All language subtitles for Separate.But.Equal.1991.Part.2.DVDRip.x264-NoRBiT

I pledge allegiance
to the flag

of the United States
of America

and to the republic
for which it stands,

one nation, indivisible,

with liberty
and justice for all.

Following the bitterly
contested

25th republican
national convention,

which saw
General Eisenhower

win over Senator Taft
on the first ballot,

a tumultuous convention
greets the nomination

of the general, who's
become Mr. Eisenhower.

With his running mate
Richard Nixon,

he'll face democrat
Adlai Stevenson

in the november election.

We like Ike!

We like Ike!

At the united nations
'General Assembly',

A.U.N. official walks in
almost unnoticed.

He's Dr. Ralph Bunche,

who, only a few
hours before,

was announced winner
of 'The Nobel Peace Prize.'

The first negro
to win the award,

he is warmly congratulated
by friends.

The supreme court
of the United States

will hear cases
from 5 states

to decide whether school
segregation is legal.

The South Carolina case

was filed by 62 parents
in Clarendon county.

South Carolina governor
James F. Byrnes announced

that the nation's
foremost trial lawyer,

John W. Davis,

will argue the case
before the supreme court.

Hello.
Legal defense fund.

I'll ring.

Mr. Hill is handling
the Virginia case.

I'll tell Bob Carter.
Yeah.

Legal defense fund.

I'm sorry. Mr. Marshall
isn't taking any calls.

Why, Mr. Davis,
how good to see you.

Good morning.

Here. This will
help you sleep.

John W. Davis.

The lawyer's lawyer.

In law school,
I used to cut classes,

take the bus over
to the supreme court,

and watch him.

He was the greatest
solicitor general we ever had.

I used to sit there
and say to myself,

"Will I ever?"

And every time
I'd have to answer,

"No...

never."

Why does a man
of his stature

take their side?

The man has lived with
the law for 50 years.

He must believe those fellows
at the supreme court

will see it his way.

Well, you know
what I think?

I think you're the best
lawyer in America,

and that Carter,
Greenberg, and Hill

are not far behind.

Well, we'll find out
soon enough.

Will Dr. Levitt
let you travel?

I'll be there.

He said one more
week of treatments,

then I can travel.

I'll press this
and get the spots out.

You got to get
some new clothes.

I want you to look like
a great lawyer, too.

Hello.

I got your message.

It's J.A. Delaine.

Can you get to Washington?

I've got a seat for you
at the supreme court.

I shall be there.

Tickets, please.

Tomorrow
here in Washington,

The supreme court
will hear arguments

on Brown vs.
the 'board of education.'

Lobbyists
for the negro plaintiffs

in 4 states and
the district of Columbia

are challenging the legality
of school segregation.

John W. Davis
and Thurgood Marshall...

response has been
terrific here.

We've already
collected $12,000,

and our people are
still on the phone.

Please send it
directly to our bank.

We expect
even more money.

Thurgood greatly appreciates
your help at a crucial time.

Some say
that Felix Frankfurter

is the key man
on the court.

There are 9 key men.

Peter, why don't
we get our new man

to fill the gentlemen in.

Bill Coleman clerked
for justice Frankfurter

during the 1948 term,

the first colored man
ever chosen as clerk.

He knows the justices.

Bill, would you
give the gentlemen

a sense of how
the court stacks up?

Chief justice Vinson...

he plays poker
2 nights a week

with president Truman.

Some say he's better

at studying major league
batting averages

than legal precedents.

Vinson is a passive leader
of a divided court.

One result--less than half
as many unanimous opinions

this year as 10 years ago.

Vinson relies heavily
on legal precedent.

He's reluctant to overturn
established law.

Tom Clark, Texas.

Conservative, votes with
Vinson 90% of the time.

His own state of Texas has
1,000 segregated schools.

Justice Stanley Reed,
Kentucky.

In some ways,

he's still a small-town
southern lawyer.

Says he opposes discrimination
against negroes,

but his solution could be
equal schools,

not desegregation.

These two
we can count on.

William O. Douglas

is the youngest
member of the court.

Hugo Black, the oldest.

The strongest defenders
of individual liberties

on the court.

These two
we have to work on--

Jackson and Frankfurter.

Robert Jackson
was appointed to the court

by Roosevelt in 1941.

He's still upset
that Truman passed him over

when he made Vinson
chief justice.

Do you know what
stare decisis means?

Yesterday's decision shall
govern today's decision?

Exactly.

Jackson believes
that precedents

are a force for stability.

So, like a coral reef,

the law becomes
a structure of fossils.

Felix Frankfurter--

the finest intellect
on the court.

A jew born in Europe.

He knows discrimination.

He used to say to us,

"How we feel
is not important.

It's the law
that matters."

Is this Davis fellow

as brilliant as
his reputation?

They call him
the lawyer's lawyer.

I burned
your old one.

Tomorrow morning,
I want you looking

every bit as good
as Mr. John W. Davis.

12th street
and New York Avenue.

Watch your step.

The congressional
has arrived from New York

on track 9.

Hello, Julia.
Hello, John.

Mr. Davis, I cast my
first vote for president

in 1924 for you.

Well, as things
turned out,

that vote
didn't harm anyone.

If everyone who says they
voted for me actually did,

I'd have been president.

Good luck, Marshall.

Mrs. Marshall,
I'm Julia Davis,

Mr. Davis' daughter.

It's nice
to meet you.

I have great respect
for your husband.

Thank you.

All rise.

The honorable
the chief justice

and the associate justices

of the supreme court
of the United States.

Oyez, oyez, oyez.

All persons having business
before the honorable

the supreme court
of the United States

are invited to draw near
and give their attention,

for the court
is now sitting.

God save
the United States

and this honorable court.

Case number 101--
Harry Briggs, Jr. et al.

Against members
of trustees

of school district
number 22,

Clarendon county,
South Carolina, et al.

Counsel are present.

Mr. Marshall.

