Supreme Court of the United States | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | Supreme Court of India | High Court | Royal Court Theatre | High Court of Justice | International Criminal Court | New York Supreme Court | High Court of Australia | Supreme Court of Canada | European Court of Human Rights | United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit | International Court of Justice | Warren G. Harding | United States District Court for the Southern District of New York | Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States | European Court of Justice | Permanent Court of Arbitration | New York Court of Appeals | Warren | Warren Buffett | Michigan Supreme Court | Warren Beatty | Crown Court | Supreme Court of California | Court of Appeal of England and Wales | United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit | Earl Warren | Diane Warren | Warren Zevon |
In his books The Supreme Court and the Idea of Progress and The Morality of Consent, Bickel attacked the Warren Court for what he saw as its misuse of history, shoddy reasoning, and sometimes arbitrary results.
Supporters of the decision, such as law professor Louis Michael Seidman, celebrated its "radical" nature, and hailed it as a revival of the Warren Court's activism.
However, the Warren Court's form of jurisprudence had angered many conservative members of the United States Senate, and the nomination of Fortas provided the first opportunity for these senators to register their disenchantment with the direction of the Court; they planned to filibuster Fortas' nomination.
The Case was argued in front of the Warren Court whose members were: Earl Warren; Hugo Black; Stanley Reed; Felix Frankfurter; William O. Douglas; Harold Burton; Tom C. Clark; Sherman Minton; and John Marshall Harlan II.