.NzQzMg.NzQzMg

THE SUPREME COURT THE SUPREME LAWBREAKER Informing the people how their liberty and property are being embezzled in Washington. by P. GAMBLE, SR. Attorney-at-Law-Retired of New Orleans Bar HARRY �PREFACE To those who respect Harvard wisdom, listen to the warning in 1958, of Dr. Mc llwain, a Professor of the Science of Government: "Never in recorded history, I believe, has the individual been in greater danger from government than now; never has law been in greater jeopardy from arbitrary will; and never has there been such need that we clearly see the danger and guard aga inst it." He does not name al l t he sources of this danger; but those most obvious are: The President, when he commands Federal troops to invade States; or, for example, issues " executive orders" threatening to take bread from the mouths of thousands of working people, by withdrawing Federal funds appropriated for local projects, till his commands are obeyed; AND the Attorney General, who may and does pin the badge of a U.S. Marshal's authority on hundreds of bullyboys, and sends them out to intimidate local authorities to bring them to his views; AND bureaucrats who freely issue "directives" to control the daily lives of thousands of people, from one to two thousand miles distant from Washington; people whose local laws and culture may be very different, even repugnant, to those of the area of their upbringing; AND the Supreme Court commanding obedience to their indefensible decisions, under threat of unlimited deprivation of liberty and p roperty for noncompliance. It is true the Professor relies largely on an "able, honest, learned, and independent judiciary" to protect us from the aggressors, but adds: "I am not defending indefensible decisions of our courts. I would not shield them from the severest criticism." It is these lawbreakers and unauthorized lawmakers who are dealt wi th in the follo w ing paper. New O rleans, Louisiana, July 14th, 1963. H A RRY P. GAMBLE, SR. O f the New Orle ans Bar N o te l : Pe rtine nt p rovisi o ns of th e Const itutio n a re fo und in the a p pend ix. Note 2: All e mphasis supplied by th e writer. �l.an :Southerners attord to oe ti nr w 1rn rne1r mane in WHO ARE THE LAWBREAKERS The parrot cry, "Obey the law, " is heard daily from Washington. Yet the chief lawbreakers are there; among them, the President, who issues unauthorized "executive orders, " and commands the Federal army to invade the States. But the cocks of the roost, are the nine men on the Supreme Judicial Bench of the United States. These nine men are uncontrolled. Their power is supreme, irresistible, and absolute, in our so-called democracy. Yet in every age in the long ages of government, it has been demonstrated, in the language of Lord Acton, often quoted, that: · "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." There is no authority in our system to check these nine men; or correct their mistakes, however grievous; or nullify their seizure of unauthorized power; or punish their acts of tryanny. From time to time the earlier Judges sitting on that Bench have recognized their freedom from control, and asserted that it was not their function to go beyond "judicial review." Chief Justice Marshall (1801-1835) briefly defining this Judicial Review said: "The Court is merely a legal tribunal for the decision of controversies brought before them in legal form." Judicial review means in general, that in cases appealable to the Supreme Court, it will review the evidence introduced in the lower court, and weighing the law applicable, will affirm, reverse, or cor rect the judgment there rendered. The law applicable has never been held to mean that the Court may contrive, forge, or enact a law, which in its opinion fits the case, but shall render a de. cision on existing law enacted by the lawmaking power, constitutionally authorized so to do. If the law applied to the case below, in the opinion of the Courts is not constitutionally authorized, then it applies other existing law; still not contriving one of its own, either by strained interpretation, or downright enactment. No one has ever contended otherwise. -1 - �A recent announcement of that limitation by Chief Justice Vinson ( 1946-1953) declares: " Since we must rest our decisions on the ConstitutiG-n alone, we must set aside predilections on social pol icy and adhere to the settled rules which restrict the exercise of our power to judicial review." (346 J.S. 240 1953) Judge Harlan, father of the sitting Judge Harlan, stated the same thing in this language: "When the American people come to the