In law, personal views irrelevant

OPINION:

In 1957, when rabid mobs sought to prevent the integration of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, pursuant to the Supreme Court Decision in Brown v. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, then-President Dwight Eisenhower ordered federal troops to Little Rock to escort the Black students to the entrance of the school. He also went on TV to speak to the nation regarding his action.

“Our personal opinions about the decision have no bearing on the matter of enforcement,” he said. “The responsibility and authority of the Court to interpret the Constitution are very clear. … Proper and responsible observance of the laws requirements [demand] respectful

obedience. … Mob rule cannot be allowed to override the decisions of our courts.”

Eisenhower did not personally agree with the court’s decision, and it is said that he tried to talk former Chief Justice Earl Warren out of issuing it up until the night before. It is clear, however, that Eisenhower saw his duty and did it.

Today the White House occupant has given no such support to the Supreme Court or protection to the justices, as required by law. His

press secretary, ignorant of the law and common decency, claims protests at justices’ homes are fine as long as they are peaceful, which they are not.

May God save “This Honorable Court” and this great nation.

HESSIE L. HARRIS

Silver Spring, Maryland