Lives define legacies. Their significance transcends time. Cherished or otherwise, legacies are a debt owed to future generations and remain enshrined in memories. How then can one remain impervious to the same and leave a blemished one behind?
In 1946, President Truman appointed Fred Vinson as the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Riven by ambitions and personal conflicts, the justices continuously sparred with each other. They also rebuked Vinson’s authority to lead the Court and berated his ability to handle complex legal matters. Opinions and remarks were not based on law but on personal differences.
Justices Hugo Black and Felix Frankfurter were at loggerheads about the role of judges. Black labeled judicial deference to the executive as forfeiture of constitutional responsibilities. Frankfurter, stressing that public policy lay with the legislative, called for total deference to Congress. Different mindsets led to a crippling divide throughout the duration of the Vinson Court. The spillover created turmoil in the nation.
The Legacy of Earl Warren
In 1953, Vinson passed away and President Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren as chief justice. This was after he had pledged support to Eisenhower at a Republican convention earlier that year. Despite the political appointee appendage, Warren immediately set about to remove the fissures and discord within the Court. The Brown v. Board of Education decision is hailed as a milestone in US judicial history.
To Warren’s credit, a fragmented Supreme Court issued a 9-0 decision in favor of the Browns. It held that segregating public schools by race was unconstitutional as it violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. A catalyst for the 1960s US civil rights legislation, it became a predictor of Barack Obama’s trek to the White House.
Geoffrey Stone and David Strauss, distinguished professors of law at the University of Chicago, write in “Democracy and Equality: The Enduring Constitutional Vision of the Warren Court” that it was “one of the great, if not the greatest decisions of the 20th Century.”
Other landmark judgments included Mapp v. Ohio which held that illegally seized evidence could not be used against an accused. In Gideon v. Wainwright, it was obligated to provide counsel to defendants who could not afford the same. The Miranda v. Arizona decision made it mandatory for police to inform the arrested about their right to remain silent and the right to counsel. These decisions redrew the US criminal justice system.
The Warren Court legacy is one of profound sensitivity. For Earl Warren, the Court was a protector of the public and a check on the conduct and excesses of the executive. Some termed it judicial activism. It did and continues to benefit a multitude as it interpreted the Constitution to help people reshape the American legal and social landscape. Such judicial activism is laudable and a virtue.
In 2019, 377 judges and legal historians were asked whom they considered to be the most consequential US Chief Justice. 271 voted for Earl Warren. One voter observed that it was hard to even fathom the advancement of civil liberties during his leadership.
Another added, “He was appointed for political reasons, as they all are, but turned out to be truly devoted to law and not politics.” Half a century after Warren left office, this is a worthy legacy indeed.
Our Judicial Situation
Over the years, our superior judiciary has remained a takeover target of the executive and non-executive ones. The result is starkly evident. Six High Court judges openly alleged pressure and coercive tactics whereas Supreme Court decisions have been flagrantly defied. Jittery about certain decisions, Machiavellian attempts have also come into play aimed at subordinating the judiciary.
Our undoing has been that all our rulers have sought to rule by decree and a deferential judiciary. Prone to self-centered whims, they muzzle the rule of law and target any individual or forum that is seen upholding the same. The “king giveth and the king taketh away” mindset is a draconian one. Our gravest malaise needs to be harnessed.
Apart from Constitution Avenue, we have a constitution monument, aka Yadgar-e- Dastur in Islamabad. It features the preamble to the Constitution and our fundamental rights enshrined within it. On his last day in office, former CJ Qazi Faez Isa visited the site of yet another fundamental rights monument. This one is within the Supreme Court premises.
In timeless wisdom, Athenian statesman and orator Pericles cautioned nearly 2500 years ago:
“What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments but what is woven into the lives of others.”
Our collective lives are proof of how the Constitution and our fundamental rights have been decimated over decades. In essence, these monuments may well be edifices to the same.
From an illustrious background, Chief Justice Yahya Afridi has taken over a court seen to be in discord. His predecessor’s legacy has judgments that many think had him abrogating the very rights he was supposed to defend. The executive’s blatant flouting of due process under his watch also proved that hallowed pedigree alone cannot guarantee inclusiveness and the rule of law.
With the newly formed constitutional bench, those within the Constitution Avenue building, which now also houses the fundamental rights monument, should work towards forging unanimity, upholding professionalism, accelerating output, and thwarting external pressures. Above all, judgments should work towards realizing what remains critically needed yet starkly elusive – our quest for a worthy legacy.
If you want to submit your articles and/or research papers, please check the Submissions page.
The views and opinions expressed in this article/paper are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Paradigm Shift.
Mir Adnan Aziz is a freelance contributor.