Mr. Chief Justice.

may it please the court,

my colleagues will address

the Kansas, Delaware,
Virginia,

and district
of Columbia cases.

I will speak on behalf...

of Harry Briggs, Jr.
and the negro children

of the town of Summerton,

who have raised their attack

on the validity
of the South Carolina code

which reads,

"It shall be unlawful

"for pupils of one race

"to attend
the schools provided

for persons
of another race."

In the lower courts,

we produced
unchallenged experts

who testified
that segregation

damages the personality
of negro children

and destroys
their self-respect.

If Ralph Bunche,

this nation's
distinguished ambassador

to the United Nations,

were assigned
to South Carolina,

it would be the will
of the people

that his children
go to a 'Jim-Crow School.'

No matter how great
anyone becomes,

if he happens to be a negro,

his children are relegated
to that school.

Yet this court

is being asked
by the defense

to uphold
the segregation law

of South Carolina.

Under our form
of government,

the only testing ground

as to whether or not
individual rights

are violated
by the majority

is here in this,

the supreme court
of the United States.

The court must weigh

the rights
of the negro children

against the public policy

of the state
of South Carolina.

And if that policy
violates those rights,

then this court,
reluctant or otherwise,

is obliged to say

that that policy
has run up against

the 14th amendment
to the constitution,

which guarantees
all citizens

equal treatment
under the law.

We, therefore,
respectfully urge...

that the judgment
of the district court

be reversed

and the children's rights
be affirmed.

Is it fair to say

that the South
Carolina legislature

set up
segregated schools

to avoid
racial friction?

Yes, sir.

Doesn't
the legislature

have to weigh
the advantage

of maintaining
law and order

against what might
be a disadvantage

to the segregated
group?

I think that the legislature
should, Mr. Justice Reed,

but I--I think
we have to bear in mind

that, as far as I know,

in these states,

there is not
a single negro legislator

doing the weighing.

The only point
before this court

is the law as it was applied
in Clarendon county.

All we are asking

is that the state-imposed
racial segregation

be stopped

and that the county
school board

be instructed
to work out a solution.

What kind
of a solution?

They could assign
children to schools

on any reasonable basis.

You mean
we would have

gerrymandering
of school districts?

Not gerrymandering,
Mr. Justice Frankfurter.

the new district lines

would simply have to be
drawn on a natural basis

without regard
to race or color.

It would be
important to me

to have you
spell out

exactly
what would happen

if this court
reverses

and the case goes back
to South Carolina.

What is important

is that we get
the principle established.

Segregation by race
is not legal.

It is impossible right now

to say precisely
how it will work.

I think it's important
to know

before one starts out
where he is going.

I would like to reserve
the remainder of my time.

I was watching

chief justice
Vinson very carefully,

his face.

i don't like the
expression in his eyes.

How did we do?

I think we've made
a number of points

very effectively.

Truth is, fellas,

I wasn't very good.

Frankfurter
is thorny.

Hardly lets a man
finish a sentence.

An experienced lawyer
is prepared for that.

I let myself
get bogged down in detail.

The one thing
I wanted to do

was find a way to talk
about the principle,

convince them
that segregation

is morally wrong,

that there is no such thing
as separate equality.

Says counsel
for the plaintiff,

"We have
the uncontradicted testimony

"of expert witnesses

"that segregation
is hurtful to the children

of both the colored
and the white races."

Now, there are experts,

and there are experts.

Let me read
a sentence or 2

from W. E. B. Du Bois,

the great negro educator.

"I have seen wise
and loving colored parents

"take infinite pains

"to force their
little children into schools

"where the white children
and white teachers

"despised and bullied
the dark child.

"Now, such parents
want their children

"to fight this thing out,

but, dear god,
at what a cost."

Dr. Du Bois concludes,

"We shall do better
by putting the children

"in schools
where they are wanted

"than by thrusting them
into hells

where they are
ridiculed and hated."

Let me come now to what
is the crux of this case--

that is the meaning
and interpretation

of the 14th amendment

to the constitution
of the United States.

Your honors have said
it is your duty,

and I quote,

"To place ourselves
as nearly as possible

in the condition of the men
who framed the instrument."

Now, what was the condition

of those who framed
the instrument?

I will tell you.

The resolution proposing
the 14th amendment

was proffered by congress
in june of 1866.

One month later,
the same congress

established separate
schools for the races

right here in the district
of Columbia.

And from that good day
to this,

congress has not wavered
in that policy.

So clearly, the congress
does not believe

that the constitution speaks
against segregated schools.

What is your answer,
Mr. Davis,

to the suggestion

that the constitution
is a living document

that must be interpreted
in relation to the facts

at the time
it is interpreted?

My answer to that,
Mr. Justice Douglas,

is that changed conditions
do not expand the language

that the framers of
the constitution employed.

And it is inconceivable
that the congress

which passed
the 14th amendment

would have
forbidden the states

to employ
an educational plan

which congress itself

was employing in
the district of Columbia.

No court,
I respectfully submit,

is justified
in ignoring that.

And over the years,
this court has spoken

in the most clear
and unmistakable terms

to the effect that
segregation is not unlawful.

In Plessy vs. Ferguson

and in 6 subsequent cases,

the doctrine
of separate but equal

has been upheld.

So, your honors,
I might ask,

why should this be a matter
of great national policy?

Is it not a fact the very
strength and fiber

of our federal system

is local self-government?

I respectfully submit

there is no reason why
this court or any other

should reverse
the findings of 90 years.

Mr. Marshall.

Mr. Marshall,
over here, please.

How will the court rule?

Mr. Carter, come
this way, please.

Masterful, John.

You did us proud.

Thank you, Jim.

How do you see it?

Oh, 6-3.
Maybe 5-4.

In the language
of the famous general,

we've got them.

And they'll
never get home.

Mr. Marshall, aren't
all the precedents

that have been set

relating to
this decision...

Well, Bob, I guess
it's out of our hands.

The lives and hopes
of so many millions

rest in the hands of
those 9 men.

