Robert Eugene Cushman Quotes
If the Constitution, as interpreted by the Court, prevents the proper solution of our social and economic problems, should we do something to the Constitution to meet the difficulty, or should we do something to the Supreme Court?
In reference to the Supreme Court "packing" legislation proposed by President Roosevelt, Prof. Cushman wrote:
Robert Eugene Cushman, 1889-1969, Law Professor, The Supreme Court and the Constitution, 1936
Sourced by: Eigen's Political and Historical Quotations
The comment was prompted by FDR’s attempt to “pack” the Supreme Court.
Referring to the Brown v. Board of Education, the Topeka, KS, Supreme Court school desegregation decision:
Cummings was arguing against a Constitutional amendment. His alternative led to Roosevelt's court packing schema.
This concept of balance of power and the equal role of the judiciary is actually quite rare. Even in Parliamentary democracies the parliament can override any court interpretation. In England, the upper legislative house, the House of Lords, actually serves as the nation’s highest or supreme court. And these “Law Lords” can override all regular judicial bodies.
The New Deal liberal Democrats had complained that the Supreme Court was making national policy and law and not interpreting law. They tried to pack the Supreme Court by adding more justices who would be more sympathetic to the New Deal. (See {587549}.) At the beginning of the 21st century it was the conservative Republicans who were making the same claim that the Supreme Court was making law and not interpreting it. The pattern seems to be when the court votes for your side, they are interpreting the law. When they vote for the other side, they are activist—making law improperly.
It is argued whether Scalia’s problem was that the Supreme Court was doing something new or radical or the country had changed. He had certainly lived through the greatest transformation of any society and culture on earth at a pace of change that far exceeds anything that has occurred before. Scalia is one who believes that the Constitution should not be interpreted in recognition of these changes, but should be immutable as it was written for the late 18th century. Most judges and legal scholars disagree and try to interpret the Constitution as the founders would have intended, knowing what we know, having the tools and powers we have, and facing the problems of the modern world. It represents a major legal and philosophical debate.
The argument was Prohibition, the 18th Amendment.
The Roosevelt administration had stemmed the tide of Hoover’s Great Depression but the nation had not yet recovered. The New Deal measures, most of which would be considered fundamental to good government 50 years later was being constantly thwarted by a Supreme Court with a strong arch conservative majority headed by James McReynolds, a virulent, overt, anti-Semitic racist, who hated FDR—see {616652} and {585241}. The situation was to many like that which existed before the Civil War when the Court rendered the Dred Scott decision that so harmed the nation. Frankfurter, not then a Supreme Court Justice, urged Roosevelt to do something lest the American Public lose all respect for the Court and our Constitutional system and have the nation harmed by not allowing reforms like child labor laws to go through. The court actually ruled by a narrow majority that the government could not pass laws making it illegal for 11 year old children to work in coal mines or factories. FDR attempted to add more justices turning the majority into a majority—“packing the Supreme Court”, but that politically backfired. Some of the reforms never went through while others needed Constitutional Amendments like the end to Prohibition.
This quotation is particularly important because it summarizes one of two opposite schools or thought regarding judicial interpretation of the Constitution that politicians have been arguing about since the Supreme Court first sat. The other is Original Intent where only the original intentions of the writers and ratifiers of the Constitution should be considered—assuming that it can be determined.
