The Supreme Court and the People - Essay Example

Book Summary AMERICA’S COURT - The Supreme Court and the People What the book is all about The United s Supreme Court is one of the three branches of government which are, as generally known and as enshrined in the constitution, separate from each other and independent of one another. Written by an insider who was privy to the ins and outs in the high court during a certain period of his life, the book is an account of several significant events witnessed by the author during his nine-year stay in the halls of the esteemed tribunal where he worked as head of the press relations office. The foreword of the book was written by no less than the distinguished Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the first female member of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. As observed in the preface, Supreme Court justices and all other holders of positions under the federal judiciary are tenured to serve for as long as they live and can only be ousted from office by impeachment, a process which has not dismissed yet from the service any justice of the United States Supreme Court. The justices are not as particular as with the high officials in the executive and legislative branches of the United States government as far as concerning media releases. They are of the contention that what is more important is that the public, the lawyers and the judges, both in the federal and state levels, know and understand the rationale and wisdom in their decisions and the opinions stated therein. That explains why the high court did not have formal office for more than a hundred years that would supposedly attend to media matters. However, Chief Justice Warren Burger, with his activist stance, was personally of the view that the press sector could not just be simply disregarded. The Supreme Court was provided with its own building in 1935. It was only during this time that the judicial highness hired a Press Clerk in the person of one Banning Whittington, once a reporter of the United Press. The move was intended to accommodate the resident press people. Ultimately, it was deemed necessary to have a Public Information Officer who would connect and relate with and between the judiciary branch, the press, the public and, at times, the people from the movie industry. The justices then believed that the person to fill up the position should not be a lawyer in order to avoid a situation where the latter might venture into giving opinions to the inquiring public with regards to a decision or pending resolution of the high court. Along that line, a situation where the personal interpretation of the office holder might pose mis-understanding or cause mis-communication could not therefore be allowed. At the same time, however, it was considered equally important that the successful candidate to the new office must be a media person with sufficient experience appurtenant to his duties. Hence, being a non-lawyer and a career reporter with a convincing track record, the author was given the post. The writer’s previous stint in the government as spokesman was also taken into account. He was thus put into a novel engagement where he was between the Supreme Court which had its secrets, naturally as a matter of course, and his peers in the media world who would not tolerate those hush-hushes to remain uncovered for long. The case of the tapes The book opened narrating one very significant item not only in the political history of the United States of America but also in the global stage at an era when the main character involved was a prominent figure in world affairs and international relations. He was none other than Richard Milhous Nixon, the 37th President of the largest democracy in the planet.1 The unusual tension and pressure was evident. The whole caboodle found its origin when a group under the charge of Nixon committed criminal burglaries apparently for the interest of the Republican Party where the president belonged and presumably for the latter himself. The members of the staff accused in court for the misdeeds allegedly intruded into the territory of the Democratic Party based at the Watergate, a hotel and housing complex along the banks of the Potomac River.2 Specifically, the illegal infringement pertaining to the unlawful break-in included the photographing of documents and the wiretapping of telephones. Resultant thereof, the president was able to have access to several taped conversations. The issue then that confronted the trial court was whether or not Nixon could be compelled to hand over the subject tapes. The matter reached the nine-member Supreme Court.3 One of the offshoots included perceptions of judicial bias one reason being that the then membership of the court had four justices appointed by President Nixon. One of whom was Chief Justice Warren Burger himself. The three others were Justices Harry Andrew Blackmun, William Hubbs Rehnquist and Lewis Powell. The media also found with curiosity in the most likely alliance of the four with football star Justice Byron White, reputed to be a moderate rightist.4 Nixon came to know Warren Burger as early as when he (Nixon) was still the vice-president of the United States during the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower who was supported by Warren Burger in the campaign of the former general in 1952. Newsweek, the widely known magazine, attempted to reach Burger early in the morning one day in October, 1973, but was prevailed upon not to. The press coverage scrambling for the sensational Watergate story was catching high-flying attention in those moments although it still appeared manageable on the part of the White House. One of the top officials indicted in the burglary case was John Ehrlichman who, incidentally, had an isolated contact with Burger. It was about supposedly unfounded allegations against the officer while with the Smithsonian Institution where Burger served as Chancellor in a concurrent capacity as provided for by law.5 While the position was a side responsibility, the Chief Justice seriously discharged his duties in that function. On the part of Nixon, he assured the press people that he was dealing with the matter in such a way that his office was absolutely at arm’s length with the Supreme Court. Very few were the times that the president had the occasion to personally meet Warren Burger. One of those instances was when the Chief Justice went to the Chief Executive in connection with certain official documents during which Nixon was on the phone in most part of that togetherness. There were then pressing problems needing prompt presidential move for military actions in Cambodia and the enemy lines in Vietnam. In spite of the presence of the Chief Justice, Nixon was not so much bothered by judicial concerns and was