When do you think

they'll come down
with a decision?

Months, not weeks.

I let myself
get tangled up

in their questions...

and caught
in the underbrush.

Davis...

he makes it sound
like pages of history.

Come on, Thurgood.

It's christmas.

Yeah.

What about
this housing case?

I'll take care
of things.

Don't you worry.

These people
are depending on us.

Buster
needs you now.

Yeah.

All these years
you've been tramping

in and out
of southern courthouses.

Now is the time
you can be with her.

Yeah.

I'll keep in touch.

Thurgood...

is she
going to be ok?

She's got to be ok.

The nation's capital,

ready for its day of days,

the inauguration
of a new president.

the dignitaries file
through the Capitol rotunda

toward the portico,

where the transfer of
the presidency will occur.

Here are
members of congress.

Behind them,

members of the supreme court
of the United States

in judicial robes.

I, Dwight D. Eisenhower,

do solemnly swear

that i will faithfully
execute the office

of the president
of the United States

and will, to the best
of my ability,

preserve, protect,
and defend

the constitution
of the United States,

so help me God.

Seen Justice Frankfurter?

Yes, sir. Been here
at least an hour.

Came in at 7:30 sharp.

Mr. Justice Reed,
Mr. Justice Jackson.

Good morning.

Morning, sir.

Here are the notes
on the 14th amendment

for the Clarendon matter.

Yes, Mark.

Have the brethren
assembled?

I saw justices
Reed and Jackson

going up the hall.

May I ask
how it's going?

You may.

But knowing as you do

that the deliberations of
the justices are privileged,

you may not expect
a reply.

Stuck in the mud.
No leadership.

The chief?

Heh heh.

Good morning.

Mr. Justice Black,
Mr. Justice Douglas,

Mr. Justice Clark...

Mr. Justice Reed,
Mr. Justice Jackson.

It's very simple for me.

The state
cannot classify people

by color for education.

I'm with Douglas.

Prepared
to desegregate.

I see it differently
from Black and Douglas.

You have to look
at the achievements

of the negro people,

the remarkable progress
that's been made

since the deprivations
of slavery till today.

I believe that in time,
the states,

as this progress
continues,

will themselves
lower the barrier.

Meanwhile,
the Plessy decision,

with its separate
but equal doctrine,

is the law of the land.

It has been for
half a century.

I see no compelling reason
for overturning it now.

I agree with reed.

We were not
appointed to this court

to make the law,

we're here to interpret it.

I'm comfortable with
the precedents before us.

Doesn't
stare decisis mean

that the court
doesn't change its mind

just because some new
justices come along?

The colored children
in South Carolina,

Kansas,
Delaware, Virginia,

and the district
of Columbia

appealed to this court,
claiming that segregation

denies them
equal opportunity.

Now, we can't
wear blinders.

The state segregation laws
must be struck down.

I simply do not agree

that the framers
of the 14th amendment

intended to bar
segregated schools.

It doesn't say that.
it says, "Equal protection,"

and the schools
are being equalized.

What about the congress?

It's their job
to take this on

and save us
from becoming

a 9-man school board
for the entire country.

I'm concerned over
the effect on the country

if this court
should put forward

a divided decision.

Felix, we have issued
split decisions before,

and the republic
has survived nicely.

Of course we have,

but this
is an explosive issue.

Some governors
have stated publicly

that they would resist
an order to desegregate.

It would be
a catastrophe if this court

put forward a decision
it can't enforce.

Perhaps Felix' warning

should lead us
in the direction of caution

when it comes
to overturning precedents

which have been
so continuously upheld

by the court.

We can move on
to other matters

and revisit the school cases
at another time.

It just seems
so clear-cut to me.

Segregation
is wrong,

so the court votes
to ban it.

Bang.

Yes, Mark, a moral question

and a legal question

and what else?

Nothing else.

Wrong. It's also
a political question.

The supreme court
is above that.

That's why justices

have lifetime
appointments.

That doesn't
keep justices--

some justices--
from being concerned

about the political effect
of what they do,

including this justice.

If we come down with
a 5-4 decision to desegregate

or if we come down with

a 6-3 decision to
uphold separate but equal,

there will be
the majority opinion

and one, 2, or 3
dissenting opinions.

Judges like to put
their spoon in the pie.

After 6 conferences,
we are still split.

A divided court

will send a terribly confused
signal to the country.

Could have
massive opposition,

whichever way
the decision goes.

So, what happens?

You need a kochloffel.

What's a kochloffel?

A cooking spoon
that stirs things up.

Now we should turn
our attention

to the school cases.

I do believe
it is time

to cut the cards
and deal.

I know
where i stand.

I've been thinking.

The 14th amendment is at
the heart of this question.

How can we be sure

what the intent
of the amendment is

unless we know
what was in the mind

of the congress
that framed it in 1865

and the state legislatures
that ratified it?

Did they intend for it to
forbid segregated schools?

We are being asked
to make what could be

the most important
judicial decision

of this century,

and we are doing it
without all the facts.

I propose...

that we ask counsel
on both sides

to come back
and re-argue the case,

focusing on this question--

what evidence is there

that the framers
contemplated

or did not contemplate

that the 14th amendment
would abolish segregation

in the public schools?

With that information,

we would be able
to make a sound judgment.

Excellent. Excellent.

Hello.

Are you sure?

Thanks.

Re-argument.

Will you sign
an invoice?

Uh, take it
up front.

It's the New York Times.
James Rustenpalmer?

Invoice?

$16.23.

C.O.D.

Um...Greenberg,

this man needs
$16.23.

we're good for it.

Thurgood,
professor Franklin.

John Hope?
Ha ha ha ha!

What are you doing?

Going back to Howard, eh?

Good. You know what else
you're going to be doing?

You're going to be
working for me.

I need the best historians
and constitutional scholars.

The supreme court
wants to know

what those white men
were thinking 100 years ago

when they passed
the 14th amendment.

Be on the train tonight.

