|
Equal justice under law is a phrase engraved on the front of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington D.C. It is also a societal ideal that has influenced the American legal system. The phrase was proposed by the building's architects, and then approved by judges of the Court in 1932. It is based upon Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence, and has historical antecedents dating back to ancient Greece. ==Proposed by architects and approved by judges== This phrase was suggested in 1932 by the architectural firm that designed the building.〔Pusey, Merlo. ''Charles Evans Hughes'', Volume 2, p. 689 (Columbia University Press 1963).〕 Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and Justice Willis Van Devanter subsequently approved this inscription, as did the United States Supreme Court Building Commission which Hughes chaired (and on which Van Devanter served).〔( West Pediment Information Sheet ) via U.S. Supreme Court web site. At that time, the other members of the Commission were Senator Henry W. Keyes, Senator James A. Reed, Representative Richard N. Elliott, Representative Fritz G. Lanham, and Architect of the Capitol David Lynn. See Liu, Honxia. "(Court Gazing: Features of Diversity in the Supreme Court Building )", ''Court Review'' (Winter 2004)〕〔 The architectural firm that proposed the phrase was headed by Cass Gilbert, though Gilbert himself was much more interested in design and arrangement, than in meaning.〔Goodwin, Priscilla. "A Closer Look at the Bronze Courtroom Gates", ''Supreme Court Quarterly'', Vol. 9, p. 8 (1988).〕 Thus, according to David Lynn who at that time held the position of Architect of the Capitol, the two people at Gilbert's firm who were responsible for the slogan "equal justice under law" were Gilbert's son (Cass Gilbert, Jr.) and Gilbert's partner, John R. Rockart.〔McGurn, Barrett. "(Slogans to Fit the Occasion )", pp. 170-174, ''United States Supreme Court Yearbook'' (1982).〕 In 1935, the journalist Herbert Bayard Swope objected to Chief Justice Hughes about this inscription, urging that the word "equal" be removed because such a "qualification" renders the phrase too narrow; the equality principle would still be implied without that word, Swope said. Hughes refused, writing that it was appropriate to "place a strong emphasis upon impartiality".〔 This legal soundbite atop the Court is perceived differently by different people, sometimes as ostentatious, often as profound, and occasionally as vacuous.〔 According to law professor Jim Chen, it is common for people to "suggest that disagreement with some contestable legal proposition or another would be tantamount to chiseling or sandblasting 'Equal Justice Under Law' from the Supreme Court's portico."〔Chen, Jim. "(Come Back to the Nickel and Five: Tracing the Warren Court's Pursuit of Equal Justice Under Law )", ''Washington and Lee Law Review'', Vol. 59, pp. 1305-1306 (2002).〕 The phrase may be perceived in a variety of ways, but it very distinctly does not say "equal law under justice", which would have meant that the judiciary can prioritize justice over law.〔Ball, Milner. ''Lying Down Together: Law, Metaphor and Theology'', p. 23 (Univ. of Wisconsin Press 1985).〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「equal justice under law」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|