then more attending to international and state affairs. Nonetheless, the encounter did not escape the distrust of some quarters. One of those who had knowledge of the meeting was Jack Anderson, a known Washington reporter with anti-administration tendencies. He made it a point he wanted information on whether or not the two heads met for several times in private during the past four-month period. He was stopped short with the firm answer that there was none. After that, any insinuations of possible conspiracy in the highest levels were dismissed. One question from the media was to the effect of inquiring whether the Chief Justice had given assurances to the administration that the Nixon suit would fail one it reached the High Court. The publicity was resolved with a warning that such a thought was absurd and a complete baloney. It is generally confessed that the justices of the Supreme Court and whatever they do officially are strongly guarded from the eyes or awareness of the public and remain so mysteriously and that application does not exclude thousands of newsmen surrounding the capitol. Members of the Supreme Court usually and normally work within the confines of their privacy and detach themselves from the everyday hullabaloos hovering outside their chambers. In the Nixon imbroglio, precisely in view of its designated tasks, the Public Information Office headed by the author was absorbing the shocks and the mounting queries. In the scheduled initial hearing alone, the monstrous job to allocate the seats for the hundreds of news correspondents was difficult enough. Of the nine justices, one announced, without explanation, that he would recuse (or inhibit himself from the case) or would not take part in the proceedings. He was Justice William Hubbs Rehnquist.6 The inhibition gave rise to the speculation as to what would be done in the possibility of the eight remaining voting at four in favor of Nixon and four against him. The hearing proceeded with the attendance of a full-packed audience in the courtroom. There were talks about Nixon going along with a definitive decision of the case by the Supreme Court. It was therefore explored that the vote of five versus three might be highly questioned. The classification of a Supreme Court decision as definitive was once passed upon in a desegregation case. One of the justices did not agree on the white mingling with black children. The chief justice then was anxious about anti-black sentiments among the whites. Due to the lack of unanimity, or being definitive thus, the case was deferred resolution and to be re-argued. The supposed dissenting voice, Justice Stanley E. Reed, finally voted in favor of desegregation.7 That led to American education integrated in an amicable fashion. As the Supreme Court was in deliberation over the Nixon case and as the justices consulted with one another, press people were trying all methodologies and techniques they could think of to have access to even miniscule information or update that they could have their hands on. They failed. One case in the mind of Chief Justice Burger that would serve as a justifying precedent was about Aaron Burr who murdered Alexander Hamilton. In seeking conviction, then President Thomas Jefferson offered parts of a certain document as evidence. The high court, then under Chief Justice John Marshall, resolved that it wanted to see the whole document. It was up to the court to determine what was relevant or not. It was therefore enunciated that there could not be a partial text. Burr was freed. After forty two days of continuous work, Burger finalized the verdict. It was unanimously ruled that President Nixon could not claim he had the privilege as chief executive in keeping the confidentiality of the questioned tapes. The defense of executive privilege could be availed of when required by reason of diplomatic or military secrecy in the interest of national security. That was not pleaded. The tapes had to be surrendered. With an impeachment most likely to be initiated in Congress, Nixon announced his resignation from the presidency on August 8, 1974.8 Privacy, security and confidentiality One of the incipient personalities in the Watergate expose’ was the then youthful reporter Bob Woodward of the Washington Post. His supposed next adventurism in that kind of journalism was the attempt to penetrate the Supreme Court. If it really was, through his book entitled The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court, then it was said to be a failure. Woodward later on denied the innuendoes that his motives were directed toward an incursion into the privacy of the Supreme Court and of the workings of its members, including their private personal affairs. Some of the methods used in the invasion of those supposed secrets were no longer observing civility and procedural decorum possibly forgetting that the principal characters comprise one of the three branches of government who deserved respect. If the perpetrators of the pestering scrutiny did not have respect to the persons, the office at least is entitled to it. Aside from the insinuations so uncalled-for, the feeling of security was somewhat lost or doubted on the part of the jurists and their inner circles. In the end, the downpour stopped and everything calmed down during those moments. People in the media always want to have gathered the news first. In a way, that is part of their trade. Supreme Court decisions are always a source for reporters. Hence, getting copies of the resolutions of the jurists ahead of the rest is usually a bonus. Many years ago, the Supreme Court contracted out its printing requirements to a private outfit owned by a certain Clarence E. Bright who was therefore branded as the keeper of secrets of the court spanning a period of more than fifty years. For keeping all the printed products coming from the court in utmost confident as custodian, Bright was highly commended for the appreciation. When the Second World War was coming to a close, Bright stopped his business. The court had to put up its printing facilities when it already had a building in the capitol. In the Burger court, the Chief Justice introduced a reform by which the Reporter of Decisions, or the one who wrote the syllabus or summary for every decision, was taken in as one of those who could have access to the decisions before release. That was, of course, necessary in carrying out the duty of drafting the syllabus or summary. Nevertheless, there were some questions raised on the innovation because it widened the possibility of the court resolutions being leaked out before the official dissemination. It actually did in a few instances. The Supreme Court correlates and interacts with the media and public opinion. In the scramble for news from the court, press reporters would sometimes detest the measures