Thurgood, Bob Ming is
coming in from Chicago.

He knows the 1865 debates
by heart.

We don't have money

for train fare
for these people.

Tell him
we're good for it.

Alice, telegrams
to all our supporters.

Tell them the supreme court
has deferred judgement.

We have to re-argue the case

and we need
emergency funds.

Tell them--
you know how to word it.

We need money bad.

Thurgood, when the 14th
amendment was ratified,

there were 37 states.

You better research
all of them.

Did you reach
Henry Steele Commager?

Peanut
talked to him.

He's not available.
At Oxford for the summer.

He sent this message--

"I greatly fear
your premise is wrong.

"the framers
of the amendment

"did not, as far
as we know, intend

"that it should be used
to end segregation

"in public schools.

"I strongly urge you

"to consider dropping
that particular argument

because it weakens
your case."

Bob, get to Horace Bond.

He's the best scholar
of political strategies

of that time.

Any of you guys know anybody
who would give us money,

get to work on them.

We've got bills--travel,
offices, telephones.

If they shut off our phones,
we are out of business.

And there are
a lot of people

who would like
to see our door slammed.

I'm like General Patton--

the best tanks
money could buy,

but no gas
to run them on.

Can i help you?

I'm black.

You're black?

Charles Black
from Austin, Texas.

What can we do for you?

I'm here to help.

I'm a professor
and a lawyer,

and I can
write a little.

They said
you needed help.

Yes. They called me
about you.

Find the professor
some sit-down space.

We could use all
the help we can get.

You can report

To the honorable governor,
Mr. Tulley,

That I have assigned

2 of the brightest
young men of our firm

to lead the research--

Mr. Straight from Harvard,
Mr. McPherson from Yale--

but they do work together
harmoniously.

Mr. Marshall seems to have
fallen on hard times--

soliciting our partners.

"Send tax-deductible gift

"to NAACP legal defense
fund, New York.

Thurgood Marshall."

Well, maybe we should

turn Mr. Straight
and Mr. McPherson here loose

on their
tax-deductible status.

that's not our style.

Their time
will be better spent

in the libraries.

The attorney general
of South Carolina

has asked his counterparts

in 37 other states
that concern us

to research
their state archives

at no expense to us.

The research will show
that the states were

determined
to retain the right

to shape their schools

to fit their particular
region.

Now, the Marshall people
will be looking

for something specific,

something that shows
that congress

intended
for the 14th amendment

to prohibit
separate schools...

but they won't find it.

Buster?

Yes, honey?

Where have you been?

Errands.

What were you doing?

I had a whole bunch
of errands.

Where's your watch?

I sold it.

You can't do that.

I did it.

We've got
contributors.

I won't take
the money.

Then I'll mail it in.

Buster!

When they wouldn't let
me into the law school

at the University
of Maryland,

my mother went downtown
to the crown pawnshop

and sold
her engagement band

and her wedding ring

to pay for me to go
to law school at Howard.

So?

So, I don't want you
selling your jewelry.

And what if your mother
hadn't sold those rings?

Where would you
be now, hmm?

I just don't like it.

Thurgood,
you once said to me

that the fight
for civil rights

was worth a life.

Remember?

I can get along
without a watch,

but I can't
get along without supper.

And I want to know

everything
that's going on.

We've got the best
professors and historians

from all
around the country.

And thanks to Howard University
and Charlie Houston,

our lawyers are
as good or better

than the 'ivy league boys.'

And I will have
a second chance...

to argue this case.

Like the old saying,

"I'm a man of peace,
but I adore a riot."

Ming and I think
the real key

lies in the ex-confederate
states in the south.

It was a condition of their
rejoining the union

after the civil war that they
adopt the 14th amendment.

Congress insisted on it.

Not one of these states
put a single word

about school segregation

in their new
state constitution.

Now, we believe that this
proved that they understood

the Jim-Crow schools
were outlawed

by the 14th amendment.

They had to toe the mark

in order to get back
into the union.

Exactly.

But some of those
states turned around

and put in
segregated schools

a year after

the 14th amendment
was ratified.

And they've been operating
segregated schools ever since.

Professor Kelly,
I'm not sure

your argument
holds water.

It sure doesn't.

Back to the books, boys.

I'm sure if we give them
a little more time,

Mr. Kelly and Mr. Ming

will come up
with something more solid.

Professor Black,
is it necessary

for you to be negative
so much of the time?

I'm not negative.
I state facts.

I've been intending
to ask you--

out of all the legal

and academic opportunities
before you,

just why did you end up here
at the legal defense fund?

Well, I'll tell you.

I come from
deep, deep in Texas,

so deep
I can't even remember

hearing
the word "Republican"

before I was
18 years old.

But I had heard

of this really terrible
organization

way up north
called the NAACP.

It was an awful place
with a great, big office

all the way up there
in New York, they said,

and the worst thing
of all about it

was that right there
in that office,

there was this room,

a special, secret room

with, uh, no windows
and no doors

and walls
about a foot thick,

and the only way
that you could get in

was with a combination
of this huge lock.

And inside that room,
they said,

there was nothing but
hooks on the walls,

hundreds and hundreds
of hooks.

And do you know
what was hanging

on each and every one
of those hooks?

What?

Well, they said

that on each
of those hooks...

was a key
to the bedroom

of a southern
white woman.

So I figured...

that is an organization

I want to get involved in.

The family spokesman
said the cause of death

was a massive heart attack

suffered at approximately
3:15 this morning

at his apartment
in Washington.

The chief justice
was 63 years old.

Turning to baseball,

the Dodgers topped
the Phillies 3-2

in 10 innings.

The Giants shut out...

Afternoon, sir.

Mark.

Was it
a nice service?

Yes.

Was the president
there?

Oh, yes.

Mark, this is
the first solid

piece of evidence
I've ever had

that there
is a God in heaven.

I can't help but think

that Vinson's successor
will be better for us.

The devil you know
is better

than the devil
you don't know.

