The Key West citizen. [volume] (Key West, Fla.) 1879-current, 1936-05-27
OUR DIVIDED SUPREME COURT

The three opinions liled by the JUS
tees of the Supreme Court in the Guffey
case last week emphasized the division of
opinion that exists in the Supreme Court.
Inasmuch as the courts are not sup
posed to legislate but merely to determine
whether legislation is in accord with Con-
stitutiOnal provisions, the average layman
sometimes finds it hard to understand why
the nine members of the highest judicial
tribunal are unable to agree With little
knowledge of the complex questions that
confront Judges some of our citizens think
that it should be easy to determine whether
a given law violates the Constitution and
that the answer should be unanimous,
either plain yes or equally plain no
Chief Justice Hughes, in an address
several weeks ago to the American Law IN
Stitute, referred to divided decisions in
our higher courts and asked why should
one expect them not to exist. He pointed
out that in science, philosophy, and
theology, experts of the greatest reputa-
ton differed, and suggested that it would
be strange if Judges did not. Coming 10
judicial duties from different backgrounds,
training, and experience, the Chief JUS
tice said that in interpreting and applying
the complicated principles of law, it is i'm
possible for them to be of one mind or TO
junction in a higher region of "icy GER
tainty'
Mr.. Hughes puts his finger on the spot
wien fesrefers to the differing back
grounds, training, and experience of the
judges, but, to us, his argument as to the
differences of opinion in science, phil
OsOphy, and theology are not so apropos.
In these different fields of learning men
grOpe to discover the principles of the uE-
known and their findings depend upon
facts that are not always aScertainablc.
When judges, however, consider a specific
law, to determine whether it is in accord
with a written grant of constitutional
power, they have no such uncertainty 20
deal with. There is much justice in the
conclusion of the average citizen that I'M
der such circumstances it should be pos
slbie for eminent jurists to arrive at
iIloIc uIotHiiiIOuS agreement JldH IttS DScn
exhibited by our Supreme Court III con-
Sidcring the ten New Deal cases
We do not intend this to be construed
as criticism Of the human beings on our
Supreme Court. II does not reflect upon
the exercise of their function to pass final
judgment upon our laws. Rather would
have our readers to understand that,
under the American system, the nine
judges, with their varying background,
training and experience, are not only apt
to disagree when vital changes occur in the
law, butthat they are almost certain to dis
agree.
The remedy for the situation is not TO
abuse the Court or to decry divided opin-
ions. In time, the courts of the land will
inevitably follow the trend of popular pro
cess of replacing the Judges themselves in
the natural course. Intended to serve as
brake to slow down impetuOus change i'll
our basic laws, the Supreme Court, at this
time, undoubtedly fulfills the mission given
it by those who established the American
system of government.
- whether the opinions of the Court are
to be permanent and whether they are in
accord with the will of the American peO-
pie are questions that depend entirely up
on individual opinion and require no an
swer here