◆ SpookStack

| 1 ! t ; | ' at hearings because of possible | SP EeR ar instencirinestyins few York State laws, known as the @lochower case, the Bu- prene Court “of the United States had ruled in 1956 that atate employees could not be dismissed under # law that said buch employees who in- incom- yoked the ‘Piha Amendment pecans wie tae eater lose their jobs.° “The Times” said in tts editorial: ‘inefficient without giving any sme reason? The Supreme Court of .“Instéad of specifying that the United States in the famous ‘employses who refuse to testify | yers case in 1926, for instance, upheld the right of the Presi- ent to fire a postmaster or any ther government employes at a time when Congreés had not specified or limited the grounds for removal. self-incrimination must be dis- inissed, She California law re- quires dismissal of any. persons who- decline to testify for reason. - “This distinction without « difference was seized upan by the majority to distinguish Monday's decision from the Slochower case. But for all practical purposes, the latter|! must now be regarded as « dead/|) ‘letter. If a state or city is wist! enough to avoid putting th term ‘self -incrimination’ ex Plicitly in the’ law, it is free tf] fuses to testify at Congresalonal hearings. Plainly the employees had a right to test the constitu- tionality of the California law, They were in a sense “resisting” rit, as they had the privilege doing, though Southerners wh court orders are usuall described as “defying the la as engaging in “massiv the Supreme Court in this case changed its mind because it felt the facts were different—the two laws were not worded the same way. But what shall be id of a Supreme Court that erely reverses itself when the acts and constitutional prin- iples are identical and explains t all away by ao statement eclaring that whatever Was e “psychology” prevalent at his was the ground for thé 1854 desegregation decision, ' Perhaps those who have been unwilling to see the risks in- volved in reversals by the court when the same principle has already been built into estad- ished law now Will adopt & ore charitable attitude toward the critics who have taken the High court to task for its regularities. ; 7 1980,N.Y. Herald Tolhune Ine, | a | — a