The Petal paper. [volume] (Petal, Miss.) 1953-19??, 1958-12-18

ances and of distribution of pow
er between national and state
governments one branch of one
government - the Supreme Court
- should attain the immense, and
in many respects, dominant, pow
er which it now Yields =.
cit has long been an American
boast that we have a government
of laws and not of men. We be-
lieve that any study of recent
decisions of the Supreme Court
will raise at least considerable
doubt as to the validity of that
boast. We find first that in con-
stitutional cases unanimous de-
cisions are comparative rarities
and that multiple opinions, COM
curing or dissenting, are common
occurrences. We find next that Dir
visions in result on a to 4 basis
are quite frequent. We find fur
Their that on some occasions a ma
jority of the. Court cannot be
mustered in support of any one
opinion and that the result of a
given case may come from the
divergent views of individual
Justices who happen to unite on
one outcome or the other of the
case before the Courts"
The report adopted by the Con-
ference of Chief Justices conclud-
ed that the overall tendency of
decisions of the Supreme Court OF
late has been to press the extern
sion of federal power, particularly
at the expense of state sovereign
| ty by extensive supervision OF
state action through the provis-
ions of the Fourteenth Amend
ment. This tendency according to
the report raises at least consld-
cradle doubt as to the validity of
the long time American boast,
that we have a government OF
laws not of men.
Criticism of the Supreme Court
| is not new. Among the first to at
tack its decisions and functions
was Thomas Jefferson, a man OF
stature and whose opinions were
Ientitled to respect. Although his
attack was directed primarily at
| the Supreme Court it went much
further and encompassed the
whole judicial system. He declar-
ed: TT is a very dangerous doc
trine to consider the judges as
the ultimate arbiters of all con-
/ stitutionaI questions. It is one
which would place us under the
despotism of an oligarchy" This
j charge has a familiar ring. It has
/ been resurrected today and again
placed in the arsenal to be used
as ammunition by those critical
of the present court decisions. In
discussing the bred Scott decision
Lincoln said, eve know the court
that made it has often overruled
its own decisions and we should
do what we can to have it over
rule Ifl1S one. L1OWCNCA, hC SAs
nificantly added: eve offer no
resistance to it," This thought APP
parently is forgotten by some to-
dav. When the Court ruled much
of the early New Deal social and
economic legislation unconstitu-
tional, the clamor of criticism rose
, to fever pitch, urging changes
!, in the Courts traditional func-
, tions, and even its abolition.
These criticisms came at time
of great industrial unrest when It
, was believed by some of our ma
tional leaders that the reactionary
tendency of the Court was block
ing our economic recovery. Crltl-
, cism under such circumstances
might be justified. AS Mr.. Justice
J Brewer once remarked: 1T is 9
: mistake to suppose that the SUI
preme Court is either honored Of
helped by being spoken of as be.
: yond criticism"
) But while criticism is welcome
s the question remains whether the
: resolution of censure adopted by
5 Continued on Page .