I watched General Eisenhower
testify in congress

against
desegregating the army

below the platoon level.

I don't think
President Eisenhower

is gonna be looking for

a civil rights
chief justice.

I still say the odds are
we get someone

less wedded to the past
than Vinson.

Times says Eisenhower may
promote Justice Jackson

to the center seat

and name an associate
in his place.

The republicans
in the senate

will fry Ike
if he tries

to put a democrat
in the top spot.

Anyway, whoever
it's going to be,

we got a ton
of work to do.

It's nearly midnight,
so let's get to it.

My spies tell me
Foster Dulles can have it...

if he wants it.

Second choice--New York's
own, governor Tom Dewey.

Were I you, John,
I should fire my spies.

I have it
on good authority--

and by good authority I mean
15 feet from the oval office--

that Ike made a deal
at the republican convention.

In return for
delivering California,

the first vacancy
on the supreme court

goes to
California's governor.

I'm afraid
you were right.

For once,
Greenberg?

The new chief justice
is the same man

who uprooted 80,000
'Japanese-Americans'

during the war,
confiscated their property,

And sent them
to internment camps.

What was it
a great man once said?

"The devil
you know..."

Right.

Boys,
we've got to do

what we've
got to do.

We've got to find

something
in the history

that says
we are right.

Get Kelly, Ming,
and the others

on 18-hour shifts.

We are not
going to be

sitting around
worrying

about who's sitting
on the bench.

Get back to it.

So far,

nothing appears
to pose a problem

for our position.

Mr. Davis,
if I may ask,

how does governor Warren
going on the court

affect things?

The post describes him
as the colorless manager

of a team of all-stars.

I would think
very little, Mr. Straight.

Separate but equal
has been upheld

by the court
7 times,

and the fact there is
a division within the court

should work
to our advantage.

There will be
a great reluctance

to overturn
such an historic precedent

on a close vote.

Those men do not wish
to create chaos.

Comes down to the fact
that the man is a politician,

not a jurist.

He's never before
sat on the bench--

not even 5 minutes
on a police court.

No judicial philosophy.

I'll get you settled in,
Mr. Chief Justice.

I'm going to need
all the help I can get,

I assure you.

And your name?

Patterson, sir.

How do you do,
Mr. Patterson?

Sir.

in California,

I had 8,000 people
working for me.

This will be different.

We have studied
the history.

The declaration
of independence

had glowing language
proclaiming

that all men
are created equal,

with the
inalienable right

to life, liberty,

and the pursuit
of happiness,

but the authors
of the constitution

included
no such statement,

a concession
to the fact

that our
young republic

tolerated
human slavery.

At the end
of the civil war,

congress passed
the 13th amendment,

abolishing slavery,

but it gave slaves
no specific rights.

The civil rights act
of 1866 followed,

and it was
the cornerstone

to the 14th
amendment.

We have probed
the records,

and frankly...

we do not like
what we find.

The civil rights act
was written

with a no-discrimination
clause,

but congress removed it
before it was passed.

And nowhere in the debates
on the 14th amendment

do we find any statement
that suggests

that school segregation
was an issue.

We had hoped
that abolitionist leaders

like John Bingham
and Thaddeus Stevens

would have recorded
their position

on segregation in schools.
Nothing.

That bears out
our studies.

See,
public education

was in its
early stages.

To newly freed
slaves,

education
of any sort

would have seemed

a major
step forward.

We also have to
face the fact

that congress set up
segregated schools

in the district
of Columbia

and has supported
that practice

up to this very day.

All in all,
it gives us very little

in the way
of favorable evidence

to answer
the justices' question

about the intent
of the 14th amendment.

Al, isn't there
some way

we could
shape this history

to make our case?

I'm all for
the cause, Bob,

but I am
an historian first.

But there's got to be
some way to nail it down.

It's difficult
to be precise

about what people thought
a century ago.

So I think our strategy
should be

to bypass
the court's question

and argue this on broad
humanitarian grounds.

The fuel for
the 14th amendment

was a spirit of idealism
and a sense of justice.

The amendment meant
what it said--

equal protection.

We believe
we can win this

by arguing the broad
humanitarian approach.

It is the moral position,
and we are a moral nation.

Ok, let's write it up
that way.

What gives?

It'll never work.

The broad
humanitarian approach.

Frankfurter will
smell it in a second.

He'll see it
as evasive.

It's too general,
isn't it?

It's a long shot.

Where's Kelly?

He's going back to Detroit,
morning train.

Call him at the hotel.
Try and catch him.

Just pay the ones
that have to be paid.

That's what these are.

Can't we just

hold on to them
a week or so?

They'll turn
the lights off again.

We should talk
to Thurgood. this is--

Thurgood is waiting
for these.

Marion?

Marion, where
are you going?

It's 6:00, saturday.
I have a date,

and no paycheck
for 3 weeks.

Good night.

Don't you know

what you're
doing in there?

Don't you?

I'm typing the same
stuff over and over.

If that stuff

doesn't get
typed...

what you're
doing in there

is helping
to make history.

Good night.

Thurgood, excuse me.

I think the time has come
for us to deal with this.

Alice, would you
run downstairs

and grab us
some sandwiches, please?

The beginning of this needs
to be tighter and clearer.

What are you doing,
Alice?

Making history.

This is it!

Ha!

We got it.

Thaddeus Stevens.

Read it.

Thaddeus Stevens
in the debate

on the floor of congress

when the amendment
was first presented.

"Where any state
makes distinctions

"between different
classes of individuals,

"congress
shall have the power

"to correct
such discriminations

"and inequality.

"No distinction
would be tolerated

"in this
purified republic

but what rose from
merit and conduct."

Place this

in the front section
of the brief.

And send someone out
for ice and bourbon.

Mr. Kelly
needs a drink!

"These infant appellants

"are asserting
the most important claims

"that can be put forward
by children,

"the claim to their
full measure

"of the chance
to learn and grow

"and the inseparably
connected

"but even more
important claim

"to be treated
as entire citizens

of the society into which
they have been born."

