◆ SpookStack

a ‘ Of19 (Rev. 2-16-58) _ eo Tee. rae SUPREME cop meee ‘ Prom 11% eal with the 65th Congress . _with its powers intact. But it was a near thing, as close ag one of the Court's S44 .. decisions, 4. After three frantic days and nights of > debate during the final week of the ses- - Shon, the Senate killed the whole pack- age of bills designed to curb or reverse the Court, But the close votes showed. ’ the extent of anti-Court feeling which ., bas spread through Congress during ' the last four years. i: The Jenner- Butler bill to restrict the i Court’s review power was killed by the slender margin of 49-41. A drastic antl- ' Court states’ rights bill known & which had passed the House 241- as pigeonholed by the Senate by just one . “vote, 41-40, ; ; THE CONGRESSIONAL attack on . the Court has been building ip for four years. It started with Southern anger at the school segregation decision in 1954. It gained support during the last two years from conservative Republicans disturbed by decisions upholding indi- * vidual rights in Communist cases. By this year, the coalitioh was strong ” enough to pry bills out of committee | and force floor action in both Houses. They didn't have the votes to pass a bill, but they undoubtedly will ty ag next year. eee, yee a Court Squeaked, Past—Thei a RS CU oe an a 7 By Richard E. ar hard’ L. Lyons, . State Department 1 reyulstions denying The Court fight was embodied in four” : ‘bills which made. varying degrees of: rogress but were all buried together: in. the Senate in the closing days. Twa’ relatively limited bills would have re-i vived state anti-sedition laws struck own by the Steve Nelson casé, and ceeeuteg” the Mallory decision on the power of Federal police to question suspects before arraignment. The méa- jor assaults were contained in the Jen ner-Butier bill and HR cts or i _SEN, WILLIAM E. JENNER Gtina) introduced his bill in 1957 after the. : Court had handed down a series of de-. 7- cisions with tities such as Nelson, which held that the Federal Government had re-empted the field of prosecuting { i subversion against the United States & e and that the states muat say out; Wat- 4: kins, which held that a congressional committee must tell « witness the per % be tinence of questions; Konigsberg, which 4 held that a state could not bar a lawyer: from practice solely for refusal to tegtl~ fy about Communist affillation, ’ Jenner told the Senate that these de. “cisions and others have “Just about de molished” the Nation’s defenses against | Communist subversion. His proposed solution was a bill which * would have stripped the Court of Its au- thority to review almost all cases in the security-subversion field. This wouldn't . have reversed the decisians Jenner was ™ In considerable part, the Court fight, upset about, but it might have encour- was an afigry emotional outburst against decisions Congressmen didn't like, But there also was serious concern *. among some moderate members that the Court was going too far in various ways—that lt was making law instead of simply interpreting it ang was invading gtates’ rights, . aged lower courts to do so. =—s«- My The Justice Department, the: Amer- | fcan Bar Association and a host of law achool deans and leading lawyers pro- | tested, that the bill would create “legal ; chaos” by removing the final appeal 4 _ which Yives the law uniformity. Jenner's bill sailed through the Sen- F Le bIt * Court’s power. Congress. acted then not Butler's changes, and when the bill vu , as the result of a decision, but to pre- sent to the floor in May the only part of | ‘ vent one. It feared that if the Court the Jenner bill left was the section CRITICISM OF the Supreme Court ate Internal Security Subcommittee but is nothing new. Most strong Presidents was changed in the parent Judiciary . have quarreled ¥ with it. Franklin D. Committee by Sen. John Marshall | i cmmare re emmetme in itn Datlae BAAN Tastee nf natite ee ne Roosevelt tried ‘tar Fevalip its member: Butler Voha.. sa0stéad or Cutung Oa . ship 21 years ago because the Court the Court's review power, he suggested ; . Was killing his New Deal. But rarely changing existing . has Congress gone so far. Only once, effects of various decisions. ws to reverse the 4 90 years ago, hag Congress limited the The Committee adopted most of i ¥ were permitted to rule on Acertain case taking from the Court lis power to re- : it might invalidate one of the Recon- view cases involving lawyers refused ; struction Acts. * admission to state practice. The Com- ' There have been some suggestions mitiee felt that states should be the - ‘ that even though the bills failed this final Judge of who practiced in their year, the criticism might cause the courts. Opponents said that this would ' Court to trim its sails, at least try hard- permit states to bar lawyers of any race er to avoid 5-4 decisions. That hasn't or other special class. - > . been apparent yet. While the Jenner« With Butler’s changes, the bill also’ Butler bill was awaiting Senate action would make congressional committees b lagt_ June, 5. the Court threw ont, 5-4, the f Anal judge of e. .. ae ae A Lat ee a aa ae ate = alee a’ + Pagid of the he _Dertinnse. of DU SEP.17 1958 7 124 REC- 50 Lt ATS She NOT RECORD?) 167 SEP 11 1966 rag Purso Rosen Tamm won 3 Toe. Room 4 Holloman —_. Gandy f : F . “ ™« AV s cy rie mo Wash. Post and & Times Herald Wash, News Wash, Star N.Y. Herald Tribune N. Y. Journal-____ American N. Y. Mirror N. Y. Daily Newe —_ N. Y. Times —.__.__ Daily Worker The Worker New Leader as) : ee oe | Se pi ee