trained in the law can really understandnthem, and only the judges themselvesnmay decide what the laws really mean.nFinally, judges have that indispensablenprerogative of any priesthood, that itsndecisions have not just the force of law,nwhich can alter custom, abrogate contracts,nand radically change social arrangements,nbut that they are also takennto be the source of our civil morality.nSince we have no other officially acceptednsource of moral law, judges enunciatennot just law in the positive sense—whichna man might agree to abide by for thensake of social peace—but a “law aboventhe law,” those principles that give anmoral force to the law and to which wenare encouraged to give our internal assent.nTheir statements are law becausenthey claim to interpret for us what thencivil and, increasingly, the personal^oo^nis: “This is true because it is just. “nTwo new books enable us to peer morenclosely into the internal workings of thisnjudicial priesthood: Earl Warren: AnPublic Life by G. Edward White (who,nhe says, originally wanted to entitle it ann”interpretive biography”) and FelixnFrankfurter and His Times by Michael E.nParrish. Warren and Frankfurter bothnserved as justices of the Supreme Courtnduring its most influential time in con-nFederal judiciary assumed the role ofnlawmakers, a function constitutionallynassigned to the legislative branch ofngovernment. How and why the Courtnwas able to assume this role is revealed,nin part, in these two workmanlikenbiographies.n”axrish’s book on Frankfurter is thenfirst of a planned two-volume account,nand it leans heavily on letters written betweennFrankfurter and his wide circle ofnfriends and acquaintances, includingnHenry Stimson, Theodore Roosevelt,nLouis Brandeis, Learned Hand, andnFranklin Roosevelt. The book attemptsnto convey a sense of the history thatnformed the background of Frankfurter’sntime and that Frankfurter helped make:nthe Sacco-Vanzetti ttial, the founding ofnThe New Republic as an organ of reform,nZionism, the rise of labor unions, and hisninvolvement in the administrations ofnthree Presidents—^Teddy Roosevelt, Taft,nandFranklinRoosevelt. White’s book onnEarl Warren is more concerned with explainingnand justifying Earl Warren’sntime on the bench. Thus, there is considerablynless material of a personal andnhistorical nature in White’s book than innParrish’s, and more about the law andnpractical jurisprudence (Parrish’s bookn”[Earl Warren: A Public Life is] an exciting biography of this great man.”n—The New Republicn”One finishes this book with a renewed respect for Warren.”n—New York Times Book Reviewntemporary history, from 1954 to 1969, ornfrom the year of the Brown decision tonthe year of Warren’s retirement as ChiefnJustice. During this period, many momentousndecisions were handed down—non school desegregation, school prayer,nCongressional redistricting, the rights ofncriminals and the accused, pornographyn—that had more effect on Americannpolitical and social life than any since thenDredScott decision. To do this the Courtnhad to exercise a degree of power it hadnhitherto never even approached, for thenSupreme Court and eventually the entiren121nChronicles of Cultttrenends when Frankfurter is appointed tonthe Supreme Court). Despite their differencesnin emphasis and treatment, thentwo books together provide a compellingncontrast between the two men whosenpersonalities dominated the SupremenCourt for a decade, from 1953 whennWarren joined the Court, to 1962 whennFrankfurter retired from it.nFrankfurter was talented, quickwitted,na fast talker with a facile mindnwhose special talent was ingratiatingnhimself with important people. By contrast,nWarren was a man of medioae in­nnntellect who won success via thoroughndevotion to a series of jobs, and who appearednto the public as a bland, heartynfellow with few pretensions. Despite, ornperhaps because of, this difference innpersonality, Warren exerted far more influencenon the Court than Frankfiirter.nWarren was successively a county prosecutor,na district attorney. Attorney Generalnand then Governor of California,nand finally Chief Justice. Frankfurternheld a number of appointive jobs innWashington before he became a professornat the Harvard Law School, where henengaged in a variety of extracurricular activitiesnwhich included advising thenPresidential campaigns of Al Smith andnFranklin Roosevelt. FDR appointed himnto the Court in 1939. Franlrfurter came tonthe bench as a legal scholar and social activistninfluential in the Demoaatic Party;nWarren came with a background as anstate administrator and a power-brokernamong the Republicans.nDespite their differences in temperament,nlegal skills, and background, theynhad one element in common: early inntheir careers, both men had been committednto the Progressive cause, the turnof-the-centurynreform movement thatnpresaged much of the thinking of 20thcenturynliberalism, whose chief agent thenWarren Court would become. Bothnmen, in fact, had been strongly influencednby older men who were prominentnProgressives: Henry Stimson, candidatenfor Governor of New York, and HiramnJohnson, Governor of California. Frankfurternworked for Stimson, who callednhim to Washington during the administrationnof Teddy Roosevelt; later. Frankfurterntook part in Stimson’s unsuccessfulncampaign for Governor, while Warrennworked with Johnson’s campaign innCalifornia, though not in the top echelon.nThese early commitments formednthe background for the later legal thinkingnof both men.nProgressivism denigrated partisanship,nthe influence of corporations andnbusiness lobbies, and the impact of thenflood of new immigrants to the UnitednStates. Nativism was a strong element inn