You understand.

Professor,
you are a negro.

Honey, this is
too tough a trip for you.

I'll be back
in a couple of days.

You'd be
better off here.

I will be
in that courtroom

on tuesday morning.

New hat?

It's pretty.

It is the hat
I wore last year

at the first
supreme court argument.

I hope it's...

a luckier hat
this year.

In Clarendon
school district number one

in South Carolina,

there are 2,799
registered negro children

of school age.

There are
295 white children.

The state has now provided
those 2,800 negro children

with schools that are,

as Mr. Marshall has
so positively admitted,

equal in every respect.

In fact, because
of their being newer,

they may even be better

than the schools
of the 295 white children.

Now, who's going
to disturb that situation?

If these children
were to be reassorted

on a mathematical basis,

you would have
27 negro children

and 3 white children

in each schoolroom.

Would that make
the children any happier?

Would they
learn more quickly?

Your honors cannot sit

as a glorified
board of education

for the state
of South Carolina

or any other state.

Nor, I respectfully submit,

can this court sit

in the chairs
of the legislature

of South Carolina

and mold
its educational system.

The state establishes
the schools,

it pays the funds,

and it has the sole power
to educate its citizens.

The state
of South Carolina

does not come here
in sackcloth and ashes.

Its laws do not offend

the constitution
of the United States.

It is convinced
that the happiness

and the progress
and the welfare

of these children

is best promoted
in segregated schools,

and it would be
a thousand pities

that, by this controversy,

it might be ordered
to abandon

what it has created.

I am reminded
of Aesop's Fable

of the dog and the meat.

The dog, with a fine piece
of meat in his mouth,

crossed a bridge.

He saw the shadow
in the stream,

and he plunged for it.

And he lost both the shadow
and the substance.

Now, here is
equal education,

not prophesied,
but present.

Shall it be thrown away

on some--some fancied
question of racial prestige?

It is not my part

to offer advice
to the appellants

and certainly not
to the learned counselor.

No doubt they think
what they propose is best.

But I entreat them
to remember

the age-old motto

that the best is often
the enemy of the good.

Mr. Marshall,

you have 5 minutes
for rebuttal.

May it please the court...

The 14th amendment was put
into our constitution

after one of the worst wars
ever fought.

The duty of enforcing
the 14th amendment

is placed upon this court

to make sure
that the states,

in administering
their functions,

disregard
little pet feelings

about race.

The negroes who are forced
to submit to segregation

are all
american citizens

who, by accident of birth,

are a different color.

And the color
makes no difference

one way or another

insofar as this court
is concerned.

Harry Briggs, Jr.
is guaranteed by the state

some 12 years of education.

There is no way you can
repay lost school years,

but...

they say
leave it to the states

until they work it out.

I got the feeling on hearing
the discussion earlier

that when you put
a white child in a school

with a whole lot
of colored children,

the child
would fall apart.

Everyone knows

that is not true.

Those same kids

in Virginia
and South Carolina--

and I...
have seen them do it--

they play in the streets
together.

They separate
to go to school.

They come out of school
and play ball together.

But they have to be
separated in school.

There must be
some magic to it.

You can have them going

to the same state university
and to the same college,

but if they go to elementary
and high school together,

the world
will fall apart.

The only way
that this court

can decide this case

in opposition
to our position

is to find some reason

which gives the state
the right...

to make a classification
in regards to negroes

that they can make
in regard to nothing else,

and we submit...

the only way to arrive
at this decision

is to find that,
for some reason,

negroes are inferior
to all other human beings.

Nobody...

will stand in this court
and say that

because they would
have to justify it.

It can only be
one thing...

an inherent determination

that the people
who were formerly in slavery

shall be kept
as near that condition

as is possible.

Now...

is the time.

we submit that this court

should make it clear...

that 'that' is not

what the Constitution
of the United States

stands for.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Marshall.

Thurgood.

Crab soup.

Oh, I know
it's crab soup.

Hot.

Mmm.

That's good.

Very good,
Thurgood.

We concede
Douglas and Black

to the other side.

Reed and Clark
should vote with us.

Jackson and Frankfurter

are leaning towards
our point of view--

judicial restraint.

That's 4, and we should
pick up another vote

from Minton
or from Burton

or from
chief justice Warren.

How are you getting on
with the new chief?

I've discovered
that he listens,

though he is untutored
in the law.

Well, it could be argued

that's an ideal
combination

for a chief justice--

open-minded
and flexible.

Well, I hope y'all
get down to it.

It's not that tough
a call, as I see it.

For those who do not have
to decide, it is easy.

The humanitarian
thing to do

is to strike down
segregation,

but nothing
presented to us--

neither history
nor legal precedent--

offers any help.

I think Jackson wants
to toss it to Congress.

The authority for enforcing
the 14th amendment--

Sir. Sir, if I may,

the negroes are
the group for whom

the 14th amendment
was written.

It's for
their protection.

And since 1868,
everybody else

has come to this court
invoking the protection

of the 14th amendment.

Corporations and
Chinese and aliens

and everybody else
come in and claim

they've been denied
equal protection

of the laws.

They come to
the supreme court

of the United States,
and you listen to them.

And if you find
that their rights

have been violated, then
you take care of them.

But when the one group
for whose protection

the 14th amendment
was written--

the negroes--come in and
ask you for relief,

Jackson wants you
to say yes,

your constitutional
rights

have been violated,
but don't come to us.

You go
across the street,

you ask congress
to give you relief.

We're not gonna give you
a damn thing.

Mark...

at Harvard I would have
given you an "A" for that.

Tempus fugit.

I'm exactly where I was
one year ago.

I'm prepared
to vote to desegregate,

and if my vote should be
in the minority,

I shall write as strong
a dissent as I know how.

After reading
over 1,500 pages,

I have yet
to discover a basis

in the constitution
or the 14th amendment

that allows us
to order the states

to do with
their schools

that which they
do not wish to do.

