Reader Ad Slot
Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Supreme Court — Part 26
Page 67
67 / 116
j The Supreme Court
i Should Be Curbed __
The Senate Judiciary Committee has re-
gq ported favorably by a vote of 10 to 5 a bill
to limit certain types of Supreme Court jur-
M isdiction—-authority to do so being specifi-
g|cally vested in Congress by the federal Con-
:# (stitution and spelled out in detail in that
£ |document. 2 _
¥i The bill would stop the Supreme Co
¥ from overturning a state’s decision on what
lawyers can practice in state courts—the
Court having ruled that a stale could not
{bar a Communist from practicing as a law-
yer. : oo , ; -
The measure would take away from the
Supreme Court authority to determine what
questions Congress can ask of witnesses
_ through its committees, the Court also hav-
*.. ing stepped into this field with limitations
= which could destroy effectiveness of con-
gressional committee investigations into sub-
:. q version, espionage, treason and similar
jfields.' .\.
os The bill also would restore to the
-=-4 the power to set up their own laws a
ates
inst
bowndaries—a power nullified by a recent
Sugireme Court decision. © ~——Ss-
gress to pass a law against advocating over-
throw of the federal government—a law
which would have teeth which could not be
pulled by the Supreme Court. This has be-
come necessary because the Supreme Court
has ruled that the Smith Act is valid in pro-
g@ hibiting advocacy of overthrow of the fed-
# eral government by violence but that it is
J invalid if this advocacy is presented onl
in what the Court considers a ‘‘theoretica
manner. The result. is that the Supreme
B28 Court virtually has nullified both the Smith
own previous approval of the:
Act and its
Certainly there is obvious need for con-
in the bill approved by the Judiciary @om-
mittee. Yet, in widely separated part of
the\country there is vigorous oppositiog to
the Wneasure and almost all of it seems to
-be built on the same foundationless cry—.
| at those advocating the
. I. i
ees the Supreme Court because thay-hap-"”
‘J subversion and sedition within their jown j
he bill further would authorize Con-
+
aad
bll¢
e trying to }
pen to disagree with some of its decisions. - ~
A few days ago, in reporting the Senate®
Judiciary Committee’s action,«TV news,
broadcaster David. Brinkley said that this
measure was “dreamed up by Senator Jen-
ner” of Indiana. To some viewers he seemed
to feel that one should go through some spe-~
cial asepsis, at least figuratively, before as-
sociating with Senator Jenner even orally.
uch widely known newspapers as the
Washington Post and New York Times in
the East, the Denver Post in the Rocky Moun-
tains, the Minneapolis Tribune in the far
horth, and various others of the same so-
ciological stripe editorially, have taken up
the cry that Senator Jenner or Senator East-
land or somebody else has put over the bill
‘because they “disagreed” with Supreme
Court decisions. Fortunately, some equally |
_important papers—such as the Cleveland:
| Plain Dealer and the Los Angeles Times supt
| port the principle of a congressional curb orf!
the Court, - a
Actually, disagreement with Supreme
Cdurt decisions of the type which would be
curbed in the Judiciary Committee bill is
espread and includes éommittees and
ast presidents of the American Bar Asso-
iation as well as eminent students of con-
titutional law, federal judges, and others.
The Senate Judiciary Committee bill and
the original Jenner bill to curb the Supreme
Court are about as unlike as a cat and a dog.
The Jenner bill was, to all practical pur- '
poses, scrapped almost before it got out of
swaddling clothes. The Butler bill was sub-
stituted and now the Senate Judiciary Co
mittee has substituted a bill of
own for the Butler bill. It's rather
af cry to attribute a bill approved by 10 out -
i
{
gressional action of this type—and proh-+
ably for considerable more action in rela-
tion to the Supreme Court than is included -
SO MAY 26 1958 _
Mr. T. ter__
Mr. Clayton,
Tele. Roum _
Mr. ‘Holloman __
Miss Gandy__
>. a
1h eee
a)
yo
DON EWING, ASSOCIAT
EDITOR
THE SHREVEPORT TIME
SHREVEPORT, LA.
5/10/58
Page &§ A Col. 1&
r
«
q_ 27st A
A
—_—— Lat
NOT RECORDE
aA WAY 23 1958
ae oe
-
Reveal the original PDF page, then click a word to highlight the OCR text.
Community corrections
No user corrections yet.
Comments
No comments on this document yet.
Bottom Reader Ad Slot
Bottom Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Continue Exploring
Agency Collection
Explore This Archive Cluster
Broad Topic Hub
Topic Hub
federal bureau
letter
Related subtopics
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic