Trending
My memory of that surreal time in recent American history is a little fuzzy now, but for certain, it was ions before Brett Kavanaugh's U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings turned into -- as Kavanaugh described it -- the Twilight Zone. It may have been amid the spectacle of protests and interruptions by vocal opponents to Kavanaugh's impending confirmation. It definitely was long before Christine Blasey Ford's testimony came into play, before Kavanaugh had delivered his impassioned, emotional response and well before the FBI's seven-day probe into the 32-year-old allegations.
It was earlier, when Kavanaugh had been moving briskly toward confirmation that he referenced a long-revered U.S. Supreme Court ruling that centered -- where else? -- right here in our Mahoning Valley.
It was his second day of testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee when Kavanaugh cited the 1952 U.S. Supreme Court case "Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer," the case that limited the power of then-President Harry Truman and essentially spelled out the rules for every president to come after him.
In "Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer," Truman had attempted to seize the local steel mill and others nationwide as private property, but the high court held that Truman had exceeded his authority.
In response to a threatened nationwide steel strike, Truman issued an executive order directing seizure and operations of many American steel mills, based generally upon all powers vested in the president by the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Secretary of Commerce issued the order and directed company presidents to operate the seized mills as operating managers for the federal government. Despite Truman's urging, Congress refused to authorize governmental seizures of property to settle labor disputes. In response, the steel companies filed suit, claiming the president had exceeded his powers.
By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court agreed and vacated the executive order. It concluded that the president did not have the constitutional or statutory authority to seize the nation's steel mills. "The President's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker," Justice Hugo L. Black wrote.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Robert H. Jackson said the president's power, when a particular action is forbidden by Congress, is at its lowest point. A president's authority is at its highest when he is acting in concert with Congress.
If Congress is silent on the issue, presidential power is at an intermediate level, Jackson said.
Using this framework, Jackson ultimately concluded, "The executive action we have here originates in the individual will of the President and represents an exercise of authority without law."
During his sworn testimony, Kavanaugh said this:
"It's resisting public pressure, political pressure … treating everyone equally under the law," he said discussing his views on judicial independence.
Weeks after the confirmation hearings had begun, and on the eve of Kavanaugh's imminent confirmation, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, again brought attention to the case, pointing out that Kavanaugh had cited it as one of the four greatest Supreme Court cases in history.
"Judge Kavanaugh has been unequivocal in his belief that no president is above the law. He has stated that Marbury v. Madison; Youngstown Steel v. Sawyer; and United States v. Nixon are three of the four greatest Supreme Court cases in history," Collins said on the Senate floor. "What do they have in common? Each of them is a case where the Court served as a check on presidential power."
(The fourth greatest case, in Kavanaugh's opinion, was Brown v. Board of Education.)
At the end of the day, whether or not you backed Kavanaugh's confirmation, the Youngstown Steel case was instrumental in keeping the presidential powers in check, as certainly our forefathers intended when they drafted our Constitution with a balance of power among the three branches of government.
And the fact that Kavanaugh cited this case gives me hope.
blinert@tribtoday.com