Hughes in his life. She was the daughter of walter carter, the senior partner in the hughes law firm. He met her at an Office Holiday party. Issue was a very educated woman, influential in his life. He also had three daughters who together with mrs. Hughes, i introducing us to each of the members of the Supreme Court in 1937. Associate justice sutherland. It became a senator from utah. The only Supreme Court catholic. A democrat who supported president harding. From wyoming 78. 56 years on the bench. James reynolds of tennessee, 75. Confirmed bachelor. Has voted against every new deal measure. Benjamin Nathan Benjamin nathan cardozo, a 67 67, appointed by president hoover. Arlen of new york, a former dean of the University Law school. Justice brandeis of kentucky. Wilson dared not appoint him attorney general, but did reported him to the court. The did appoint him to the core. And Justice Roberts. At 61, the youngest justice. Long a conservative. And Charles Evans hughes, 75. Chief justice since 1930. Sometimes conservative, sometimes liberal. President roosevelt goes on the air in an appeal for Popular Support for his plan to reorganize the federal judiciary. It is his second such appeal within six days. He tells the people that his plan would protect them. Those opposing the plan have sots to so prejudice and fear by saying i am seeking to pack the Supreme Court. What did they mean by packing the Supreme Court . Let me answer this question with a bluntness that will and all honest misunderstanding of my purpose. Is by that phrase it is charged if by that phrase is charged i wish to place on the bench spineless puppets to disregard the law and decide specific cases as i wish them to be decided, i make this answer. That no president s bid for his office would appoint and no senate of honorable men bid for their office would confirm that kind of appointee to the Supreme Court of the United States. We what a Supreme Court that will do justice under the constitution and not over it. In our courts, we want a government of laws and not of men. The court lacking the Court Packing plan was a very serious threat. It was proposed by an immensely popular president s. As fdr put it the people are with me. Hughes proceeded cautiously, but with determination. He demolished fdrs efficiency argument. He showed that the court was keeping up with this work. Hughes explain that adding more justices would make the court far less efficient. There would be more judges to hear, more judges to confer, more judges to been to discuss, more judges to be convinced and to decide. Hughes chose not to directly criticize fdr, but to expose the effort for what it test. Test. Test. He didnt live to see it. And Charles Evan Hughes, first chief justice to move in here. I read it was troefrcontroversi the time and not all of the justices wanted to come and work in here. And thats partially because youre talking about justices, who are sometimes traditionalists. And the depression. The depression, optics of moving into this beautiful temple to have its own kind of political dimension. But part of it was, it was a break with tradition. It was a break that was long overdue. The pediment, and i think over the next call, we might be able to get a shot of that so you can see how the architects of this building depicted him. Were going to listen to mt. Joy, pennsylvania. This is harry. Caller yes, i used to study that Supreme Court and in the 1935 decisions in some of the medial cases, i think three major laws were struck down by unanimous Supreme Court decisions. They were unanimous. That included the liberals. And from what i understand, when they made the Court Packing speech, Lewis Brandeis was offended. I worked for roberts and from what i understand the coats in 1987 were taken before secret chambers, in 1936 the votes were taken for the cases to decide in 1937, thats from memorandum. But thank you for letting me be on the show. Thank you very much. That caller provided a segue to get into the whole courtpacking era. Set the stage for us quick. Okay, what happened to and i want to get back to the callers question because its at the crux of courtpacking scheme. What happened is he became frustrated with a lot of the new deal measures were being struck down by this Supreme Court and sometimes by a unanimous court. And one on what grounds . On the grounds first of all, on the grounds exceeding congresss powers under the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause is actually quite relevant today. Its the source for passage of obamas Health Care Plan or the tax power and its also the source of a lot of legislation that is passed right now. So under the new deal the court was basically not as expansive in its interpretation of what the power could do for the congress and thought the states autonomy was being infringed upon by congressional enactments. Another ground for inbal dags was under substantive due process or liberty of contrast, which was read into the fourth or fifth amendment. The new deal of the court, the hughes courts has striking down a lot of new deal legislation. So fdr in frustration after his reelection basically proposed a plan whereby the courts membership would be increased in justices didnt retire in a timely fashion. So under his plan, there would have been up to six new justices placed upon the court. This gets into the question that was asked by the caller about whether Justice Roberts, who was the chief person who supposedly changed his vote, had changed his vote before the courtpacking scheme was promoted or not. And one argument is that once roosevelt won the election, the court really felt there would be a lot of pressure to uphold the newdeal legislation and it couldnt be striking down many laws. One is the courtpacking scheme itself was almost irrelevant or wasnt the real catalyst that roberts felt he had to change his vote simply because of roosevelts reelection and this great democratic consensus behind us. Give us a sense of how engaged the country was in this. Was this hugely controversial . Or was this a washington story . This was definitely not a washington story. And i think it helps to kind of understand the stage completely, which is think about fdr at this point. Hes just been reelected for his second term. Hes dealing with the great depression. Nos worried about whether its the great recession. This is the great depression. Hes dealing with it legislatively, passing legislation and its getting struck down by the court. And hes also in his second term. By the time hes down with his fourth term, he would have appointed more Supreme Court justices than any other president than george washington. But at this point hes like jimmy carter. Hes been a fullterm president and he hasnt put anybody on the court. So hes very frustrated with the court. Hes very frustrated with the fact theyre striking legislation. Hes frustrated he feels theyre out of touch with the country. And that frustration of what the court is doing, with theage of some of the judges, all of that boils over into the courtpacking plan. And i think its very interesting to debate whether, as you say, the plan was really necessary, whether that was really what explains the courts change