Imagine if someone wrote a book like The Struggle for Judicial Supremacy: A Study in American Power Politics today. Would they be confirmed to the Supreme Court, to replace the Chief Justice (someone else was elevated in-house), the next year? It might be exciting.
Robert Jackson was FDR's solicitor general and attorney general (his position when the book was released in 1940). He was a strong partisan supporter and testified in favor of the court expansion bill. Jackson includes FDR's message to Congress and radio address on that bill in the appendix.
(Jackson skims over the controversy. He argues that a major problem was that the bill was not bluntly promoted to address misguided judicial supremacy. There was a hard-to-take argument; supposedly, it was really just a reform bill to improve the courts.)
What is "judicial supremacy"? Each branch of government is "supreme" in its own sphere. Congress can impeach whom it wants (realistically speaking), as long as they are a federal officer. Presidents can veto what they want. In his famous Steel Seizure Cases concurrence, Jackson later discussed the broad power of the modern-day president.
Jackson acknowledges an appropriate court concern (while noting they alone aren't involved) in protecting civil liberties. He does not reference it, as it was not yet famous, but Jackson endorses the famous "footnote four."
(I don't think "judicial supremacy" merely means judicial review. Judicial review has its limits. Either way, being "supreme" in a certain area is not "supremacy." There is a greater meaning there.)
His concern about "government by lawsuit" was the usage of substantive due process to, in his view, incorrectly override legislative discretion in policy matters.
Likewise, an artificial application of constitutional provisions to rob the people's representatives of the discretion to make policy. This often had an economic flavor, so we have many cases involving employment, rate regulation, taxation, and so on.
The Lochner Era and the battle of the New Deal were his particular topical focus. A specific concern, like now, was the lower courts, where injunctions could block government programs, even when federal law appears to deny the power to do so (tax injunctions).
He provides an in-depth analysis of many legal disputes (after about 100 pages, I started to skim). Jackson argues that, generally speaking (again, civil liberties would be an exception), a strong presumption of constitutionality should be the rule. Eric Segall would be pleased.
Justice Jackson had his limits in the area of civil liberties, especially after World War II. He thought there were limits to free speech, especially in the battle against fascism and communism. That is, "the constitution isn't a suicide pact." Jackson also thought there was a limit regarding the federal courts' interference with state criminal trials.
Jackson warns that the courts have limited abilities. They work by lawsuit, argued by lawyers. Policy is not just a matter of applying legal principles, especially via specific disputes. A single dispute will not provide enough information. Litigation can also take a long time. Meanwhile, public policy is in limbo.
He notes early on that what works for his time might not work in future days. Jackson was no originalist, though he respected history. Like FDR, he supported a "living law."
Justice Rehnquist (as he then was) in the link at the top of this entry noted that this is a "dated book." It is a project of its time. People might even have been surprised at it in late 1940. Wasn't the struggle for judicial supremacy won by FDR? Jackson knew, however, that it was a long haul.
Imagine, for instance, what Jackson would have thought when the Supreme Court struck down the legislative veto a few years after Rehnquist wrote those words. Would he support a court expansion bill today? Either way, judicial supremacy remains bad.