Well, I think it's a very good job. One of the most appealing things about it is that... it enables you to participate in some way and to some extent… - William Rehnquist

[I]f...a society adopts a constitution and incorporates in that constitution safeguards of individual liberty, these safeguards do indeed take on a general moral rightness or goodness. They assume a general social acceptance neither because of any intrinsic worth nor because of any unique origins in someone's idea of natural justice but instead simply because they have been incorporated in a constitution by the people.

There is little reason to think that many members of the American public either understood or sympathized with the particular doctrines espoused by the majority of the Court in holding New Deal legislation unconstitutional, but the defeat of the Court-packing plan made it obvious that the public did not want even a very popular president to tamper with the Supreme Court of the United States. Whatever the shortcomings of its doctrine in the public mind, its judgments were not to be reversed by the simple expedient of creating new judgeships and filling them with administration supporters.

It is about time the Court faced the fact that the white people in the South don't like the colored people; the Constitution restrains them from effecting this dislike through state action, but it most assuredly did not appoint the Court as a sociological watchdog to rear up every time private discrimination raises its admittedly ugly head. To the extent that this decision advances the frontier of state action and 'social gain,' it pushes back the frontier of freedom of association and majority rule.