conclusion that the Judiciary is usurping to itself the function of the legislative department, and by judicial construction is declaring what should be the public policy of the United States, we will be in trouble. " In referring to the 14th Amendment, fraudulentl y adopted in 1868, which has become a bottomless fish hatchery, from which the Cou rt has hooked some queer fish, never before suspected of inhabiting those waters, the eminent Judge Holmes (l 9021938) said: "I cannot believe that the Amendment was intended to give carte blanc to embody our economic or moral belief in its prohibitions. " Referring to the rights reserved to the states in th e 9th and l 0th Am e ndme nts, he re marked that: "There is hardly a ny limit but the sky to invalidating these rights if they happen to strike the majority of this Court as for an y reason undesirable." 251 U.S. 580 ( 1930) And Chi ef Justice Hu g hes ( 1930-194 l) co mmented: "It is not for the Court to amend the Constitution by judicial decree." This fra nk spoken jurist once observed, " The Constitu ti on is what the Supreme Court says it is." Thi s asse rtion of a subme rg e d t ruth d id not much shock the careless American peo p le; thoug h d ispleasing to the Co urt. Judg e Doug las, still sitting, exp loded fu rio usly in the Ca lifornia-Colorado wate r di vers io n case, a g a inst th e ma jo rity d e cision, saying : " This case wi ll be marke d as the baldest at- -2- �I tempt by Judges in modern times to spin th ei r philosophies in the fabric of the law in derogation of the will of the legislature." It will come as a surprise when disclosed that th is same Judge (one of the law school teachers ap pointed, maybe a DEAN) in the earlier case of th e Black School decision of 1954, took a contra ry stand, and agreed to founding the decision in that case on the mind reading speculations of a Swe de, Gunar Myrdal, and associates, who figured that it would make the Negro children feel bad if they could not sit with white children in public schools. THEIR OWN WILL THE ONLY RESTRAINT OF THESE NINE MEN In reorganizing their absolute freedom from control, the Court has frequently stated, to use the words of Chief Justice Stone (1925-1946). "The only check on our exercise of power is our own sense of self-restraint," Butler case. In th us admitting their freedom from control, they declare they are a super-governm ent. Such a super-government, not elected by the people, but appointed for life, is not tolerated by the great democracies of Europ e,-not by England, nor France, nor Germany, nor Italy. This fact is unknown to the great mass of the American people. The continuance of this uncontrollable power in the hands of nine men, is undeniable proof that a potent segment of our political leadership does not trust democratic processes; and have somehow contrived to surround these mere human beings with a halo of sanctity not merited in the experience of life, except by saints; a sanctity which endeavors to protect them from criticism, no matter what. It is as if assumed and asserted that the appointment by the President of a politically deserving friend (or to get rid of an opponent), w ill make that politi cian qualified to sit o n the highest Tribunal in the Nation . In more than one instan ce such an appointment by th e Presiden t has been charged to this mode of riddin g himself of an active opposition candidate. - 3- �President Lincoln appointed Senator Samuel B. Chase to be Chief Justice in 1864, when Linco ln was a candidate for re-nomination of the Repub lican Party, and Chase was an avowed candidate for the same nomination. It has been printed that a political deal was made at the 1952 Republican National nominating convention between Governor Warren, who controlled the 72 votes of California, and Eisenhower managers-Eisenhower to get the votes for a decisive lead to the nomination, and Warren to be paid off by appointment to the Supreme Cou rt. This may or may not be true, but since Warr en was appointed shortly after Eisenhower assumed office - with no visible judicial qualifkations for that high office; low-minded persons could scarcely be censured for raising their eyebrows. It may be that a miracle can be performed by hanging a black cloth on a politic i an, to forthw ith convert him into a Judge; but few would believe such a ceremony preceded by a sordid poli tical deal, is a correct method to procure SUPE RMEN for the Supreme Bench. It may be accepted as an axiom in government that once a politician, always a politician. A pol itician cannot escape from a life long practice of proposing