文森特.约翰逊 

得克萨斯州圣玛丽大学法学院南得州讲习教授 

       关于美国联邦高法院大法官布莱特.卡瓦诺（Brett Kavanaugh）的提名之争，并不是什么新鲜事儿。此前，有一位唯一在最高法院任职过的得州人，也曾遭遇过类似的尴尬。汤姆.克拉克（Tom C. Clark，1899-1977）大法官在1949年被提名进入最高院之前，是哈里.杜鲁门总统内阁的司法部长。来自达拉斯的克拉克被提名后引发骚动，一些人认为，他德不配位。

        批评者们弹药充足，因为克拉克并非白璧无瑕。

        在第二次世界大战期间，克拉克曾在一个收容日本人的项目中扮演过一个不起眼的角色。美国后来认识到，这一圈禁了数以千计日人的所谓的战时安全措施，实则为国家之耻。它侵犯了日裔美国公民的宪法权利，使得他们无法得到正当程序和平等权利之庇护，更不要提他们祖辈积累下来财富。

        随后，作为美国司法部的负责人，克拉克更屈膝于反共压力，罗织所谓颠覆组织势力黑名单，以迎合杜鲁门总统有争议的“忠诚项目”（loyalty program）。在一些人看来，这一“黑名单”，乃是以牺牲个人自由为代价，为那些认为政府中有假想敌的歇斯底里的疑心病所做的献祭。克拉克也由此在漫画中被绘制成总统的马屁精，一个无法在国家最高司法平台上展示人们所期待的独立性和判断力的法律人。

        前副总统亨利.沃勒斯（Henry Wallace）指出，“汤姆.克拉克在未经听证的情况下，就委身于专制权力，去宣布哪些人或组织将被认定为‘忠诚’”。沃勒斯还谴责了克拉克纵容“一整套窃听等肮脏手段”以及“在工会里安插内线”的做法。

        前内阁成员哈罗德.易克斯（Harold Ickes）则宣称，其实杜鲁门并不是将克拉克擢升到了最高院的位子上，而是把该法院降格到了克拉克的档次。《华盛顿星报》则揶揄说，克拉克在个人自由和人权上的纪录，让他看上去“十分渺小”。

        美国共产党也指责克拉克，说他是洛克菲勒的帮凶。有讽刺意味的是，美国全国蓝星母亲组织（二战时组建的非营利机构，为全美有儿女在军队中效力的母亲及家庭提供服务——译者）却指责克拉克，说他有“明确的共产主义倾向”。

        最终，克拉克还是以73-8的票数获得参议院批准，争议也逐渐平息下去。

       在著名的所谓“钢铁公司没收案”（Steel Seizure Case）中（联邦最高院决定对行政紧急权力进行司法审查形成的代表性判例——译者），克拉克显示了他的独立性，他投票认为杜鲁门无权以朝鲜战争为由收缴钢厂。在布朗案（Brown v. Board of Education）中，克拉克则投票终结了学校的（种族）隔离做法。在Mapp v. Ohio案中，克拉克更在判词中写下了里程碑式的观点，排除了警方非法获得的证据在州刑事审判中的证据效力。克拉克还就自己在收容日裔人士项目中曾扮演的角色公开致歉，并承认该项目“完全没有必要”。

       作为在首席大法官埃尔.沃伦（任期为1953-1969）领导下最高法院的一员，克拉克在司法革命中扮演了重要角色，并推动美国社会进入了更为包容个人权利和构建更为广泛的商业活动的阶段。最高院研究学者亚历山大.沃尔（Alexander Wohl）指出，“汤姆.克拉克涉足于更为有思想深度且通常是更为进步主义的司法之中，这一变化不仅仅是因为他受到身边那群伟大人物的影响，也同样因为他自身的包容度与思想开放”。

        当克拉克于1967年离开最高院之际，他已深孚众望，为人所信任、尊敬并赢得了巨大的爱戴。首席大法官埃尔.沃伦写到，这位得州人“夙夜在公以唤醒律师和法官们认识到自身的责任”。最高院诉讼律师约翰.弗兰克（John P. Frank）则总结称，克拉克在推动政府依法行政（administration of justice）进步方面的贡献，可谓无出其右。

