Whoa.

I remember Douglas as a New Dealer and a liberal as well as a conservationist.

Didn't know about the rest of this, although I did know that he had a penchant for marrying younger women (as did his contemporary, Strom Thurmond.)

That he nearly became a VP nominee SEVERAL times was news to me.

I was familiar with the VP imbroglio in '44 -- it's funny story all by itself. David McCullough writes an engaging account of it in his Truman biography.

It's apparently a good thing that Truman became VP and not Douglas. Knowing what we do now from Posner's book, can you imagine Douglas (and not Truman) as President? Ecccch.

Interesting info. Thanks for the link.

OOOooooops.

Correction: It is Murphy's book, not Posner's.

That was a fascinating article; I knew nothing about Douglas before reading it. Thanks for the link.

It is also good to be reminded that of all the qualities possessed by successful politicians (and Douglas, though never elected, was certainly a politician in the true sense of the word) the overriding trait is ruthless ambition. That a liar of this magnitude could reach the Supreme Court illustrates that among politicians, honesty is understood to be expendable. Given the recklessness of his easily exposed lies, I'll bet most of his colleagues knew he was full of shit much of the time, yet helped him along because, no doubt, it helped them as well. A good reminder, no matter what the era, to remember that politicians don't just spin, exaggerate, or shade - sometimes they just plain lie.

Interesting that you assume that you know the whole story based on not even a book, but a review of a book. The full story is not that simple, nor as damning of WOD.

For one example, see http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A5692-2003Feb13¬Found=true

Interesting that you think anyone here suggested he knows the whole story. Where exactly did you get that impression?

Thanks for the link.

I got that impression from Mr Soden's post, above, and from "I knew about this guy, and could never decide if he was a flake, a jerk, or a Don Quixote. I'm closer to deciding now, having read this." Why should an obviously biased review put anyone "closer to deciding" anything?

Because the New Republic is a fine publication, because the author is a judge himself who is of the same basic school of thought as Douglas, and because the review is not obviously biased. It's merely relaying the facts of what's in the book.

I obviously had some opinions before, this gives me more. I never said it was definitive. [shrug]

Where did you get the idea that Judge Posner was of "of the same basic school of thought as Douglas"?

Uhm, from the fact that he defends the "realist" school so eloquently in his review? And mourns the waste of Douglas' potential to be the brightest mind of that school of judicial interpretation?