taken administratively to protect the confidentiality supposedly inherent in the functions and duties of the magistrates. Premature distribution of information can possibly cause public outburst if the final data turn out to be different. The court under Burger therefore found it necessary that matters which needed secrecy in the meantime had to be closely guarded. One journalist complained that the High Court could not be an office in secrecy after being told that one justice recused in a case without any explanation given. Another writer came to the defense of the court saying that there were matters within that kind of controversy which the public could only speculate and it could always be presumed that the jurists acted on a high level of honesty and integrity equally to all, including the people from the press. In New York Times versus Sullivan, the High Court ruled that the media could not be sued even if they robustly criticized public figures if the alleged act was not malicious and that the critic did not do so falsely and that he did not act in an imprudent manner in determining whether his information was true or false. In the case of Chief Justice Warren Burger, it was not one of hate against the media. It was the confidentiality within the ambit of the decision-making process, with all its secrets, which he so strongly wanted to keep in the confines of the judicial territory, literally and constructively. On questions about the wisdom of their decisions, the justices explained that there were things which the public were not aware of but which the jurists took into account in arriving at the final verdict. As a matter of course, those resolutions were decided upon on the basis of the law, including precedents and other applicable principles. In those incidents of public plaints, the justices would just not mind the tirades until the same would die down. There were times though that a response was deemed necessary. Sometimes, however, exposure to the media has some hazards. In the case of Justice William O. Douglas, one of the controversial figures in the bench, he finally decided to end his very long stay in the judiciary after an embarrassing television interview. On another note, Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman member of the United States Supreme Court was sworn in during the time of President Ronald Reagan.9 She was installed with the television cameras around. Allowing television coverage in the High Court was once an off-and-on option. The Justices The thought of having a woman justice in the United States Supreme Court was created by Paramount Pictures. As a matter of fact, the movie that was later produced about a lady jurist was in part filmed in the premises of the High Court edifice. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was unanimously confirmed by Congress after she got her appointment from then President Ronald Regan. Chief Just Warren Burger and his predecessor, Chief Justice Earl Warren, were somewhat the opposite of each other. The former was a proponent of quick justice as when wrongdoers had to be brought to the folds of law. Earl Warren, upon the other hand, was more of a defender of individual rights including those of alleged criminals. Still, common to them as well as to other chief justices, was their other tasks aside from writing decisions or separate opinions. The extra duties are either by tradition or imposed by law or upon a personal choice founded on a justified vision. For instance, the Chief Justice screens some four thousand plus cases and determine which would go to a dead list. He also presides over the hearing of between one hundred and two hundred cases being argued annually before the Supreme Court. For the non-judicial functions, the Chief Justice chairs the Board of the National Art Gallery and is a trustee of the National Geographical Society. He likewise concurrently serves as the Chancellor of the Smithsonian Institution. Warren Burger was the fifteenth Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. He started in humble beginnings with his paternal origins from Switzerland. His mother’s family came from Germany. His human side was well emphasized in the book. While a hard worker, Burger adhered to the notion of making decisions but taking sufficient time for sleep at night. He was once requested to appear on television with the full court membership supposedly in attendance and where they would then air their views and philosophies. He declined reasoning out that cases were decided not on a generalized perception of circumstances. Each was peculiar and different from the next. The relationship of the High Court with the White House, including those on somewhat personal levels including visits, was allotted a chapter in the book. The author took special note of the fact that the justices had not made any periodic visit during the time of President Nixon whose case they heard. In reflection, Chief Justice Burger commented that, regrettably, they could have for owing Nixon for opening relations with China, thus creating a diversion against Russia which accomplishment was clearly for the interest and security of the United States and its entire people.10 The United States Supreme Court is composed of nine justices. Although the Chief Justices is at the helm, his vote is the same in weight as is the vote of every other member. In sum, the decision of the court becomes so upon the majority vote of all the nine members. The final two chapters of the book deal more with lighter side of the whole narration, including the fixtures in the High Court and the other miscellaneous items. Works Cited Case opinions. United States v. Nixon: Encyclopedia. AllExperts. [internet] Accessed January 23, 2010. Available at: Encyclopedia of World Biography on Byron R. White. BookRags. [internet] Accessed January 23, 2010. Available at: < http://www.bookrags.com/biography/byron-r-white/> Former Smithsonian Chancellor Retired Chief Justice Warren Burger Eulogized By Washington Dignitaries. [internet]. Accessed January 23, 2010. Available at: NIXON, Richard Milhous. Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. [internet] Accessed January 23, 2010. Available at: Nixons Resignation Speech. August 8, 1974. watergate.info. [internet] Accessed January 23, 2010. Available at: Program Description. NIXON’S CHINA GAME. [internet] Accessed January 24, 2010. Available at: Roberts, Paul Craig and Lawrence M. Stratton. The Brown Decision. LewRockwell.com. [internet] Accessed January 23, 2010. Available at: Sandra Day OConnor Biography. WHO2?. [internet] Accessed January 24, 2010. Available at: United States Supreme Court. U. S. COURTS. [internet] Accessed January 23, 2010. Available at: Watergate Complex. WINSTON REAL ESTATE. [internet] Accessed January 23, 2010. Available at: Read More