I was very taken
by something

Mr. hurgood
Marshall said.

"The only way the court
can decide this case

"in opposition
to our position

"is to find that,
for some reason,

"negroes
are inferior

to all other
human beings."

Hugo, I base my view
on the law,

and nothing in the law

tells us that we can
tell South Carolina

to abolish
separate schools.

This country has been
making great strides

in race relations.

A careless decision here
could halt that progress.

How do you see that
happening, Stanley?

If the american people

feel that a bunch of
liberals in Washington

are forcing
their social views

on the states,

there will be...

profound resentment.

I've seen the race
problem more closely

than most of you.

I'm concerned about
the possibility

of violence,
massive resistance.

What if we say
desegregate

and they refuse?

Can we send the army
into South Carolina

to enforce it?

Send the army
into 20 states?

I'm surprised that
the history provides

so little in the way
of legal footing

for striking down
segregation.

I find I'm arguing
with myself.

My heart tells me
segregation is wrong.

The law tells me not to
interfere with the states.

I do not like the
idea of segregation,

but for 100 years,
the south

has had segregated
school systems,

and this court has
told them it was legal.

We can't just turn
on a dime and say

tomorrow morning, things
will be different.

Nor can we
continue to say

that in The United
States of America,

all men are equal,

but that white men are
more equal than others.

For God's sake,
let's decide the principle.

We can remain flexible
on how to implement it.

Disaster.

This court is expected
to be precise and clear.

Felix, you say you're
arguing with yourself.

Perhaps you'd prepare
a memorandum

outlining the issues and
offering some suggestions

as to where
our choices lie.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Our great civil
libertarian

is going to get
us in the soup.

Douglas
is so abrasive,

he makes conciliation
and compromise

even more difficult.

He obviously
feels very deeply.

Douglas is a great
humanitarian

in the abstract.

He just
can't stand people.

Almost ready.

Sir, these
will be better

than your
city shoes.

Well...

Thank you,
Mr. Patterson.

You know the roads,
Mr. Patterson.

Oh, yes, sir.

I've been out this way
many times before.

The war between the states
is one of my hobbies.

Manassas, bull run...

just a short drive
from the city.

You ever been to
Gettysburg before, sir?

No, no.

For me, one of the pleasures
of living in the east

will be to see
some of these things.

Little round top.
Meade had the high ground.

He had
the artillery, too.

That was
the whole story.

In the winter of 1944
in Italy,

we were pinned down
in the Sergio Valley

for 2 weeks.

The gerrys
had the hilltop.

They were pouring
their .88s down in on us.

Bloodied us real bad.

Taught me a whole lot

about the value
of high ground.

So simple...

yet so strong.

"It is rather for us
to be here dedicated

"to the great task
remaining before us--

"that from
these honored dead

"we take
increased devotion

"for that cause
for which they gave

"the last full
measure of devotion--

"that we here
highly resolve

"that these dead shall
not have died in vain--

"that this nation,
under god,

"shall have a new birth
of freedom--

"and that government
of the people,

"by the people,
for the people

"shall not perish

from the earth."

On to Manassas, sir?

Good morning, sir.

Mr. Patterson,

why are you
sleeping in there?

Sir, I couldn't
find a place...

Sir, there's no place
within 20 miles of here

where I'd...

let's get back
to Washington.

"To be treated
as entire citizens

"of the society

into which
they've been born."

Come in, Mark.

It's Earl Warren.

Earl.

Felix.

Felix, this court
must vote

to desegregate.

I believe that this
is a moral issue,

one that goes
deep into the soul

of our nation.

The more
I ponder this,

the more I believe

the separate
but equal idea

is based
on the concept

that the colored
race is inferior

and that those
who sustain it

must be willing
to acknowledge that.

Now...

I believe my vote

will make
a majority of 5.

I will assign
the writing

of the opinion
to myself.

I hope to write it
in a way

that will bring
others with me.

What do I have to do
to have you with me?

You're a man

from the hurly-burly
of public life, Earl.

I'm a man from
the private world

of the jurist.

We both know
what is right here,

but to you it seems...
less complicated.

Neither history
nor legal precedent

gives us reason,

but there are times
when the court

must be free to interpret
the constitution

based on the changes
in men's feeling

for what is
right and just.

The humanitarian goal
will have to do.

But if you force
a sharply divided decision,

you will have
accomplished no good.

You must work
to unite the court.

How, Felix?

Jackson.

You must persuade him
to vote with us

and not to write
a separate opinion.

You must talk to him,
convince him,

and then,
if you're successful,

Clark, he should follow.

Stanley Reed will be
the most difficult.

Can reed be turned?

Only by you.
but Jackson first.

If you write
an opinion,

I will study it
with an open mind.

That's all I ask.

But an open mind
cannot change

my belief
that this matter

rightfully belongs
to the congress.

Earl, you are
looking for a...

congenial
political solution

to the problem.

I'm looking for a way
to do what I think

we both believe is
the right thing to do.

The only possible way,
in my view,

to write a decision
to end segregation

with intellectual
honesty

is to argue

that the majestic
generalities

of the constitution

have a content
and a significance

that vary
from age to age.

Yes?

I don't like it,
but you can try it.

I like this.

I've got control.

With the courts,

all I can do
is wait.

Buster...

The time I got
the job as a waiter

with the Baltimore
& Ohio...

Your daddy
got you that job.

They handed me
a uniform...

white coat,

black pants that fit
real nice,

except they stopped
just above the ankles

6 inches too short.

I went to the man
in charge, and I said,

"Sir, I need to have
another pair of pants.

These are too short."

The man looked me over,

and you know
what he said?

He said, "Don't you know
it's easier for me

"to get a shorter negro

than it is to get
another uniform?"

It makes me angry.

That was
a long time ago.

Mm-mmm. I mean
about being sick.

Changes are coming--

Changes we never
dared dream about...

and I may not see them.

I want to see the things
we've worked for...

all the changes
that will come.

You'll see changes.

You will see
a different world.