to amend and im prove existing law. His success in politics has been founded on such promise and performance. That mode of thinki ng has become second nature. And though politicians are an honorable necessity in a democracy, without whom it could not function, the highest tribunal in the land is no place for them. School boys know that it is not the business of Judges to make laws, or amend laws, but to interpret an d apply the laws enacted by the lawmaking power authorized so to do by the Constitution; and then onl y in cases duly brought before them. Re l yin g on self-restraint by men exercising uncontrolla ble power is the ze nith of folly-proven in all ages. Thomas Jefferson who spent fifty years wi th public men in public affai rs, expressed his distrust of judicial restraint in these words: "The Judicia ry is the instrument which is to press us at last into one consolidated mass .. . . If Congress fails to shield th e States fro m dangers so pa lpable and so immin ent, th e States - 4- �Can Southerners afford to be ti ht with their mone in must shield themselves, and meet the invader foot to foot." (Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Thweat, 1821) And: "The Judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground, undermining the foundation of our constitutional fabric." This worldly wise man did not mean to imply that the men who would serve on the Supreme Bench were dishonest or ·traitors; but simply that their natural bent would be to make the National Government of which they were a part, supreme. In the long history of the Court, not more than one instance is suspected to have brought the shame of lack of integrity to the Supreme Bench. That is not t he charge. The charge is that when appoint ed they do not know anything about judicial restraint and ar e not l ikely ever to be much i mpressed by that limitation . For they are not appointed on the basis of their judicial training and learning. That these men not elected by t he people to reign over t hem, a t ta i n their appointments for politica l reaso ns, an d not for t hei r judicial qual ifications, is a b und antl y p roven by the fact that it is rare indeed t o a p point a member of a state Supreme Cou rt, o r a Judge from the Federal Judiciary, wh er e men of p r o v en a bi lity and many years of experience are to be found. In recent years, i n r espect to t h is "judicial restraint" a new note has been interjected by some now sitting on th e Bench, Judge Do ugla s among them; that it is within th e p r o v i nce of judicial action to do some lawmaking; wh ic h as we shall see, th ey have boldly done-united wi th its partner, lawbreaking. This far afield lawmaking and law breaking in recent years have drawn sharp a nd unusua l criticism from the official o rgan of A mer ican lawyers, the American Bar Asso1ciati o n; a nd t_ he official condemnation of an assembly of Chi ef Justices of state Supreme Benches. Judicial seizure of power has grown so intolerable, that an Amendment to the Federal Constitution is now in process of adoption for holding them in check, and reducing th eir powers of super- - 5- �government. This Amendment has alread y b een adopted by several states. HOW THESE SUPERM EN BREAK THE LAW When these nine SUPERMEN do not like a law enacted by Congress or a State Legislature, th ey shatter it. All they have to do is to call it unconstitutional . That it is not authorized, or is prohibited, by the Federal Constitution; and since , in the words of Chief Justice Hughes, the Constitution is what they say it is, the law is broken, and an y decision which had before held it to be la w is also broken, however long that decision may have been held to be law. In our kind of democracy, there is no remedy. Often the law is busted by the vote of one of the SUPERMEN. Four say ' tis or 'taint const itutional; and four say 'taint or 'tis; then one decides the question-to make a majority of fi v e to four . Right here it is easy for the unawed mi nd to become confused with trying to keep up with th e "now you see it, now you don ' t, " juggling going on among the SUPERMEN . Fo r in one decision yo u see that five are truly SUPERMEN, and the ot her four are bush leaguers; bu t in the next d ecisio n, the bush leaguers are bac k in t he majo rs, and some of the former SUPERMEN are ba nishe d to the minors. These chameleon changes so baffl es one contemplating this comi ng and going, t hat he is likely to head for the nut house . O nl y a lizard in the animal world ca n pa ss throu g h these changes without loss of p resti ge. When a citi zen is