The piece finds it the first step on the road to letting go of the unilateral veto power, which was the retention of sovereignty within the context of the U.N., a fact standing in the way of making the body a truly democratic organization with the power to maintain the peace and prevent war, and avoid the impotency of the organization which bedeviled the old League of Nations to its death.

Such abandonment of national sovereignty and surrender to creation of a world federation offered, opines the editorial, the only real hope for peace.

All in all, it was not a happy prospect. It was well to keep in mind, suggests the piece, this fact to remind of how the 79th Congress had handled its most important domestic matter.

Dr. Green had proposed that the Klan buy thirty minutes of broadkast time over WSB to answer critics of the klorganization, the talk to be kalled "Klan Kraft", to be klarranged by Klansman Guiano.

Mr. Childs admits to having inadvertently fanned the flames of the dispute after long conversations he had over a period of months with the late Chief Justice Harlan Stone, who worried over the type of appointments FDR had been making to the Court, citing Justice Black as an example, expressing concern regarding whether they had the judicial skill and temperament necessary to sit or whether they would simply express their private prejudices in legal language as had members of the old Court which nullified much of the New Deal during the mid-Thirties, over the dissents of Justices Stone and Louis Brandeis. Mr. Childs had then written a magazine article based on the conversations.

Thereafter, a particular unnamed individual promoted the feud, stating that Justice Stone had personal antagonism against Justice Black. It appeared to renew the controversy which had surrounded his appointment in 1937 when the revelation came forth after his confirmation that he had been, during the 1920's, a member of the Ku Klux Klan in his native Alabama.

Justice Black became, in response, assiduously determined to justify his liberal opinions with good legal theory, enlisting Justices Frank Murphy, William O. Douglas, and often Wiley Rutledge and Stanley Reed, into his corner to frame majorities.

When Justice Jackson came to the Court in 1941, replacing Justice Stone after his elevation to Chief to replace the retiring Charles Evans Hughes, Justice Jackson gravitated to the strict constructionist view of the Constitution held by Chief Justice Stone.

Those close to FDR had said that he had never forgiven Justice Black for not having confided in him of the former Klan membership prior to the appointment. Justice Black had been a valuable New Deal Senator and had pressed hard to reveal the connections between major corporations and pressure politics. But his very partisanship also seemed to cast him as not well-suited to the Supreme Court.

Mr. Childs suggests that the only solution to the feud might be for both Justices Black and Jackson to resign the Court.

As we have indicated, neither would. Justice Jackson would die in 1954, his good reputation intact. Justice Black would retire in 1971, a week before his death, with a reputation of one of the great liberals and civil libertarians in the history of the Court.

We suggest that the strain on the Court had come from overwork. Justice Jackson was said to be wracked by his heavy schedule at Nuremberg. The Court, first with eight members serving for the term, then, following the sudden death by cerebral hemorrhage of Chief Justice Stone in April, was down to seven members putting forth decisions in a term which would see 142 cases decided. By comparison, 164 had been decided in 1945 when the Court enjoyed a full complement before Justice Jackson took his leave of absence at the end of the term, initially stating it as a six-month leave. The Court had decided 167 cases the prior year. The total would be 137 in 1947, after Justice Jackson's return, the first year under Chief Justice Vinson.

The present Supreme Court decided only 88 cases in 2012, a trend downward in the number of cases heard each term having begun during the early stages of the tenure, starting in 1986, of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, once a law clerk to Justice Jackson.

In 1982, 220 cases were decided, when Chief Justice Warren Burger presided over the Court, his tenure having begun in 1969. In 1972, 245 cases were decided.

In 1987, 188 were decided; in 1990, 172; in 1991, 154; in 1992, 122; and in 2002, only 89.

Historically, the Court began by hearing only a handful of cases each term. In 1802, for example, after John Marshall became Chief Justice the prior year, the Court decided but eleven cases. In 1820, it decided 28 cases; in 1843, eight years after Roger B. Taney became Chief, 43 cases; in 1850, 162 cases; in 1860, 66; in 1870, under Chief Justice Salmon Chase, appointed by President Lincoln, 155, during a period in which the Court vacillated in size from ten down to eight members, after the Congress refused to allow President Andrew Johnson to appoint replacements. In 1880, under Chief Justice Morrison Waite, 216 cases were decided; in 1893, under Chief Justice Melville Fuller, the number reached 274 cases.

By 1932, the Court was deciding 174 cases and in 1942, 161 cases.

