OR THE FIRST TIME in two decades the Supreme Court of the United States has run afoul of a sizeable segment of public opinion. Assuming a posture of guardianship in sensitive areas of constitutional liberty, the Court has become the object of bitter attacks from several and varied quarters. Much of the criticism is of the normal and usual kind, namely, that of the losers and their sympathizers who urge that some of the decisions either were not well reasoned or were unprecedented and that the cases should have been decided differently. Some of the critics, however, have made accusations of a more fundamental nature, accusations which strike at the integrity of the Court and challenge the principles on which the American system, as it has developed, is based. These criticisms cannot be dismissed as the blatherings of an insignificant but vocal minority since they have already been formalized in resolutions and bills now resting in the congressional hopper. The present course of judicial controversy began on May 17, 1954, when the Court outlawed racial segregation in state-supported schools.1 The controversial pattern was continued through the 1955 and 1956 terms of the Court with decisions covering a rather wide range of topics. Filling in the desegregation picture were three per curiam opinions in which the Court declared invalid racial segregation on public beaches and bath houses2 and public golf courses3 when such facilities were maintained by a state or city, and unanimously affirmed the ruling of a district court that a state law and city ordinance requiring segregation on buses in Montgomery, Alabama, were unconstitutional.4 A second group of decisions which upset further the already agitated critics involved an assertion of federal supremacy. On March 28, 1955, the Court held that the federal labor relations acts pre-empted the right of the Missouri Supreme Court to bar by injunction a strike against the AnheuserBusch brewing company in St. Louis.5 In May of 1956, the Railway Labor Act6 which provides in part that notwithstanding the law of any state a carrier and a union may sign a union shop contract, was held by the Court