       最高法院的提名人是否能够成为一位伟大的法官，并不取决于关于他／她是否在被任命之际存在争议。真正决定性的因素，是这位未来的大法官，是否能够、愿意并被允许进入一个职位，而这一职位要求受任者完全献身于一种理念，即他／她做出的判决，必须建立于法律诸原则的基础上，而不是受制于政治或者党派利益。

文森特.约翰逊，J.D.(法学博士)，圣玛丽大学南得州讲习教授，北京航空航天大学法学院客座教授。他曾任职于美国联邦最高法院。

翻译：贾平，公共卫生治理项目执行主任，圣玛丽大学法学院兼任教授。

The Kavanaugh controversy has Texas precedent

The controversy swirling around U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is not new. The only Texan to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court faced a similar challenge. Tom C. Clark (1899-1977) was President Harry S. Truman’s attorney general when he was named to the court in 1949. Clark hailed from Dallas and his nomination was greeted by cries that he was not qualified for the job.

There was ammunition for critics. Clark had made some missteps.

During World War II, Clark played a minor role in the Japanese internment program. The nation eventually realized that this wartime security measure, which incarcerated thousands, was a national disgrace. It violated the constitutional rights of American citizens of Japanese descent. They were deprived of due process and equal protection, not to mention their property, based solely on their ancestry.

Later, as head of the U.S. Justice Department, Clark had bowed to anti-communist pressures and compiled a list of subversive organizations as part of Truman’s controversial loyalty program. That list was seen by some as sacrificing individual liberties on the altar of hysterical concerns about imaginary enemies in government.

Clark was caricatured as the president’s lackey, a lawyer incapable of demonstrating the independence and judgment that is expected on the nation’s highest tribunal.

Former Vice President Henry Wallace said, “Tom Clark has taken upon himself the despotic power to declare without hearing which persons and organizations are to be considered loyal.” Wallace also charged that Clark had connived “the whole dirty business of wire-tapping” and “used spies in labor unions.”

Former Cabinet member Harold Ickes claimed that Truman had not elevated Clark to the court but had degraded the court to Clark’s level. The Washington Star said that Clark’s record on individual liberties and human rights was “pygmy in size.”

The Communist Party alleged that Clark was a stooge of the Rockefellers. Ironically, the National Blue Star Mothers of America also charged Clark with being “definitely of communistic tendencies.”

Ultimately, Clark was confirmed by the Senate, 73-8. The controversy eventually subsided.

In the famous so-called Steel Seizure Case, Clark demonstrated his independence by voting that Truman lacked the power to seize the steel mills as part of his Korean War efforts. In Brown v. Board of Education, Clark voted to end segregation in schools. In Mapp v. Ohio, Clark wrote the landmark opinion that excludes from state criminal trials evidence illegally seized by the police. Clark also publicly apologized for his role in the Japanese internment, acknowledging that the program was “entirely unnecessary.”

As a member of the Supreme Court while it was led by Earl Warren from 1953 to 1969, Clark was an important voice in a judicial revolution that transformed American society through an expansive recognition of individual rights and a broad construction of the commerce clause. According to Supreme Court scholar Alexander Wohl, “Tom Clark evolved into a more thoughtful and often more progressive Justice, a change due in no small measure to the greatness of those around him, as well as to his own gregariousness and open-mindedness.”

By the time Clark left the court in 1967, he was trusted, respected and extraordinarily well-liked. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that the Texan had “worked prodigiously to awaken lawyers and judges to a realization of their responsibilities.” Supreme Court litigator John P. Frank concluded that no other person had done more than Clark to improve the administration of justice.

Whether a nominee to the Supreme Court will become a great justice is determined not by whether there is a controversy at the time of the appointment. Rather, the critical factor is whether the new justice is able, willing and permitted to grow into a position which requires that the occupant be fiercely committed to the idea that decisions must be based on legal principles, not on politics or partisan interests.

Vincent Johnson, J.D., is the South Texas Professor of Law at St. Mary’s University. He previously served as a fellow at the U.S. Supreme Court.