And you know
something?

You'll know we made
a difference.

Douglas.

Black.

Minton.

Burton.

Warren.

Frankfurter.

Jackson,

Clark...

and Reed.

Miss McHugh,
Mr. Patterson--

Work to do.

Now, if you would...
type this, please?

Yes, sir.

I will review it.

Then, Mr. Patterson,

if you would take it
to the print shop

and order 9 copies,

only 9.

Yes, sir.

May I guess
why you're here?

I will vote
to desegregate

if...if the opinion

gives the southern
states time.

We're not dealing
just with law.

We are dealing with
a social revolution.

It needs time.

You read that, Tom.

It may need
some refinement.

I'd like to accommodate
your view.

Stanley, I've written
this opinion

in a way which I hope
will unite the court.

There's a word that's
been on my mind of late--

krytocracy.

K-R-Y-T-O-C-R-A-C-Y.

I checked it last night
in the oxford dictionary.

It says
"Government by judges."

I do not want
to see this court

travel outside
its authority.

It isn't a question of
what I would like to see,

but what the constitution
will permit me to see.

And, Earl...

understand this--

I do not believe

that negroes are
an inferior race.

Sir, it's
Mr. Justice Jackson.

Yes?

Sir, they just
took him to Walter Reed.

A heart attack, sir.

Major McCarthy,
please come to station 23.

Mr. Justice Jackson?

I'm Earl Warren.

Sir, he's resting.

Mr. Prittyman
is handling his calls.

Oh, hello, Barrett.

Hello,
Mr. Chief Justice.

They say
he'll make it.

I talked to him
this morning.

I think he'll be ok.

Good, good.

Barrett, uh...

as soon as you think
he's up to it,

ask him to read this.

It's important.

I know, sir.

A little bout
with one's mortality

has a way
of focusing the mind.

Since the end
of the civil war,

the United States

has been hesitating
between 2 worlds--

one dead,

the other powerless
to be born.

What you have written

is quite remarkable.

In very... plain
and understandable words,

it tells the nation
what must be done

and why.

I'm with you, Earl.

You're all by yourself
now, Stanley.

The fact remains--

this court has been
given no evidence

that the nation knew
a century ago

that it was outlawing--

Stanley, we have 8 votes
to desegregate.

Each of us is concerned
about history.

Each of us is reluctant
to overrule precedents.

But we are convinced

that the law
in this day and age

cannot set negro
schoolchildren apart,

not in The United States
of America.

This country has been
making consistent progress

in race relations.

This decision could
impede that progress...

halt the march.

A piece of paper
cannot eradicate

the fears and prides

and prejudices
of the people.

Earl... if this court

tries to force
the southern states

to change overnight,

there will be resistance,

litigation, disobedience,

and years of conflict.

Believe me.

Stanley,
I'm a politician.

I've worked
for the people

for over
30 years now.

I've seen them
in police stations,

hospitals,
unemployment lines.

I'm convinced
that the people

will accept a ruling

that fortifies their
inner conscience.

Let the backbone
come from the court,

and it'll strengthen
the moral backbone

of the people who
live in conflict.

Stanley, a fully
united court

will send a signal
to this nation.

I pray that you'll
see your way clear

to join
the majority.

Hello.

I'll be on
the midnight train.

Get ready for passengers
on track 22.

Silver mid-year service
from Miami Beach, Florida...

Find another cab,
boy.

We're going
to the supreme court.

Come on, Bob.
Come on.

I think you'll
want to be in court

this morning, boys.

9 copies, sir...

for the brethren.

Welcome back.

Welcome back.

It's good
to have you back.

All rise.

The honorable
the chief justice

and the associate
justices

of the supreme court
of the United States.

Oyez, oyez, oyez.

All persons
having business

before the honorable
the supreme court

of the United States

are invited to draw near
and give their attention,

for the court
is now sitting.

These cases come to us

from the states
of Kansas,

South Carolina,

Virginia,

and Delaware.

They are premised
on different facts

and different
local conditions,

but a common
legal question

justifies their
consideration together.

In approaching
this question,

we cannot turn
the clock back to 1868,

when the 14th amendment
was adopted,

or even to 1896,

when Plessy vs. Ferguson
was written.

We must consider
public education

in the light
of its present place

in american life.

Only in this way
can it be determined

if segregation
in public schools

deprives
these young plaintiffs

of the equal protection
of the laws.

In these days,

it is doubtful
that any child

may reasonably be expected
to succeed in life

if he is denied
the opportunity

of an education.

Such an opportunity,

where the state has
undertaken to provide it,

is a right which must
be made available

to all on equal terms.

We come, then,
to the question presented--

does segregation of children
in public schools

solely on the basis
of race,

even though
the physical facilities

may be equal,

deprive the children
of the minority group

of equal education
opportunities?

We believe...

Unanimously

that it does.

We conclude

that in the field
of public education,

the doctrine
of separate but equal

has no place.

Separate educational
facilities

are inherently unequal.

Therefore, we hold
that the plaintiffs

and others
similarly situated

for whom the actions
have been brought

are, by reason of the
segregation complained of,

deprived of the equal
protection of the laws

guaranteed
by the 14th amendment.

It is so ordered.

Please, Mr. Marshall--

Buster, it's me.

We did it.

Unanimous.

Buster...

I love you.

A bulletin
from Washington.

At 1:10 p.m.,

the United States
supreme court

chief justice
Earl Warren

announced
the unanimous decision

to outlaw segregation
of negroes in public schools.

The court said
separating negro children

violates rights guaranteed
to american citizens

by the 14th amendment.

Father?

Morning, Julia.

The decision...

for the plaintiffs.

It was unanimous.

In the words
of the general--

"We have met
the enemy,

and we are theirs."

I'm sorry, father.

Someday I'm going
to learn to accept

good advice
when it's offered.

There's troubled
times ahead.

Looking at it
philosophically,

unanimous decision

is the best thing
for the country.

Great!
Yeah!

Congratulations.