Justices in Judgment

Waspishly worded split decisions, apparent encroachment on the legislative prerogative, political and sociological opinions applied to the rule of law in the land, have brought the Supreme Court of the U.S. under its heaviest fire since the New Deal days. Last week, from the annual conference of state chief justices, meeting in Pasadena, Calif., came the most meaningful criticism yet of the highest federal court.

By a 36-8 vote, the state chief justices adopted an unprecedented resolution. They approved a report on which a ten-man committee, headed by Maryland's Chief Judge Frederick W. Brune, had worked for a year. Said Brune & Co.:

"It has long been an American boast that we have a Government of laws and not of men. We believe that any study of recent decisions of the Supreme Court will raise at least considerable doubt as to the validity of that boast . . . Frequent differences and occasional overrulings of prior decisions in constitutional cases cause us grave concern as to whether individual views of the members of the court [on] what is wise or desirable do not unconsciously override a more dispassionate consideration of what is or is not constitutionally warranted.

"It is our hope . . . that the great court exercise to the full its power of judicial self-restraint by adhering firmly to its tremendous, strictly judicial powers and by eschewing, so far as possible, the exercise of essentially legislative powers."

At almost the moment the state chief justices, debated their resolution last week; the U.S. Senate finally beat down a series of bills designed to cut the" high court's prerogatives, especially in the field of security cases. But the cliffhanging margin of the votes was highly significant; i.e., on the key vote, the Supreme Court won by an eyelash 41-40 count.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.