Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up free
Editorial
October 12, 1937
The Bismarck Tribune
Bismarck, Mandan, Burleigh County, Morton County, North Dakota
What is this article about?
Editorial criticizes the Supreme Court's dismissal of a challenge to Justice Black's appointment on procedural grounds of standing, arguing it undermines public interest in judicial integrity and that the case should have been decided on merits.
Clipping
OCR Quality
100%
Excellent
Full Text
Too Much Ducking
Average Americans, reading the supreme court's decision in the Black case, may well have a tendency to resent the grounds upon which the decision was based.
In refusing to go further into the matter, the court said:
"The motion papers disclose no interest upon the part of the petitioner (Levitt) other than that of a citizen and a member of the bar of this court.
"That is insufficient. It is an established principle that to entitle a private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of executive, or legislative, action, he must show that he has sustained, or is immediately in danger of sustaining, a direct injury as the result of that action AND IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT THAT HE HAS MERELY A GENERAL INTEREST COMMON TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC."
This is disappointing, regardless of whether one favors or opposes the Black appointment. To rule the case out on the ground that Levitt had no personal interest is to take a direct slap at the public's interest in decency, fair-play and a sound judiciary.
The question presented was whether or not Mr. Black has a right to sit on the court. THAT QUESTION OUGHT TO BE ANSWERED. For the highest court in the land to throw the case out on the ground that a citizen has no particular interest in it -and therefore ought to keep his mouth shut and his nose in his own business -is tantamount to denying the public's interest in the court and what it does.
That is wrong. THE PUBLIC HAS MORE INTEREST IN THE SUPREME COURT, IT'S MEMBERSHIP AND WHAT IT DOES THAN THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COURT, THE PRESIDENT OR ALL OF THE LAWYERS IN THE COUNTRY PUT TOGETHER
It is the people's court. They have preserved and defended it, even when they felt some of its decisions might be wrong.
Regardless of precedent, it is regrettable that the court could not have decided the case on its merits and thereby justified the public interest in its activities. As it is, it looks very much as though the court had chosen the easiest way out of what, for it, was a difficult question.
Average Americans, reading the supreme court's decision in the Black case, may well have a tendency to resent the grounds upon which the decision was based.
In refusing to go further into the matter, the court said:
"The motion papers disclose no interest upon the part of the petitioner (Levitt) other than that of a citizen and a member of the bar of this court.
"That is insufficient. It is an established principle that to entitle a private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of executive, or legislative, action, he must show that he has sustained, or is immediately in danger of sustaining, a direct injury as the result of that action AND IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT THAT HE HAS MERELY A GENERAL INTEREST COMMON TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC."
This is disappointing, regardless of whether one favors or opposes the Black appointment. To rule the case out on the ground that Levitt had no personal interest is to take a direct slap at the public's interest in decency, fair-play and a sound judiciary.
The question presented was whether or not Mr. Black has a right to sit on the court. THAT QUESTION OUGHT TO BE ANSWERED. For the highest court in the land to throw the case out on the ground that a citizen has no particular interest in it -and therefore ought to keep his mouth shut and his nose in his own business -is tantamount to denying the public's interest in the court and what it does.
That is wrong. THE PUBLIC HAS MORE INTEREST IN THE SUPREME COURT, IT'S MEMBERSHIP AND WHAT IT DOES THAN THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COURT, THE PRESIDENT OR ALL OF THE LAWYERS IN THE COUNTRY PUT TOGETHER
It is the people's court. They have preserved and defended it, even when they felt some of its decisions might be wrong.
Regardless of precedent, it is regrettable that the court could not have decided the case on its merits and thereby justified the public interest in its activities. As it is, it looks very much as though the court had chosen the easiest way out of what, for it, was a difficult question.
What sub-type of article is it?
Constitutional
Legal Reform
Partisan Politics
What keywords are associated?
Supreme Court
Black Appointment
Judicial Standing
Public Interest
Court Merits
What entities or persons were involved?
Supreme Court
Mr. Black
Levitt
Editorial Details
Primary Topic
Criticism Of Supreme Court Dismissal In Black Case For Lack Of Standing
Stance / Tone
Disappointed And Critical Of Court's Avoidance Of Merits
Key Figures
Supreme Court
Mr. Black
Levitt
Key Arguments
- court dismissed case because petitioner levitt had no personal interest beyond general citizenship
- public has a strong interest in the judiciary's decency and composition
- the question of black's right to sit on the court should be answered on merits
- court's decision denies public's interest in its activities