in approach in some of these important areas but it is, i think, fair to say it is a bit of a black eye to fdrs historical legacy he let his frustrations boil over and made his proposal. Lets take a call from salem, oregon. This is kirk watching us out there. Caller yes, good afternoon. It is still afternoon here. I appreciate you taking my call. It is a question, i presume, for professor meyler. Im accused to know what she might know regarding the personal relationship tieins between Justice Hughes and the william you Stewart Family from auburn, new york, stewart was lincolns secretary of state. And also part of the reason im calling i have been puzzling for some time back in that era as the speech by Justice Hughes was indicating the antiracist of the community were republicans and that seems to have switched and around the time of Woodrow Wilsons presidency and when he embrac embraced budde aion. Thats an interesting question. Im not that familiar with stewart. Ly have to defer to others. But theres an interesting story about hughes and race. He invited booker t. Washington to an event and it was a somewhat controversial invitation. He personally escorted him to a table. Hughes pretty much retains a fairly uniformed position on race throughout his career where he was in favor of at least greater equality. Im not sure what except full equality. But against the backdrop of this change that youre pointing out where previously republicans have been much more in favor of racial equality and the democrats also sort of took on that mantel. Returning to the courtpacking plan, Charles Evan Hughes was how involved in setting the stage for being defeated . I think he was integrally involved and as chief Justice Roberts pointed out, theres a famous missive from the court itself to congress. And as i understand the story, that was something Justice Brandeis was very much in favor of and suggested and the chief justice was very direct and in the same kind of i think skill set that he brought to bear in investigating the Gas Companies back in the day. He was also good with numbers. He use the numbers, he looked at the court dockett, its caseload. And as Justice Roberts indicated took apart a neutral case for what fdr was proposing and really laid bear the most obvious moifgs for the courtpacking plan. How common between the Court Legislature be to sent a missive frrt court to congress . It did happen, and i dont know if this was the practice back in the day of chief Justice Hughes but its been the practi practice basically every year the state of the chief justice sends over to congress. Sometimes it can be poignanted. For a number of years both chief Justice Rehnquist and chief Justice Roberts made a point of explaining theyre less than happy with the current state of judicial pay. There continues to be these kind of issues between and among the branches but i also think that probably the way that chief Justice Hughes handled the courtpacking scheme probably took Court Packing off the table as a realistic option going forward, and i think thats one of his great contributions. So i completely agreement with paul clement but i also want to add two things, one of which is that some people did criticize hughes at the time for essentially issuing an advisory opinion. One part of his letter chief Justice Roberts referred to the court which importantly was also found by or consulted with brandeis about so there was kind of unity among the members of the court about it, one part of the letter said well, hearing cases in a panel system wouldnt actually probably be constitutional and that seems like an advisory opinion. Interestingly the book said, paul clement referred to before the Supreme Court hughes condemned other justices for trying to issue advisory opinions. So theres some controversial about that letter i think. Next call is from st. Louis, missouri. Caller thank you very much for taking my call. This is a followup to the cornell professors comments orrin roberts prior to the courtpacking plan aligned himself more with the four horsemen who are the conservative wing of the court and after the courtpacking plan probably oar an roberts was part of the switch in time to save nine. From what i read, orrin roberts would never admit that. Do either one of you know why he really did change his voting pattern . Thank you very much. Do you know if he changed his voting pattern after that . Well, the only person that knows for sure is Justice Roberts and hes no longer with us. I think this is one of the reasons i this from an academic standpoint Court Packing is so interesting as an historical episode, there are a lot of competing theories that are supported at a detailed level. But we dont really know for sure. But if you look at the patterns, there does seem to be a fork in the road and a change that expands with the courtpacking scandal and these cases that emerged at a critical time that go in a different direction. Any more to add . No, he did protest he wasnt influenced by politics at all but its hard to argue that on the record. We talked about the fact this court opened in 1935, this beautiful building. Im wondering, you spent a lot of time in that courtroom, closer to generals. The courtroom he operated in as chief justice spemly the same today . There are a couple minor differences. We also have a photograph from the Supreme CourtHistorical Society but it was somewhat illicitly taken, inside the courtroom with court in session inside the justices presiding. The contract in session. You dont see that very often. You sure dont. While were talking about it, we didnt mention in his biography and his years between his first and Second Service on the court he was a private practice lawyer much sought after and argued some 50 cases before the court. My question is, having had that experience, what was argument like in his court . Its really i think a very good point. And its something very similar to the situation we have now with chief Justice Roberts. We have somebody in chief Justice Roberts who argued nearly 40 cases before he came on to the benchth chief Justice Hughes had him beat. He 50 arguments in his private practice, very lucrative private practice. And thats part of the point that was made about the sacrifices that he made for Public Service. But he comes to the court by somebody who not only has preparation of the court and served as justice but sympathy and understanding of the role of counsel as well. He was certainly willing to ask question of counsel but also i think had a real appreciation that counsel had prepared for the argument, they had points that they wanted to make and was also ready and willing to listen to counsel at argument as well. Pittsburgh, this is tim. Welcome to our conversation, tim. Caller yes, thank you. I have a question for your guest about the circumstances of Justice Hughes ascending to the court as chief justice in 1930, and dont know if this story is true so im hoping your guest can confirm it. The conventional wisdom after taft died is Charles Evans hughes would not agree to serve as chief justice because doing so would mean his son would have to resign as solicitor general. Then to everyones surprise Charles Evan Hughes sr. Decided