Bob Jackson remembered.

• Author: Boskey, Bennett
• Position: Testimonial

Let no one doubt that Robert H. Jackson was a remarkable individual, with talents far beyond what might be expected in even the brightest of upstate country lawyers. Before Jackson came to Washington, while he was still relatively unknown, Judge Cardozo predicted: "You will [hear of him]--in time." (1) Later, Justice Brandeis (who, as Chief Justice Rehnquist has commented, was "one who did not bestow compliments casually") (2) said that Jackson should be the Solicitor General "for life." Thus, when he came to the Court in October Term in 1941 his brethren already could tell that a new star was in their midst. Indeed, as Attorney General on the occasion of the Court's 150th anniversary he had delivered, in an address to the Court, a short summary of the Court's role in the continual emergence of the American Republic--an address that was a model of thoughtful eloquence. (3)

My own intersection with Jackson has no mysterious foundation. For the first two terms he sat on the Court I was the senior of the two law clerks of the newly-elevated Chief Justice Stone. This gave me some, but not much, personal access to Jackson. I had considerable awareness, however, of how he was operating and what he was producing.

Perhaps this will be more understandable if I describe briefly the working environment that then prevailed with the Justices and their law clerks. Things were smaller, and hence more intimate, than they have since become. Instead of the four law clerks who are now the entitlement of a Justice, each Justice had a single clerk. The sole exception was Chief Justice Stone who, upon taking over from Hughes, had decided that the Chief really needed two law clerks, and that the senior of them should be a law clerk already familiar with the operations of the Court (I was Justice Reed's law clerk for October Term, 1940).

Justice Roberts had a permanent law clerk, not transitory like the rest of us; he was rather apart from the group and we surmised his function was somewhat different. While we were friendly with him, we did not often see or eat with him or talk about substantive matters with him. That left nine of us who led an animated collegial existence concentrating on what we and our Justices were doing. Two or more of us frequently lunched together; we were in and out of each other's offices; we had occasion from time to time to talk with other Justices, who fortunately seemed to have time to do this. Not to be overlooked, we (along with the...