ILNews

Indiana Judges Association: 'You can't eat the Constitution'

David J. Dreyer
December 4, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

ija-dreyerSometimes judges face dilemmas that go beyond the rules. When the problems go past where the law stops, what happens? The endeavor of judging includes balancing the letter of the law with the conscience of the community. Oftentimes, judges can work in between the cracks and resolve a tangible issue by intangible means. But since when do judges get credit for that?

The only United States Supreme Court justice listed from Indiana is Sherman “Shay” Minton. He was a zealous New Deal defender and became famous for his “You can’t eat the Constitution” speech during his 1934 Senate campaign, when he argued that urgent human needs of the Depression outweighed any unconstitutional aspects of the New Deal.

Minton finished at the top of his class in high school (New Albany), college and law school (both Indiana University), and won a Yale scholarship for a master’s in law. He was known as an aggressive debater, a challenging intellect on public issues and an active participant in public affairs. Former President William Howard Taft, his Yale teacher, once reprobated him during a vigorous case discussion by saying, “If you don’t like the way it is interpreted, you will have to get on the Supreme Court and change it.” (Both of them took this advice.) He was a captain in World War I, a U.S. senator, aide to President Franklin Roosevelt, a judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, and nominated to the Supreme Court by his friend Harry Truman. Yet he is consistently considered mediocre among Supreme Court justices, mainly due to his lack of notable opinions and his brief seven years on the high court. But shouldn’t Minton, like all judges, merit credit for things the statistics don’t show?

Today, the mark of the judiciary is all too often divisiveness – not because judges are necessarily at odds, but because the public is more used to seeing ideological confirmation hearings than informative discussions on jurisprudence. But when Minton was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1949, the Senate Judiciary Committee asked him to testify about his 1930s Senate views defending court restructuring. In those days, Supreme Court nominees ordinarily did not appear before Congress or have contentious confirmation hearings. So Minton refused the request by politely explaining that his judicial role would necessarily be distinguished from his previous Senate work and should not be compared. The committee quietly withdrew their request, and Minton effectively precluded the kind of partisan court confirmation fights that we now are unable to stop.

Today, popular court justices often make headlines for socializing and duck-hunting with their executive branch buddies while appeals are pending. But Minton’s low-key personal life was affected by his resentment of racial discrimination in the 1950s. His trusted African-American aide always drove with him between New Albany and Washington. On several occasions, Minton became angry and confrontational with hotel and restaurant establishments along the way who would not allow his aide to enter.

And within the high court, where neither the public nor academics know how things are really decided, Minton was known as an essential team player and peacekeeper. As a Democrat progressive senator, Minton surprised some by his inclination toward judicial restraint. Historians conclude that he carried the cause for New Deal legislation when it was needed to persuade a “conservative” 1930s court. In the 1950s, he decided that more caution was necessary to balance the emerging “liberal” justices. But a judge does not get credit for the wisdom of consensus-building.

His character and courage were most evident in the famous Brown v. Board of Education decision. As the junior justice, it fell to him to vote last. At the time, the vote appeared to be 4-4. On one hand, Minton’s visceral aversion to racial injustice was unqualified. Within private court conferences, he spoke vehemently against the effects of segregation on children and the whole country. On the other hand, his jurisprudence required a more cautionary decision. Minton reportedly cast the deciding vote for the most progressive Supreme Court ruling in history. But what statistics will never show is that he was the key justice in persuading all his colleagues to make Brown unanimous.

Like most judges, Shay Minton’s achievements were numerous, but largely unmeasured. His biographer Alan T. Nolan once wrote, “He was a man without a sense of his own importance and was utterly unable to take himself too seriously.” Today, we sure do need more people like that. Justice Felix Frankfurter once said that if Minton is not remembered as a great justice, he should always be remembered as a great colleague. What better compliment can any person have? When he died in 1965, his memorial service in Washington D.C., was conducted by none other than Thurgood Marshall, a public testament to Minton’s private significance.

Well, if we need great legal minds, there are plenty of them. But if we are hungry, we can’t eat the Constitution. We will always need good thinkers to nourish creative solutions. We should be grateful this Thanksgiving season that we will always have committed judges to solve tough problems, find the right balance, and lead us every day.•

__________

Judge David J. Dreyer has been a judge for the Marion Superior Court since 1997. He is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame and Notre Dame Law School. He is a former board member of the Indiana Judges Association. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Cynical much?
    "You cannot eat the constitution" sounds like a cynical perspective toward the rule of law. In other words, in a national emergency the rule of law goes out the window, so that some strong man like FDR, Tito or Obama can rule with an iron fist, albeit allegedly benevolent? Is that the upshot here? If so, please consider those who fear such cynicism could cost us everything ... PROF JONATHAN TURLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman (Congressional hearing). The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he's not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He's becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power in every single branch. This Newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one but it is designed to prevent this type of concentration. There is two trends going on which should be of equal concern to all members of Congress. One is that we have had the radical expansion of presidential powers under both President Bush and President Obama. We have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority. And with that trend we also have the continued rise of this fourth branch. We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations. The Supreme Court said recently that agencies could actually define their own or interpret their own jurisdiction. (House hearing, December 3, 2013)

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT