◆ SpookStack

re etree t f ‘we ty ! . “4 very principles, ia w those same principles that, when “chips are down,” Bnd all loyal Americans ready to risk thelr very lives to defend Senator Jenner's View = | Wyman: There is “undermining of national security” - v and Tt ie tragic to sce such judicial undermin- ing J national security and Sederal-State relations, ad well ee of othe tem: feed of fre Americn’s cia Lo oro 2 ORE OFC SME a ogee tect keel, Foregoing ore excerpts from an address by Mr. Wyman, president of the National Association of Attorneys Gen- eral, at the 3513t national conference of thot organization, Sun Vailey, ido., June 24, 1957. “COURT HAS CHALLENGED AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS” 1. Following is an excerpt from on oddress by Senator Wiliem €. Jenner iRepJ, of indiana, on the floor of the Senate, Ady 26, 1957: . There was a time when the Supreme Court conceived its function to be the interpretation of the lew. For some time now, the Supreme Court has been making law—eubstituting its judgment for the judg- ment of the legislative branch. There was a time when a Justice of the Supreme Court might dissent in a case of first impression, but could be relied upon to decide the next case involving similar points in accordance with the prior decision of the Court, notwithstanding his own prior dissent. This was because Justices of the Supreme Court respected the COurt and respected the principle of stare decisis. Nowadays individual members of the Su- preme Court sre constantly busy defend- ing their own positions, and a Justice who files a minority opinion on a particular point can usually be expected to stick to that opinion whenever the point is raised, thus keeping the Court constantly 7 By a process of attrition and accession, the exteme liberal wing of the Court has become a majority. And we witness today the of a Court constantly chang- ing the law, and even changing the meacing o tion in an apparent determination to make t! land what the Court thinks it should be. Laymen and lawyers, the legislative branch and the ex utive branch af have come to recognize the predilection of the Supreme Court for making new law. Even the lower courts have come iD expect Ht with the re- sult that it has become commonplace for decisions to be hekd up in lower courts waiting for the Supreme Court to make some new law that will apply to the case. A particularly Hagrant example ts the case of Albert Blumberg, convicted in March, 1956, of violation of the Smith Act, but not yet sentenced, and now likely to be turned loose through application of the new doctrine enunciated by the Supreme Court in the Jencks cass. A jury convicted Blumberg tn March of 1056; and in May of 1956 Judge Kraft in Philadelphia heard argument on a defense motion to set aside the verdict and for an acquittal. Judge Kraft never acted on thst motion, and is free now to apply the Supreme Court's decision in the Jencks case to the U. 8. MEWS & WORLD REPORT, Avg. #, 1907 ar a ee bE VAS 3 facts and issues of the Blumberg trial held a year age last The Jencks case, as you knew, is one of a group of very recent decisions which have gone even Farther sud faster than the Court ever has gone before in the direction of the Weft. There can be no doubt that the total elect of these deci- gions of the Supreme Court has been to weaken the Goveroimenot’s cHorts agaist Communism aad subversives. By some of these decisions, antisubver- sive laws and regulations have been rene dered ineflective. States have heen denied the right to fight subversion, and have been denied the right to har Communists from cticing aw, Violitors af federal antisubversive Laws heen tured loose on @imsy technicalities. Confideutial files of the FBI and of other investigative “and Taw-enforeement ageiicies have been pened up to “Ashing expeditions” by de- fendants hl “The eee The Court has challenged the authority of Congress to decide upon the scopé af its own investigations and the right of a con- gressional committee ta make up its own foind about what questions to ask its wit- nesses. Many pending cases may be affected, and an undetermined wamber of cuses already settled may be reupened, as a result of recent decisions of the Supreme Court, regardless of what Congress may find it possible to do towant curing the situ. ation, because while Congress cannot make a new law that will affoct a case already tried. the Supreme Court) can and does. The Supreme Court can change overnight a rule of law a hundred years old, and can make the new rule apply to all cases under way, and provide @ basis for reopening cases already tried which involved the point covered by the new rule. There is no way for Congress to invalidate or repeat a de- cision of the Supreme Court of the United States, even when that decision is legislative and policy-making in natute, Con- gress can in some cases strike down judge-made Jaw by en- acting new law, or by correcting the Court's error respect- ing intent of Congress, by a new declaration of intent. This power of the Congress should be exercised to the maxi- mum, of course; but it will not fully meet the situation. The Court bas become, for all practical purposes, a legista- tive acm of the Government, and many of its feats are sub- fect to no review, 5