The Waterbury Democrat., 1937-02-20
Favor Court as ''Check"

Favor Court as "Check"
 The dictatorship" argument goes like this:
 The president now controls con- greas through patronage, propa- ganda and threat of political re- prisalS. If he were to be given con- trol of the supreme court he would become all-powerful. Abolition of the judiciary's independence would mean autocracy, a threat to civil and religious liberty and possible suppression of political minorities.
 The supreme court is the only
 agency which can keep the presi-
 dent and congress from exceed
 ing the powers granted them by
 the Constitution. If the president
 is allowed to appoint up to six
 members of it, he and the con-
 gress (which his enemies insist is
 his mouthpiece) will have 8 free
 hand.
 The six hand picked appointees,
 enemies of the plan insist, would
 be subservient to the will of the
 president who appointed them, and could not be expected to ex-
 ercise their independent judg-
 ments in Interpreting the Consti-
 tuition.
 These arguments are made by some of the most whole-hearted anti-Fascists in the country and they are also espoused by many American public men who have been known to extoll the achieve ments of Hitler and Mussolini. The charge that Roosevelt, through pressure, has made Congress rub Der stamp, has been made against other presidents. It appears to im- ply the American system of govern ment, has already partially broken down through destruction of the Independence of the legislative branch. Defeat of the Roosevelt plan, members are being told by its opponents, would restore the independence of congress.
 They Cite Precedents
 The other side argues more or less as follows:
 The supreme courts conservative majority, which includes two form CT republican national committee men, former republican candidate for president and a former lame duck republican senator, appointed by Harding, has made a political body or super-legislature of the court. It has knocked down New Deal laws because it opposes them, and not merely through objective legalistic interpretations of the Con- stitution.
 There are several precedents for "monkeying" with the court to bring 1t into line with prevailing political or economic philosophy. and even if there were no such precedent, any dictator could es- tablish one just as easily if Roose- velt,s scheme were not adopted now.
 People will not tolerate dicta- tor unless they become disillu- stoned with democracy and such q disillusionment can only arise from serious economic conditions.
 If the court gets to be p0pularly blamed for preventing solution of the nations economic problems, it will not have enough prestige to be able to stand up against the encroachments of dictator and protect civil rights in any case. Economic justice and stability are democracy's best guarantees.
 Relationships destroy parliament tary government. Roosevelt's pro- posal would produce a court which would be more responsive to desires of the people as expressed through congress. This would strengthen, rather than weaken, parliamentary government. thus Sulwarking democracy.
 New arguments from both sides will be presented as fast as the two sides think them up.
 Copyright 1887, NEA Service, Incl