Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1958-05-26
Killing the Umpire

One approach 10 Lne Jenner-butler
bill, which would modify some recent
Supreme Court decisions, is to denounce
1t as a measure designed to kill the UNI
pire." This is not an approach which
reflects much credit on the maturity Of
those who adopt it.
The bill would do four things The
first provision would deprive the Su-
preme Court of jurisdiction to override
a refusal by State to permit an indi-
vidual to practice law in the State. This
is reaction to two questionable de-
cisions last year, and in some small de-
gree it would curb the power of the
court. 1t is not an earth-shaking issue,
for any person denied permission to
practice law would have an appeal to
the courts of the State. The question is
whether the issue is of sufficient i'm
portance to justify Congress in exercis-
ing its constitutional power to limit the
courts Jurisdiction. We doubt that it is.
The second provision would modify
the courts controversial ruling in the
Watkins case by Stipulating, in effect,
that congressional investigating COM
mittee, once the issue has been raised,
shall be the final judge as to whether
question asked witness is pertinent to
the investigation. Some correction of
this sort, if it can be done within con-
stitutional limits, may well be necessary
to insure the effectiveness of congress
sional Investigations.
1t is clear that the third and fourth
provisions lie we'll within the authority of
Congress. One deals with ruling that
Congress had intended to pre-empt the
field in dealing with subverSive activ-
tiles. The other involves a judicial
Interpretation of the intent of Congress
in passing the Smith Act, under which
several Communist leaders have been
convicted We do not see how there can
be any argument respecting the right
of Congress to enact these provisions.
For If the court has misinterpreted the
intent of Congress, or if Congress failed
to make its intention clear, it can hardly
be doubted that the national legislature,
If it thinks it is wise to do so, can adopt
corrective or clarifying laws. And these
certainly will not kill the umpire
Perhaps there should be one final
word on this latter point. The kill-the-
umpire outcry seems to be based on the
fallacious notion that the court is aloof
from politics and should be immune to
attack or criticism. There is nothing in
our national experience to support this
view In the broad sense of the term the
court has always been involved in poll
tics. If anyone doubts this, he should
refresh his recollection with respect to
the clashes between the court and such
Presidents as Jefferson, jackson, Lin
coin, Grant and Franklin Roosevelt. In
some of these clashes the court pre-
vailed. In others it was curbed. But it
is still, perhaps, the most powerful Of
our three branches of government
subject to no restraint except Self-re-
straint, or, in rare instances, to the
restraint which can be imposed upon it
by a Congress or a President. In this
inStance-in the case of the Jenner-
Butler bill-there is no significant threat
to the independence or to the proper
authority of the court. The real ques-
ton is whether it is wise to adopt any
or all of the bills provisions, and this
is for Congress to decide.