The Law: The Douglas Case (Contd.)

Determined to impeach Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, House Republican Leader Gerald Ford decided not to introduce a formal resolution That would be handled by the House Judiciary Committee, and Ford was afraid its liberal members might block his move. Instead, he urged a special probe into Douglas’ conduct. The only approval required for that was from the conservative House Rules Committee. But liberals rapidly upset Ford’s plan.

Indiana Democrat Andrew Jacobs introduced his own formal impeachment resolution. As a result, the Judiciary Committee set up a special subcommittee to look into the Douglas case. Meanwhile, Douglas was under pressure from a delegation of friends who were upset because his lofty self-confidence was keeping him from answering his critics In a lengthy private meeting, says former Secretary of Defense Clark Clifford who participated, “we told Bill to get off his duff.” The 71-year-old Justice relented and duly offered complete access to his court records, correspondence files financial matters, or otherwise.”

Douglas also disqualified himself from the most celebrated obscenity matter now before the court—two cases involving the Swedish film, I Am Curious (Yellow). Though he gave no reason, the film is distributed by Grove Press which recently paid Douglas $200 tor the right to print excerpts from his controversial book, Points of Rebellion, in Evergreen magazine.

To prepare for the Judiciary Committee probe and whatever may follow it, Douglas hired a topflight lawyer: Simon H. Rifkind, a former federal judge and the New York attorney who represented Jacqueline Kennedy in her vain attempt to stop publication of William Manchester’s book, Death of a President. In a letter to the New York Times written before Douglas hired him, Rifkind opened Douglas’ defense by taking sharp issue with Gerald Ford’s contention that “an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” According Rifkind, Ford’s view would mean that federal judges hold office at the pleasure of the Congress.” That idea said Rifkind, is “subversive of the independence of the judiciary.”