◆ SpookStack

judicia] decisions upon the - relations between the Fad- eral Government and the State governments. Here we think that the over-all tend- ency of decisions of the Su- preme Court over the last 25 years or more’ has been to erkl power and to press it 3 rapidiy, © 7‘ tat Gourse, and still arée-vety con- _ Siderable differetices within ' the court on these matters, and there has been quite ra- cently a growlng recognition of the fact’ that our Govern- ment is’ st{ll a Federal Gov- ermment and that the ‘historic line which experience seems to justify between matters primarily of national concern and matters primarily of to- cal concern should not be hastily or lightly obliterated. A number of justices have repeatedly demonstrated, their Awareness of problems of federalism and their recogni- tion that federalism is stil] « living part of jour system of government. “We. believe” that, in the elds with which we are concerned and as te which we fee] entitled to speak, the Supreme Court too often has tended to adopt the role of policy maker. without proper any restraint. We feel both of the great fields we | ‘have discussed—namely, the | extent and extension of the | Federal power, and the | supervision of State action by the Supreme Court by virtue et the, Fourteenth Amend- en eli of the im- 4 Ta eS a ee of: Press the extension of Fed+ ' “There have ween, of | I e mense power of the Supreme Coury ane its practical non- reviewa in moat . in- stances, no more important obligation rests upon it, in our view, than that of careful moderation in the exercise of its policy-making role. °. “We are not alone in our view that the court, in many cases arising under the Four- teenth Amendment, has as- umed what seem to us rimarily legislative powers. See Judge Learned Hand on e Bill of Rights. We do not believe that either the framers of the origina] Con- stitution or the possibly somewhat less gifted drafts- men of the Fourteenth Amendment ever contem- plated that the Supreme Court would. or should, have the almost unlimited policy- making powers which it now exercises. “It is atrange, indeed, ‘ reflect that, under a Con- stitution which provides for .@ system of checks and _balances and of distribution of power betweer! nationel and State governments, one _ branch of one Government— the Supreme Court—should atiain the immense and, in many respects, dominant power which tt now wields... “It has ‘tong been “an American boast that we have /# government of laws and ' not of men, any study of recent decisions otthe Supreme Court will _Talse at least considerable fama Pee Se Pees We believe that | ot + p pee wip adaeeatee nscloutly "overTia"w_eat \" eee crag? F as to the validity ot that hoast. We find first that, in constitutional cases, unani- mous decisions are compara- tive rarities and that multiple opinions, concurring or dis- senting, are common occur- rences. “We find next, that divi- sions tf resift on a 5-to-4. basis are quite frequent. We find further that, on some occasions, a majority of the court cannot be mustered in . support of any one opinten and that the result of a given case may come from the divergent views of individual Justices who happen to unite on one outcome or the other ‘of the case before the court. ... It seems strange that, under & constitutional doc- trine which requires all others to recognize the Supreme Court's rulings on constitutional questions as binding adjudications of the meaning and application of the Consiltution, the court ftself has so frequently ovet- turned its own decisions thereon, after the lapse of perlods varying from 1 year to 75, or even 06 years... “The Constitution express- ly sets up its own procedures - for amendment, slow or cum- bersome though they may be. It reasonable certainty and stability do not attach to a written constitution, is it a constitution or is it a sham? “These frequent differences and occasional overrulings of Prior decisions in constitu- tional cases cause us grave concern as to whether indi- vidual views as to what is wise or desirable do not un- . eM ate ae Na OTF ally warranted.¢ 5% °° gale press, that that great court, exercise to the full its power: of judicial self-restraint Pach edhering firmly to ite tree mendous, strictly ote ee powéfrs and by eschewing. 0. far as possible, the exercise of essentially legislative powe? ers when it is called upon to decide questions involving the- validity of State action,: whether it deems such ation - wise or unwise. wo, af The ten Justices declare,” moreover, that at times the* Supreme Court justices seem to “manifest an impatience with the slow workings of our . Federal system” and an ut- willingness to wait for Cone’ gress “to make clear tta ine. tention to exercise the powerg conferred upon it by the Cans ; stitution.” . . The report says also that the Supreme Court seems to. be impatient with the “slow processes of amending the Constitution which that ine strument provides,” and that. it should be adhering to “the | limitations of Judicial power,” . instead of “merely giving af-.. fect to what itmay deem den. aireble.” : This fs a scathing ee Court, though the criticism ' does go back in some in- stances to previous personnel as well. There can be no: doubt that many men of the: highest Judicial experience.” in America have begun td. question whether the atil=° tude of the present court. isn't really. legisiafive in=' atead of judicial, ,. 2: (Reproduction RishiaeRanegaas) wt te . ‘ee A ae ‘wate hae ae cet z ro. BE Ee ae ee ae, of the present Supreme? oy