◆ SpookStack

t t ao e (Rev. @-7-54) a , MAMAS Shes aiep-dcherer a p - keer ne see nr are rH 9 me rd sy at ee a Te ER Ban Leen pe pe 1 we a a ° an oh By GEORGE E. SOKOLSKY ~)°4°"'¥) = fo. . “Pr : . . . ‘ apt. a Supreme Court, Representative Wright Patman of Texas fas ratséd a pertinent question, namely, tha$ instead of basing decisions upon briefs submitted by litigants, the court briefs itself, using, at times, mates rial not submitted to it by either party, but selected oe ee oe "; “fo quote Patmani.; 7: / 2 by the justice himself or by his law clerk who may introduce matter which, according to Patman, is “uns : recognized and non-authoritative’’~. .--e + yo" Co Ch ee Patman said concerning this: OS gia AAS +, ::-Formerly, we had every reason to expect that decisions by our Supreme Court would be controled * by the standards outlined by the Constitution, the law, j the facts of the case and by the sound reasoning of the * justices. In the past even though we felt the court }. - had decided a case wrongly we nevertheless felt that - we could understand that the court had » basis in the *. record of the hearing in the case for its decision...” ¥ | The difficulty’ now arises from the fact that text > books, law reviews, propagandistic material: from ' Pressure groups sand all sorts of outside factors enter into the formation of a decision. Patman says of .. this that if the court in preparing its decisions uses : material without notifying counsel ‘on bath. aides, neither side has the opportunity “to meet the argu-- ments of these theorists and lobbyists." or 03° om ” Articles Aren't Authoritative. a mou, | “...The Law Review articles, treatises, and so forth, prepared and disseminated by the Jobbyists command ' : HO respect, have no standing as legal authorities, and ~ therefore warrant no consideration by opposing coun-~, . Sel. Tf the rule were otherwise counsel would be rene . dered helpless because thelr arguments would become diluted heavily with extraneous miscellaneous matter “, designed to overcome the various theorfes advanced by r. a _ the lobbyists posing as legal authorities.” - | greg nw However, whatever the Supreme Court says dew comes authoritative, Therefore an article publishea, _{n a law review could become the basis for the law of ' the land once 2 Supreme Court justice adoptéd it for ' a majority opinion, even though the article in question 60 0cTS _be written by & second yeat law student who has not yet cut his eye-teeth, i. ht ¢4 de 1 tyes fe | ‘The problem here, it seems to rhe, is not so muck “What material the juatices employ to form thelr opln- fons, ad that counsel should, know what it ls so that _ they may argue a point, Otherwise, Jt would seem futt C3 ; to prepare a case, recognizing that ‘third brief wou q be submitted by an anonymoéus researcher employed ‘by e court and against. whose yiews and arguments ng one would have @ chance to aay. 4 ae ta nite WP interestiriy observation in this connection: ee wk remem aaa alia laa NN EE 1957 730 B t Mohr Porsons Fiosen i Tamm Trotter Necse Tele. Room —— Holloman — Gandy Wash. Post and Times Herald Wash. News Wash, Star N. Y. Heraid Tribune N. Y. Journal- American N. ¥. Mirror N.Y. Daily News N. Y. Times Daily Worker The Worker New Leader OCT SF ral Date ———______——