In this example of extroardinary autobiographical writing, William O. Douglas has deftly explained his years as a Supreme Court Justice. Using simple but illustrious wording, he explains his Court experience in layman's terms, while weaving into the story descriptions of his own personal life. I loved this book.

In simple, beautiful language, W. O. Douglas describes his early years as a child living in the majestic shadow of the Cascade Mountains in Washington State. He also gives a succinct yet memorable account of his years as Chairman of the SEC and his dealings with the complex personas of Washington politicians including FDR. I loved this book.

Bruce Allen Murphy's "Wild Bill" left me feeling conflicted. Unlike the other reviewers so far, I can't say I loved the book, or that I hated it. Murphy's research is exhaustive and impressive, and his narrative powers do make the amazing story of Douglas' life read more like a novel. He deserves much credit for peeling away the layers of myth that Douglas laid over the true story of his life. At the end, though, I came away feeling that the good that Douglas accomplished somehow got lost in the bargain. There must have been some reason a couple of generations looked to him as a champion of individual liberties. It's there, all right, but it seems to almost disappear in an ocean of negatives. Overall, though, the good outweighs the flaws; this is a worthwhile book for anyone who wants to know more about Douglas, the Supreme Court, or one of the most tumultuous eras in American life.

The author is a good storyteller, and mixes in lots of history, biography, and legal explanations. Douglas comes across as a man with many sides--super ambitious, very smart and hardworking, innovative in his legal opinions, and yet [a jerk] for most people to be around. Much space was reserved for telling about how Douglas grew up and strived to achieve in life--and that section was inspiring for a 30-something to read.

The legal analysis was pretty crisp and easy to understand. Partly it's because Douglas himself wrote in simple terms--though often in revolutionary directions such as the Griswold privacy case. The book also describes the inner workings of the court and the discussions and rivalries among judges. With the Court so closed to most Americans, this part was really fascinating to read. Douglas was on the Court so long, that the book becomes almost a history of the court for the middle of the century.

The guy had 4 wives and slept with girls 1/4 his age. His law clerks universilly despised him, and his own kids pretty much left him. He spent most of his career trying to get a better job than he had, much of the time trying to get into the White House. His legal opinions seemed to be at first just a distraction to his goal of advancing, but gradually, he devellopped a coherent philosophy of personal autonomy and civil liberty. The book gives him much credit for shaping the right of privacy in the US today.

There is nothing wrong with the book. After this one I read the John Marshall biography and thought that was more monumental and "important" if that doesn't gag you. The Douglas book is great, but didn't quite leave me feeling like all Americans should read it as a duty or something. For the Marshall book, I felt proud to have read it, and reccommend it to everyone.

It seems obvious that a tremendous amount of work went into this biography and I feel that the results were absolutely worth that effort and thus I would recommend this book highly. And what do we learn about Justice Douglas? As a husband (four times over), he was terrible. As a parent, he was similarly terrible, enough so that his kids more or less disowned him, and rightfully so. As a boss (to his law clerks and secretaries), he was atrocious to work for. Indeed, looking at the "private Douglas", there is almost nothing admirable about the man. On the other hand, looking at "Justice Douglas", we see a hard-working, extremely bright man, whose views on the Amendments in the Bill of Rights (especially the First Amendment) made him the champion of the poor, the dispossed, the repressed and the oppressed. Moreover, with the benefit of hindsight, I would say that most of his liberal leaning opinions (whether in the majority or in dissent) have held up well over the years, especially in the First Amendment area. Of course, one might conclude that certain issues he had to deal with, particularly on the race front (say, whether a poll tax in the South was constitutional) were less tricky than issues we confront today such as reverse discrimination under the guise of diversity (such as the U. of Michigan Law School case currently awaiting decision by the Spreme Court). It is interesting to note however that in one of his last cases on the bench in 1974, he indicated that he had no tolerance any kind of quotas, even if dressed up in the lingo of diversity.

On a more general note, I would say that writing a biography of a judge is in some ways more challenging than writing the biography of other famous people from other professions like, say, entertainers, athletes, performers or even politicians. For those kinds of subjects, when they "doing their profession", whether for better of worse, the public is watching and, more importantly, reacting. Thus, one can compare the actions of the subject with the response of the public, whether the subject is on the way up or on the way down. However, with a judge, even an influential Justice like Douglas, when he is doing his job, he is simply writing opinions. While it is interesting to see what those opinions are (particularly if a juducial philosophy changes over time as Douglas' clearly did), to summarize or recite all those opinions may not, in the hands of the wrong person, make for such a fascinating biography. However I feel that Murphy did a masterly job.