In 1952, the penultimate term of Chief Justice Vinson before his death after the 1953 term, the Court decided 119 cases. In 1954, after Earl Warren became Chief, it decided 81 cases, and in 1962, 214 cases.

Thus, the case load of the Court has varied considerably through time. But it is important also to bear in mind that the case load is not necessarily indicative of the work load of the Court; rather it is the complexity of the cases before it and their importance to the law and the society at large. The Supreme Court accepts cases for review, except in the rare case where it has original jurisdiction, as in the case of disputes between the states, selectively on the basis of their importance to great numbers of people in the society and their pedagogical and precedential value to the law. Thus, the number of cases is not so important as their relevance to the society at large and its times.

It is nevertheless interesting to note that, with the coming of word processors and computers to the law during the early to mid-1980's, and primarily influencing research of the law beginning in the early 1990's, the case load of the Court has decreased markedly, from 220 in 1982 down to an average of about 90 cases for the previous fifteen years or so. In 1893, the year the first modern typewriter was introduced, the Court heard 274 cases.

Is the ability to research and write with more facility in the present age creating a tendency toward less work? Are we getting lazy as a society and world as the job of research and writing becomes a simpler task, requiring fewer hours and less strenuous exercise to get at the problem than by standing from the chair and browsing into carrels instead of having it all laid forth onscreen before one's eyes? Or, are the cases now being heard by the Court more complex and important to the law and society, case by case, than in prior periods when many more cases were decided?

Has the computer, despite its many advantages, tended to make our bodies and minds flabby? Or at least fundamentally changed the landscape of our minds, and, by accelerating, sometimes to an agitatedly vexed state, the process of execution of thought onto paper before it has had opportunity at full gestation such that it is completely framed in the mind, depriving thereby the subconscious its ordinary authority to peek through to instruct, meditatively, the conscious mind in its naturally inclined distillatory logical sequencing, not necessarily amelioratively? That is to say, mindlessly parroting pre-formed, often untested, blocks of information, without proper embrace of the whole, or the mortar which either gives the blocks adhesion beyond precarious gravity to form a cohesive unit or causes the whole to crumble at fundamentally weak points of ratiocinative stress?

Perhaps former Justice David Souter's opinions might provide some clue, as he never owned a word processor or a computer, and insisted on hand drafting his opinions in the old manner of the ancient times, B.R., the 1970's and earlier.

We posit that recollection of that process and bearing it in mind, using the computer as a tool rather than allowing it to use the writer or reader as a tool, will prevent the worst of the malady from occurring. But, note to teachers, if the student does not have, in the first instance, an understanding of the old mode of learning, reading, and writing, without the assistance of computers, then one cannot resort to the old form, and may become inherently stuck in the robotic mode of post-modern mindlessness, allowing the computer to do the "thinking", while Alice and Jerry go out to play in their sandbox.

The liberals advocating world government and those for better social programs domestically met now only occasionally, without the coalescing force of President Roosevelt to guide them together.

There was no agenda for liberals. The ideal had become a "kind of off stage sound effect", but the sounds blended together, "into something like the roar of the sea, a noise to which the ear becomes so accustomed that it cannot hear it."

It was much easier to be defensive as a conservative, a simpler philosophy, easier to be against a thousand things than for a few. "...[A]nd when one does not know where to go, it is natural to sit down."

He wonders what form the next liberal movement would take, its first task being to find a replacement for FDR. It might come in the form of an organization of trade unionists, as with the formation of the Labor Party in Britain.

More people were talking about the apathy extant on the left, and such talk would usually precede some action.

"We are in for a complicated time, but it will not be a frozen time of immobile figures quietly holding present poses."

The election year of 1946 would produce three such leaders: one of the center and the left, Congressman John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts, though not precisely susceptible of categorization as part of either section of the political spectrum, any more so than being conservative, insofar as fiscal policy and a dedication, eventually, to preventing the expansion of Communism; Congressman Richard Nixon of California, of the right and middle, though not precisely susceptible of categorization as being of either part of that spectrum, any more than, in certain respects, the left, in terms of reaching out to seek to effect understanding with Russia and, eventually, Red China; and Senator Joseph McCarthy, not really of the right, middle, or left, as much as of politics of expediency and demagogy, an approach which Mr. Nixon would also come to adopt with aplomb.

The editors reply that Mr. Brandeis's column never attracted a wide and dedicated following, and had it been so, they would have been glad to retain it.