the Progressive movement, which alsonfavored strong executive offices withinngovernment, for a strong administrator,nwhether attorney general, governor, ornpresident, could put reforms into effectnregardless of outside pressures favoringnthe rich and the powerful. This was thenera of Robert LaFoUette, Jane Addams,nMargaret Sanger, and other reformersnwho, according to Parrish, “believedthatnunder wise and enlightened stewardshipn(their own, of course), America wouldnexperience an upward spiral of humannrationality and welfare.” Progressivismnbrought about legislation to protectnworking people—men, women, andnchildren—by limiting work hours, establishingna minimum wage, providing fornworker safety and insurance, and producingnlegislation to protect the consumersnof meat products and to limitnthe power of large trusts and corporationsnthrough antitrust enactments. It alsonengendered a fascination with engineeringnsocial change—which reappeared innthe form of 20th-century liberalism, thenideological basis for the more radicalndecisions of the Warren Court.nH ere, however, emerges a dilemma,nfor although Frankfurter and Warrennwere both young Progressives, and whilenthis early commitment deeply influencedntheir decisions on the SupremenCourt, they responded in totally differentnways. For Warren, who had heldnexecutive offices throughout his career,nthat early commitment to Progressivenreform produced an automatic desire,nwhich he never rationally analyzed (Warrennwas not a thinker), to expand thenpower and range of his office. His experiencenwith corrupt legislatures andnconniving gamblers while governor andnprosecutor apparently convinced him ofnhis own goodness, justifying any actionsnhe chose to perform for the public good.nJust as a material can become dangerouslynradioactive as a result of bombardmentnin a nuclear accelerator, so Warren’sngentlemanly Progressive urge tonreform was transmuted into liberalism—nwith its unrestrained impulse to rational-nWhich of these languagesnMTould you like tonMark the one you want to speak in X or 3 months* timenAfrikaansnDnFrenchnDnJapanesenDnAmerican English DnGermannDnNorwegiannDnArabicnDnGreek (Modern) DnPolishnDnChinesenDnHebrew (Modern) DnPortuguesenDnCzechnDanishnDutchnDnnnDnHindinindonesiannirishn•nDnDnRussiannSpanishnSwedishnDnnnDnFinnishnDnItaiiannDnWelshnDnA Linguaphone Course maizes you feel at home in almost any country.nYou’ll never miss the meaning of conversations or be at a loss for words.nIt must work—over 4 million Linguaptionenstudents in 68 countries speak a secondnlanguage FLUENTLY.nProven learning success. You LISTEN to realnconversations on cassettes…UNDERSTANDnwtiat you tiear by following illustrated textbooks.nHOLD C0NVEF1SATI0NS witli ttie speakers.nYou (tirt ipMkIng the very Ural leison.nYou learn at your own convenience.nIt’s like tiaving a private tutor.n• You get a complete, professional language programnat little cost.n• You gain a good, working vocabulary.n• In Just 2 to 3 monttis you can speak anottiernlanguage witti complete confidence.n• You develop an authentic accent. Only nativebornnspeakers are used.nLinguaphone i^^nThenLanguagenMastersnMONEY BACK GUARANTEE-28 DAY FREE TRIALnWorld Language Courses, Inc. Dept.254 313NolanaAve. McAllen, Texas 78501nFREE INFORMATION: Please mail me FREE information about learningnthe languages I have checked. FREE brochure.nName (please print)nStreetnCity State. Zip.nize all social relations, protect the processesnof democracy at the expense ofnits substance (thus the nazis march innSkokie courtesy of the First Amendment),nand to equalize the actual conditionnof every citizen of the United States.nThat Warren did this without a great dealnof thought, in violation of most judicialncanons, and contrary to the traditionalnlimits of judicial power in America isnsomething that White finds baffling. Nontheory of jurisprudence can explain ornjustify it, so he turns to a form of sympathetic,nlegal psychoanalysis. White’sntask is made all the more onerous by thennotorious contradictions in Warren’sncareer: as a prosecutor he was not overlynsolicitous of civil rights, as Governor henrequired all employees of the state ofnnnCalifornia to take loyalty oaths as anprecondition of employment, and henparticipated wholeheartedly in the internmentnof Japanese Americans afternthe attack on Pearl Harbor.nOn the other hand, Frankfurter’sncareer is of a piece, and his early Progressivismnis reflected in his stance as anSupreme Court justice. Yet Frankflirternwas the Warren Court’s most forceful expositornof judicial restraint. Why? Thenanswer lies in Frankfurter’s commitmentnto Progressive reform, for it was duringnhis tenure that the Supreme Court struckndown a host of reform laws enacted bynlegislatures and signed into law by governorsnand presidents. Even with JusticesnHughes and Brandeis sitting, the Courtndeclared many reform laws unconstitu-nVSnMarch 1983n