| Signs outside the Florida Supreme Court at its first
post-election ruling on the manual ballot recount declared: Supreme
Court: Interpret Law, Don't Make Law'', And: "Supreme Court: Butt
Out!" In his comments on the decision, George W. Bush said that the
court had used legal language to conceal that it was writing law, not
simply interpreting it.
With local, state and federal courts now in the national spotlight,
people rnay find it helpful to know that judges (mostly appointed, not
elected) have been making law for generations and generations.
But judicial supremacy did not come from God or Mother Nature -
consider that the Articles of Confederation had no provision for a
Supreme Court. And when debate broke out over the replacement
constitution drafted in Philadelphia, the idea of judicial supremacy
provoked intense opposition.
Robert Yates of New York noted, "The opinions of the supreme
court, whatever they may be, will have the force of law; because there
is not power provided in the constitution, that can correct their
errors, or controul their adjudications."2 John De Witt of
Massachusetts observed: "There are no well-defined limits of the
Judiciary Powers, they seem to be left as a boundless ocean..."3
The US and state supreme courts were created by men of property to
protect themselves from democracy. And so today when judges confirm laws
that establish special privilege; nullify laws that challenge special
privilege; and amend state and federal constitutions to deny people's
fundamental rights, they are doing what the antidemocratic Federalist
Founders intended.
From thousands of rulings, here are a few samples of judges
validating laws, nullifying laws, and amending constitutions.
US Supreme Court
- Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad Corp., 1886:
decreed without hearing argument or offering an explanation that a
corporation is a person for the purposes of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
- Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co., v Minnesota, 1890:
voided a Minnesota law enabling state elected officials to set
railroad rates, declaring that all rates decided by elected
officials are subject to judicial authority.
- In Re Debs, 1895: uphold judge-made labor injunctions banning
strikers from picketing, holding meetings, conferring with union
officers, publishing articles or in any way seeking public support.
It also sent Debs and three other leaders of the National Railway
Union to jail for violating such an injunction.
- Pollock v Farmers Loan and Trust Co., 1895: nullified Congress'
income tax law of 1894, which had imposed a 2% tax on incomes over
$4,000.
- Charles Smith v Mississippi, 1896: affirmed the authority of lower
courts to exclude African Americans from juries.
- Schenck v US, 1918: sent Schenck to jail because, in the words of
Justice Holmes rewriting the First Amendment, "When a nation is
at war, many things that might be said in times of peace are such a
hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so
long as men fight and that no court could regard them as protected
by any constitutional rights."
- Lochner v NY, 1905: nullified a New York law setting 10 hours as
maximum labor per day for bakers.
- Virginia Board of Pharmacy v Va Citizens' Consumer Council Inc.,
1976: protected corporate commercial speech under the First
Amendment.
- First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 1976: nullified a
Massachusetts law banning corporate spending in referenda and
initiatives which corporations had an interest.
- NJ v City of Philadelphia, 1976: nullified a New Jersey law
banning toxic wastes from other states.
Federal judges in general:
- Gasaway v. Borderland Coal Corporation, 1921: upheld a lower court
injunction against the United Mine Workers in West Virginia
forbidding union speeches, union publishing, appeals to unemployed
men to join the union, the use of union funds for unionizing
non-union mines.
- United States v Anthony, 1873: US Circuit Court found that the
Fifth Amendment did not allow women the right to vote. It directed a
jury to find Susan B. Anthony guilty of illegal voting.
State supreme courts
- Pierce v Stablemen's Union, 1909: the California Supreme Court
affirmed a court injunction against strikers picketing peacefully.
- Commonwealth v Perry, 1891: the Massachusetts Supreme Court
nullified state law prohibiting an employer from fining an employee
or withholding wages.
- Frorer v People, 1892: the Illinois Supreme Court nullified a
state law prohibiting corporations from paying wages in goods or
merchandise instead of money.
Neither Gore nor Bush talked about reversing this sad history of
judicial usurpation. So while we may not know the winner of the
presidential election, we can harbor no doubts about the loser:
democracy. *
You can read all about this judicial usurpation. Here are some
resources: Lawless Judges, by Louis P. Goldberg and Eleanore
Levenson, NY: The Rand School Press, 1935; The Supreme Court and the
National Will, by Dean Alfange, Garden City: Doubleday, Doran &
Co., 1937; Conservative Crisis and the Rule of Law: Attitudes of Bar
and Bench, 1887-1985, by Arnold Paul, Gloucester: Peter Smith, 1976;
Lawyers and the Constitution: How Laissez Faire Came to the Supreme
Court, by Benjamin Twiss, Princeton: 1942.
[1] Co-director, Program on Corporations,
Law and Democracy (POCLAD), P.O. Box 246, South Yarmouth MA 02664-0246.
Phone (508) 398-1145; Fax: 508.398.1146; E-mail: people@poclad.org.
[2] Cecelia M. Kenyon, editor, The Anti-federalists, Indianapolis.
Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1996, page 335
[3] Ibid, pp. 104-5
|