t old abou t t hese th i ngs, he is ama zed that a meek Co ngress d o es not perform even th e minor chec king t hat the Constitutio n does author ize it to do, if it had a ny spu nk. The highly intelligen t men wh o have made it to Cong re ss, you may be sure, a re not f o r a moment smitten with the preposterous id ea that hang in g a do zen yards of black clo t h on a p ol itic ian (or a la w school teache r), a nd g iv ing him a job for life, w ill convert him in t o a SU PE RMAN. (The State Jud ges are elected for periods of fro m eight to twe lve years; and gene ra ll y re-elected, since they nev er set up as SU PE RM EN .) Bu t som eho w a potent minority who distrust t he peop le p re va il s; so we in the great Ame rican democracy have our super-government. -6- �A TESTED STATUTE ENACTED BY CONGRESS OR STATE LEGISLATURE WHEN FOUND CONSTITUTIONAL IS LAW: THAT IS, UNTIL BROKEN It not infrequently happens that an Act of Congress or a state Legislature is charged before the Courts as being unconstitutional , and therefore, null . If in its decision the Court of last resort pronounces th is law to be constitutional, then it is the law. Somewhat carelessly, this decision is itself sometimes referred to as the law in question. Then business and government, state and national, may and often do, expend millions, even billions, on faith thereof. That to the ordinary mind seems logical. The questioned law is settled. Let's go. But to th e SUPERMEN , no! Any upcoming set of SUPERMEN may, and often do, assert that their predecessors were not the SUPERMEN that thei r contemp oraries thought. Not at all . That was a big mistake. They were bush leaguers, or old fogies who did not know what was what. This is most extraordinary, since their own claim to absolu te supremacy is founded on the proposition that as a body they are SUPERMEN. Their puzzling refusal to regard each other as SUPERMEN, while demanding that in a body they be so regarded by the people, is disclosed by the fact that: "In the brief span of sixteen years, between 1937 and 1953, this Court has reversed itself not fewer than thirty-two times on questions of constitutional law." Kirkpatrick in "The Sovereign States," p. 270. This work is less than 300 pages, by a distinguished journalist, quite understandable by laymen. Published by Henry Regnery Co., Chicago. In every one of these instances, and many more, befo re and afte r, where their predecessors had presu ma bly settled the question by declaring that a d isputed act of Congress or Legislature is constrtutional I and therefore the law, the reversal broke that law. In some of th ese instances, that law had been settled for ma ny years, in the meantime frequ ently referre d to and a p p roved by subsequent Supreme Court decisio ns. A case of reversa l and breaking, occurring since - 7- �the above record of thirty-two times in sixteen years, is one which will presently be brought under inspection. That was a decision of the Supreme Court of 1896, declaring an act of the Legislature to be constitutional law. In the interim of nearly sixty years, Supreme Courts presided over by such eminent jurists as Chief Justices White, Taft, Hughes, and Stone, had quoted that decision with approval. It was the law. THE SEGREGATION LAW That law was an act of the Legislature requiring the separation of the races in passenger transportation. In a case before the Court in 1896, it was directly charged that this state law violated the 14th Amendment in not granting equal rights to Negro travellers. It was there decided that if the accommodations were equal, the separation of the races was not prohibited by the Amendment. This established the so-called doctrine of "Separate if equal; " and through the years up to 1954, hundreds of millions have been expended in separate schools and other construction, and in educating Negroes in separate schools. This was the case of Plessy vs. Ferguson; 163 U.S. 537. In referring to other contemporary laws requiring separati on of the races, not only in the South, but in the North, it was stated in that decision: "The most common instance of this is the establishment of schools for white and colored children, which has been held a valid exercise of legislative police power even by Courts where the political rights of the colo red race have been longest and most earnestly enforced . It is true that in public education, which had to be supported by local taxation, the South was fa r behind the more prosperous North, which had been enriched by the Civil War, as the South had been impoverished. Added to the ravages of wa r, was the ten years of misgovernment and looting by adventurers from the North-called carpetbaggers because when they arrived in the South thei r whole worldly possessions we re contained in a piece of luggage made of material used in ca rpet making. These were maintained in office by the votes of the recently enfranchised N egroes, and thousands of Federa l bayon ets i n each South- - 8- �~ - -Lan Sou.t b.2 _,:o_.9.r. nfEa.cdJ.o.J:i.,_ti.a..b Lw.i.tb...th.