History in Journalism and Journalism in History: Anthony Lewis and the Watergate Crisis

Abstract

History in Journalism and Journalism in History: Anthony Lewis and the Watergate Crisis PNINA LAHAV* Let me plunge right into a Lewis column to convey his marvelous craft in weaving the past into a contemporary moment. This one is from July 8, 1974. The column is about the oral argument before the Supreme Court in the Executive Privilege case, which was to enter the con­ stitutional canon as United States v. Nixon.1 Lewis writes as both eyewitness and commentator. He begins with constitutional history by invoking the legendary case ofMarbury v. Madison-. It seemed at times like a con­ stitutional casebook come to life. Marbury v. Madison was not only cited but, for a moment, debated. What exactly had Chief Justice Marshall done in 1803 when he held that the Supreme Court was the ul­ timate interpreter of the Constitu­ tion? Had [P]resident Jefferson won or lost... ? Lewis then tells us who came to watch and lis­ ten: “College students had lined up overnight to be there for what they were sure would be a remembered moment. There also were H. R. Haldeman and five members ofthe House Ju­ diciary Committee that is conducting the im­ peachment inquiry.”2 This composition gives us a telescopic view of America: representa­ tives of the people, the White House, and the Congress all present in the courtroom. One hears the trumpet heralding a historic moment. Lewis then locates the historic moment in physical space: “The massive Supreme Court building has had its architectural critics; Justice Louis Brandeis, who refused to move into his room when it was finished in 1935, said the Justices would be ‘nine black bee­ tles in the temple of Karnak.’ But today, the courtroom’s monumental friezes and red vel­ vetand ceiling ofred andblue and gold seemed appropriate.” The majestic architecture of the Supreme Court, Lewis implies, is essential for the extraordinary act ofregicide underlyingthe battle for the rule of law. The Justices, he also implies, are not merely “black beetles in the 164 JOURNAL OF SUPREME COURT HISTORY New York Times reporter Anthony Lewis (above) cov­ ered United States v. Nixon, the historic executive privilege case that came before the Supreme Court in 1974. Temple,” but men who hold the President’s fate in their hands. It is appropriate that they de­ liver their monumental decision from a marble palace.3 Lewis offers one more piece ofthe mosaic before filling us in on the legal issues at stake: the style of those on the grand stage, perform­ ing the act ofapplying constitutional law to the facts at hand. The participants, he says, were: informal, sometimes even folksy. The special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, spoke in a soft Texas twang as he urged the Justices to exert their power as ChiefJustice Marshall had. James D. St. Clair, for the President, had a casual airthatremoved any edge from his hard counsel that judicial power stopped at the White House. At this historic moment, when the eyes of the nation—indeed, the world—are on the legal process in Washington, Lewis lets us know that the legal professionals are also ordinary Americans and that they behave accordingly. They are folksy and down-to-earth. In other rDWT PUT UPANY RESISTANCE! JUST KEEPIN STEP' After Nixon extended the principle of executive privilege by refusing to allow his staff to testify before Con­ gressional committees—notably the Watergate Committee—many feared an erosion of Congress's powers at the expense of an increase in presidential powers. HISTORY IN JOURNALISM AND JOURNALISM IN HISTORY 165 James D. St. Clair (second from left), President Nixon’s lawyer, was photographed arriving for a closed session of the House Judiciary Committee on June 4, 1973. St. Clair argued Nixon’s executive privilege case before the Supreme Court four days later. words, Lewis removes mystifying legalese to reveal a human and accessible core to the reader. The motifs of the rule of law and of democracy are thereby subtly connected. Lewis the eyewitness emphasizes the point by quoting another eyewitness: “I thought it would be different,” one person who had never been at a Supreme Court argument remarked afterward. “I thought they would, well, talk Latin or...