TARANAKI CENTRAL PRESS THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1937. THE SUPREME COURT OF U.S.A.

Taranaki Central Press, Volume IV, Issue 357, 11 February 1937, Page 4

TARANAKI CENTRAL PRESS THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1937. THE SUPREME COURT OF U.S.A.

Considerable opposition is being' shown to President Roosevelt’s plans for "revitalising’’ the Supreme Court of the United States. In an unexpected message to Congress earlier this month, he recommended the sweeping reorganisation of the Federal judiciary, including authorisation for the F’resident to make a discretionary increase in the membership of the Court by a maximum of six more justices. The plan provided for the removal of judges when they reached 70 years of age. Explaining the measure, the President said that the constant and systematic addition of younger blood would vitalise the courts and “better equip them to recognise and apply essential concepts of justice in the light of the needs and facts of an ever-changing world." Commenting on it, the New York Times said that the President’s action left him open to the charge of endeavouring to do indirectly what he copld not do directly, and by cleverness and adroitness dealing, with the Supreme Court. In other words, the Times accused the President of "packing” the Court. The Herald-Tribune put it more bluntly: "Despite his artistry in presentation, the brutal fact remains that he would pack the Court with six new justices willing to bow to his ruling. The President’s power would then be unrestrained and the Court's constitution would be subject only to the Necessity of the consent of a subservient Congress.” The Los Angel es Times described the scheme as a “programme of almost devilish ingenuity” which could not be offered in good faith. 1 o-day we read of several State Legislators condemning the proposal also. It is fully evident that the real method of the President is to get behind the powers of the Supreme Court which rejected his New Deal on the grounds of unconstitutional action. Mr. Roosevelt’s policy is one of centralisation and the Court’s decisions have proved a bar to that policy. The Constitution could be amended only at the desire of the people, and favourable action by them as a whole would be difficult to obtain. The President and his supporters have not complained of the Court’s, rejection of their proposal on the ground that they were wrong. The complaint, as naively voiced by one leading Democrat, is that “the Supreme Court must be made to follow election returns.” Hence the plan for revitalising the Court by a reshuffle in the hope that “this new deal will give him better cards to play” for his centralising proposals. What the outcome will be it is yet too early to say. But if President Roosevelt succeeds in “packing’ ’the Court, there is no doubt that a blow will have been struck at the very basis of his country’s Constitution.