@ i c roooe,v j ern state. Just as the same self-seeking class of Northern politicians are doing today, these carpetbaggers, instead of trying to do something of economic value for the Negroes, who, when they were freed by their Northern emancipators, were turn ed out to barren fields, without economic aid from their touted benefactors-these carpetbaggers used the Negro vote__to maintain themselves in office, paying off the Negroes with a minimum of participation in the looting, and a maximum of sweet talk about sterile " equality. " Among the Southern people, regrettable as it must be admitted, there was then, as there is today, a relative few who profited by deserting to the enemy. These, called scalawags, aided the carpetbaggers and the Negroes; and, with their descendants, were ostracized for three generations. When these carpetbaggers were forced to flee by the bargain of the Southern Democrat leaders of Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina, with the Republican President Rutherford B. Hayes, withdrawin g the Federal troops they left the Negro in the lurch.-just as their modern white models will do when the N orthern white voters turn on th em for exciting the Negro es to ins urrectio n in those pa rts. After the flight of the carpetbaggers, both white a nd blcick had to endure another forty years of poverty-though gradually decreasing; until in 1915, the European war, demanding cotton, lumber, and other natural resources of the South, permitted a more ra pid economic move ment upward . The · Second World War accelerated this movement. In 1961 the Un ited States Cha mber of Commerce published certain conclusions relating to that development, referring to it as " nothing short of spectacula r." Und er thi s improved e conomic p rosperity, the white s and b la cks o f th e South wer e making impressive advance in rational partnership wh en under N ew York prodding, the SUPERMEN led by Ea rl Warren, the a st ute politician from Ca lifornia , broke the la w of 1896 -separate if equa l. This ma n, w ith not an hour's traini ng a s a Judge, had just been appointed b y Presi d ent Eise nhowe r to be Chief J ustice o ve r the ot her e ig ht who had been sitting a s Ju d ges for several ye a rs. This appoint- - 9- �ment was not so reprehensible as might first appear, since of these eight, seven had been put on the Bench without any Judicial training. It must be admitted, in all fairness , that one of them, Judge Black, still there, had been a Justice of the Peace down in Alabama. The case before them in 1954, in which they broke the old law of separate if equal of 1896, was where some Negroes in Kansas, Delaware, South Carolina, and Virginia (t he cases consoli dated) claimed that the segregated Negro schools of these locations were not equal to the white schools, and they wanted the advantages of the white schools for their children. The Court did not agree that they were not equal, saying: " The Negro and white schools have bee n equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to building, curricula, qualifkations and salaries of teachers, and other 'tangibl e factors '." That under the existing law, and its approval by intervening Supreme Court decisions, should have ended the case; the Negroes continued in t hei r equal schools, and the separate if equal doctrine again affirmed. But the SUPERMEN said "No. " That did not end the case, they had found something their predecessors, the White, Taft, Hughes, Stone, Vincent, Court Judges did not know. The SUPERMEN said that they had re ad in a bo qk by a fellow by the name of Guna r Myrdal, wh o lived over in Sweden on the icy Baltic Sea wh e re there are no Negroes, in which he claimed it would make the Negro children feel bad if they could not sit with white children in public schools, though their own Negro schools migh t be equal to the white schools. He was cited as " ample autho rity; an expert, in o t her words. The Cou rt noted the names of some half dozen othe r book writers, who penned more o r Iess t he so me sen ti men ts in their books. Now something peculiar hap pened in this casesomething unheard of in