Ogden Standard-Examiner | 1927-01-30 | Page 13 | Limits of Supreme Court

LIMITS of sUPREME COURT Dealing with the th principles of supreme court Charles Eo E lushes former member of ot that hat court In a lecture at s1 Columbia university made mad clear dear that hat the court avoids reviewing questions 01 legislative policy The court gourt he said from the outset ha has confined Itself to Its duty dut of deCIding actual ase asea A second principle Is that the h court will not deal with ques qUE'S questions that are regarded retarded as is purely in their nature rather than han judicial The court will not ot undertake to decide questions of o the he constitutional validity of ot leg lee l laUon unleSS these questions question necessarily presented and mutt be b determined Another established es cs established principle is II that that the th he su en- in reme court does dot not undertake undertake 10 1 o review questions of legislative t For the th purpose of o the the th legislature within its Ita sphere phere is deemed to possess 1 alla aU all available lI knowledg knowledge and to t be the treasure realure house of ot wisdom When he court Is II dealing with th the ion ques Ion whether a a legislative act Is arbitrary and transcends the urn p II t of reason which are deemed to tobe tobe o obe be embraced In the fundamental conception of ot due du process of ot law lawor lawor lawor or ot or equal prot protection of ot the laws Jaws lawI II I may may lay be difficult to draw the theline theline theline line between what Is regarded retarded as wholly unreasonable and what la Is deemed to be unwise It Is doubtless true that men holding trong convictions as s to tha un wisdom ct ot legislation may easily pass caBs to the tho position n that It la is wholly unreasonable But tho die dis distinction nevertheless exist and It Si i p C cr present to the aoua judge H lie He recognizes that hat l is III a wide domain or of legisla- legisla t jle I e discretion before boundaries are reached and he holds bolds to tho duty of ot not at- at allowing lowing his views o of proper exer exercise else cise of that discretion to control If I It be said ald th tha that t this is an n Im- Im Impossible Im Impossible possible degree of ot self control that even with the most conscientious judge jude political politic and economic ic views will 1011 sl sway the judgment albeIt unconsciously It may be answered ed that judges judt s arEl sr rC con con- con tanIly ly sustaining the validity of legislation which as is legislators they would probably condemn Mr Hughes by hs his hi helps to dispel the thought held bell by man many that the supreme court courtIs courtis courtIs Is disposed to arrogate to itself ItsU legislative powers o of covern govern go meat ment by the tha mark mrk ITt In passIng on the constitutionality of legislative enactments