◆ SpookStack

O Q -10- possible--but rather to set up a barrier against the philosophy which the Court has been evidencing. One more point needs to be brought out: the liberals who favored the court packing plan in 1937 have been making a good. deal of the fact that they appear new as defenders of the Court, in opposition to my bill. But, they have not changed their position one iota. The liberals opposed the Court in 1937 and favored the court packing plan because they were anxious to secure Supreme Court approval for social and other legislation which would change the face of America and lead to increased centralization of government and the destruction of_States' Rights. The liberals who oppose my bill today are doing so for exactly the same reasons. It is theSupreme Court which has changed its position in the interim, not the liberals, and not Bill Jenner. Well, now we come to the fourth paragraph of the Attorney General's letter. He says that the Congress has only enacted legislation of this kind once before, that this was in 1866, and that "because it realized that this was a mistake Congress reversed itself, restoring the Jurisdiction in 1885." I do not know whether the Jurisdiction which the Congress took away from the Supreme Court in 1663 was restored 17 years later because Congress realized that it had made a mistake 17 years before, or because the - situation had changed in the intervening 17 years. I can foresee the possi- bility that if my bill passes, another Congress lT or 20 years from now might see fit to restore the Jurisdiction which this bill would take away, on the ground that in the meantime the Supreme Court had learned to stay within its proper orbit,