All this talk about the Court will mean nothing, unless we can reach a few simple conclusions, and then act accordingly. In reaching these conclusions we have to throw the taboos and unreasonable fears out of the window, and use our brains instead of our nerves.

It seems to me there are three ways of correcting the present judicial situation. One, by a change in the personnel of the Court; two, by Congress doing its duty of making exceptions and regulations to the appellate jurisdiction of the Court; and three, by constitutional amendment. All three methods should be used, and in the order named.

Since the Dred Scott decision, both the liberal and conservative members of the Court have grasped for more power. The idea expressed in the Dred Scott case of an opinion on the law settling the "peace and harmony of the nation" has grown and grown in the minds of the justices themselves.

More and more have the judges entered the field of legislation, and have uprooted the policies of both the States and the nation. More and more have they expanded phrases of the Constitution away from their plain intent.

More and more have they become a great combined Super Congress and Super-President. What then do the American people want the judges to do? They want them to mind their own business. We have already discussed what that should be, and there is already some evidence the judges are thinking of this themselves, though not enough.

The late Justice Holmes was a man who minded his own business—and because of it, he is generally recognized as the greatest judge to have served on the bench for a long time. I have an idea that Justice Stone is the same kind of man. For it is quite reliably reported that he was against the Agricultural Adjustment Act, although he said it was constitutional in a dissenting opinion. Why? Because he knew it was a matter of policy, and was therefore none of his business.

Why did the majority hold the Agricultural Act unconstitutional? Merely because they did not like the Act.

It is not likely that the judges of the present Court will change their big idea of settling humanity's ills by their writing opinions.

Hence new judges are needed—men who will stick to their own knitting. The Constitution gives the power to increse or decrease the number to Congress. Congress, therefore, should do its duty and increase the number of judges. As for that, there is nothing sacred about the number nine. It might just as well be any other number.

Some will gasp, this is politics! Why not? No government, conservative or liberal, should be hamstrung and gradually destroyed by hold-over judges, even if the judges are personally honest.

Next—regulating the Court. Suppose Congress had done this in adjusting the slavery question? It is three-quarters of a century too late to say what might have happened. But the future is different. In the matter of the Social Security Act, which violates no liberties, and is essential to the nation, Congress should not permit it to be struck down.
In England the people can adjust their own problems through Parliament, because the courts cannot kill the laws or interpret them away.

As a result, everyone knows the law. If it is bad, it is repealed. This provides stability for both business and labor.

The third method is through amendment. To attempt solution of our immediate economic problems that way would be ineffective, and dangerous. The judges took less than ten months to change their minds in the State minimum wage cases. But experience has shown that no one knows the kind of amendment we want, and if we ever decided, it would take years and years for final adoption, during which period the nation could easily fall into economic and political destruction.

Is it fair to ask thirty million voters to go into the machinery of conventions and long campaigns every time a judge nods his head this way or that? If one judge refuses to nod his head on some technicality of law, should the people be forced to have amendments? Is it possible to know what amendments should be adopted in the face of the present judicial chaos?

Even if an amendment is adopted, what good will it do? Take the story of the Income Tax Amendment. This is the only amendment the country has ever adopted to overcome a judicial decision, but it has been heavily interpreted away.

It is a long story, but the judges first exempted themselves, then included other classifications. Now even city water employees do not have to pay anything on their salaries, although the amendment was passed to make the income tax payable "from whatever source derived."

No amendment or amendments will stop a judge from using the bench for political purposes if he wishes to do so. The income tax amendment is an instance.

I believe that an amendment limiting the tenure of judges to say ten years should be adopted, after, of course, the present situation is corrected. I am told good men cannot be obtained who are willing to work for the pittance of $20,000 a year, and for only ten years. Concerning that, I am not deeply worried, for I feel sure that there are nine men—even fifteen—who would be willing to make this sacrifice.

Quite important is the eventual establishment of a system by which issues can be submitted to the people of the whole nation. Our government is much clumsier than England's and must less responsive to the democratic processes. Somehow the development of this idea must include elections which will constitute real mandates and plebiscites.

This, of course, would require an amendment. If such an amendment were adopted, Congress could submit questions to the people, and public opinion could be determined within thirty days after the call. The people could decide, the question would be settled, and the government would be stable, which is not possible when a judge can disrupt the whole course of history by changing his mind at will, and as often as he pleases.

The American people must certainly be bold enough to take their chances with each other. I hear people say the Supreme Court must protect us against the mob—against ourselves in our impulsive moments. This kind of advice means we should not trust ourselves, which is the opposite of democratic government.

Our problems must be brought from this realm of legal talking to the point where we can find a way to live in our towns and villages, the farms, and here and there over our country. We do not wish to preach a funeral sermon over the Court, and we all hope to maintain it as a true part of our American institutions. Back home, however, we have our troubles; sometimes funerals, and it is about time to think about that, rather than riding high in the clouds of legalism.