Clerk memoir recounts Justice Goldberg's alleged ethical incidents and a rejected gift from Louis Wolfson

4.2.12 WC: 191694 Another controversial issue during my year on the Supreme Court was obscenity. I recall Justice Goldberg coming back from a screening of an allegedly obscene movie called “The Lovers” and saying “That damn movie ought to be banned, not for obscenity, but for fraud. There were no good dirty parts.” There was another case involving a dirty book called Fanny Hill. The book was not included in the record, but Justice Goldberg wanted to read it. He was embarrassed about going to a bookstore and buying it himself, so he asked me to go and buy a copy of the book, but not to read it. Hah! Some people think that Goldberg was bored on the Supreme Court. He was used to his phone ringing all the time. The truth is that his phone rang all the time he was on the Supreme Court. He always had visitors and guests. He lived a very hectic life. Sometimes the guests were unwelcome. I remember one situation where a man knocked at the door of Justice Goldberg’s chambers (in those days, anybody could walk into the chambers; today, that is impossible). He told me that he had met Justice Goldberg and that he knew that the Justice was making a great financial sacrifice to serve on the Supreme Court. He was starting a foundation, he told me, to help people make the transition from lucrative private life to low paying government jobs, and he would like to offer the Justice the opportunity to have his salary supplemented. When I told the Justice the story, he told me to “Throw the bum out.” The “bum” turned out to be Louis Wolfson, a man facing stock fraud charges, who later made a similar offer to Justice Fortas. Justice Fortas accepted the offer and lost his seat on the Supreme Court as a result. Justice Goldberg was far more scrupulous. One day he received a basket of fruit. I don’t remember if it was for Hanukah, Christmas or a birthday. But he immediately looked at the card and saw that it was from Katherine Graham, the publisher of the Washington Post. The important case of New York Times v. Sullivan was then pending before the Supreme Court. Goldberg insisted that we immediately send the basket back. I told him that I had eaten a banana from it. He insisted that I go to the fruit store and buy one to replace it before having the basket returned. Justice Goldberg was a deeply ethical, but only marginally religious, man. He did not attend synagogue regularly, though he was very active in numerous aspects of Jewish public life. Every year he had a Passover Seder, to which he invited all the Washington luminaries. When I was his law clerk, he invited me and I gladly accepted. Knowing that I was strictly kosher, he arranged to have the entire Seder dinner catered by an expensive kosher caterer. At the last minute, my mother forbade me from attending a Seder other than hers, and I had to decide whose views trumped, a Justice of the Supreme Court or a Jewish mother. I don’t have to tell you who won, and Justice Goldberg remained angry with me for months, saying, “All those people had to eat catered kosher food because of you, while you ate your mother’s home-cooked food.” Shortly after I received the offer to clerk with Justice Goldberg, my second son Jamin was born. Since we did not know many people in Washington, we asked for a recommendation for a mohel - - the man who performs the ritual circumcision. His name was Goldberg. We duly entered his name in our address book. One night I called him to discuss the upcoming bris. A man answered the phone and I inquired, “Mr. Goldberg?” He replied, “Who is this?” I said, “Is this Mr. Goldberg the mohel?” He replied, “No, this is Mr. Goldberg the Justice.” I quickly apologized and addressed him as Mr. Justice Goldberg. I still don’t know the appropriate way to address a mohel. 66 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017153