judicial procedure where the opinions of persons al le ged to be expe rts a re introd uce d to aid the Courts. In such cases it is common for the a lleged " expe rt" to be brought into Court so that it may be determined by due e xaminati on , and cross-examination by opposing -10- �counsel , whether the witness is in fact an expert whose testimony will be of value to the Court. Unhappily for all concerned, the Judges as well as others, this was not done in this case . What a field day a competent cross-examiner would have had with this Swede; and incidentally, protecti ng th e Court from embarrassment in their subsequen t exaltation of the opinions of the Swede, an d his Communist tainted associates. W ha t a joy it would have been to question this residen t of t he Arctic regions on how he became acquain ted w ith what it took to make Negroes feel bad; w hat Negroes d id he consult; was the feeling on ly mental , or also physical ; what schools of me d icine d id he graduate from ; or was he a follower of the Austrian Freud, who emphasized sex in eva lua tin g men tal operations; or the German Ad ler, w ho stresse d fear more than sex in probing the mind ; o r had he strayed off w ith the Swiss Jung, wh o had a cqu ired some twists of his own in tho ught read in g. He could have been required to state w heth e r hi s in vestigations related only to what ma de N e gro e s feel bad, or if he had included th e ye ll o w Chin e se , the brown Malays, and the red Indians. Es pec ially he could have disclosed what made white c hildren feel bad, that is if they were impprtant eno ugh to be included in his roamings; and if by making col o re d childre n fe e l good by bring ing them into as socia ti on w ith w hite childre n, it migh t make t he white c hil dr en feel bad; and w hich, if either, was the mo re important, to co ntin ue th e coloreds in fee ling bad, and the whites no t, or make the col o reds fee l good at the expe nse of the wh ites? Th e e xamina tion would have disclose d wha t we hope th e J udges w ere ignorant o f, w he n the y accepted th e Swed e, a nd his co mpanion s, as " am ple auth ority," a s t hey said . These a uth o rs we re rotten with Co mm uni st associations, some with mo re th a n a d o ze n Comm u ni sti c fro nt citations. O ne must wonde r wh e th e r, w hen they approved the Swede a s " amp le author ity, " they had read that part of his book d ec lar ing that wha t the Founding Fat hers di d wh e n th e y confected the Consti tution "was a lmost a plot again st the com mon people ." An instrum e nt of g o v e rnm e nt wh ich non -Comm unist statesmen have a cclai me d fo r o ne hundred and - 11- �seventy-five years. And was he " ample authority" when he asserted that our Constitution "is impractical and outmoded?" Having agreed with the Swede that it would make the Negro children feel bad not to sit with white children; it was next in order to determine whether the authors of the 14th Amendment in 1868 had intended by it to turn over to the Federal Government Public Education in the States. If that Amendment did not do this then the SUPERMEN could not seize control of these schools. They concluded, happily for their intent, that from "exhaustive investigation " of the times and what was then said, the evidence was "inconclusive. " That opened the way for them to insert in it their own views of what ought to have been, or might have been; that is to amend it to suit what they had in mind-namely, that it did take away from the States the right to manage their own schools which they had taxed themselves to support; and turned over to the SUPERMEN the power to say how they should be operated. It is poetic justice that the fraudulent adoption of that Amendment permits equally fraudulent interpretations-like the one by the SUPERMEN, the latest and most disastrous-which has resulted in the bitter interruption of good relations between the races . That adoption was achieved in an atmosphere of rancour, followed by the very same kind of deception and betrayal of the Negroes by the carpetbaggers, as is certain to result from similar conduct of the modern form of carpetbagge ry. Having now so interpreted the Amendment that they could use it as a basis for their decisipn to adopt the Swede 's cozy views to bring the white and colored children together to make the colo red children feel better; that they proceeded to do . The Court 's precise language in ag reeing with -the Swede is as fol lows: "To separate Negro children fr om ot hers of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race, generates a feeling of in feriority as to their sta t us in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikel y to ever be undone . The Court failed to discuss whether it would "generate a feeling of inferiori ty" in t he hearts -12- �I Can Southerners afford to be tiaht with their money in I and minds of white children, if forced to sit with Neg ro children. Apparently the Swede had 'no musing on this point. The modern mania for equal rights evidently does not include within its vague crusade, the wh ite race. To digress for a moment: Every century or so a craze unaccountably seizes on the world, as this egalitarian craze has appeared in our times. In the 13th century thousands of children were preached in Europe into a march on Jerusalem to free the Holy Sepulcher from the infidel Saracens. These who did not starve or drown before they reached sea ports, were sold into slavery? The witch craze of the Middle Ages took the lives of 300,000 men and women in Europe; not forgetting the seventy-five (75) tortured and executed in Massachusetts in the 1600s. The South Sea and John Law Investment Bubbles of the 1700s impoverished tens of thousands in France and England. One which much resembles that of today, was the St. Vitus Dance mania, in Germany, where people went prancing about the country in swarms. Due to the more rapid and far distant communications, the egalitarian mania of today extends from Washington and New York to Africa; where th e natives of Angora and Congo "demonstrate" their claim to equality by perpetrating crimes on hund reds of white men, women , and children priests and nuns-so bestial as to be beyond any civilized imaginati on-the women raped before the eyes o f dying men bleeding to death from unprintable mutilations-being the mi ldest. Covetous of the riches of Africa, the white nations of Noto, including our own, hastily sweep these horrors under the rug, and hypocriti cally toady to the "ambassadors" from that country. The brand of hypocrisy is the same; whether the white politi cian is bootlicking for the Negro vote in America; or the international " statesmen " are kotowing to African ambassadors-the result will be th e same-the black man will end up with his pockets picked by thes e self-seeking fakirs. Writing of the cr usades, Well s remar ks: " From the very first Aaming enthusiasm was mixed with baser elements. " Return ing to th e integration dec isio n; strangely - 13- �enough in this case, and all the others which have followed in respect to adult Negroes, an admission is inherent in what the Court said, and accepted by all who agree with the Court, including the " demonstrating " Negroes, that the Negro is inferior, and the only hope for his advance is " forced " close association with whites. Later disclosures of his advancement in a segregated society, will not support such a contention. BARRIERS WHICH THE COURT HAD TO ELUDE But the Court was confronted wi t h several apparently insurmountable obstacles. How could this constant association, required to improve the asserted inferiority of the Negro children in this case, and subsequent adu lt cases; and to make them a ll feel better; be achieved in the face of the seg regation laws of many states, North and South? The only answer was for the SUPERMEN to b rea k the laws requiring segregation. That th e y just haul ed off and did. They sa id the WHITE, TAFT, HUGHES AND VINSON COURTS did not know what they were talking about when they approved the " separate if equal " doctrine. The oldti mers did not have the benefit of the Swede 's d is covery that it would make th e Negro childre n fee l bad not to sit with th e whites; and, too, th ey mig ht not have been frank and cold enoug h, to say th at the N egro is inferior, and t hat t he onl y re medy for that is constant contact w ith th e w hi te. The knoc ko ut blow came in these precise w o rd s: " Any language in Pl essy vs. Ferg uson (t he old decision of 1896) contrary to thi s fin d ing (tha t is what the y and the Swed e had agreed upon) is rejecte d." It may again be re peated t ha t the man who wrote this opinio n dow ngradi ng the o ld Judges, had ne ver be fo re his appointment served as a Judge . It may be added here t hat the practice of appointing deserving political fr iends has not ceased . A little while ago t he Preside nt appoi nted Mess rs. White and Goldberg to fill vaca ncies on t he Court. In these cases, o ne was t he a ssociate of Bobby Sox, Atto rne y Ge nera l, w hose ju dgmen t of wha t are the q ua li fications of a Supreme Judge, may be measured by the fact that hi s first contact with any - 14- �