Summary

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark United States v. Railroad Barnett…

It would be anomalous for a Court of Appeals to have the power to punish contempt of its own orders without a jury, but to be rendered impotent to do so when the offensive behavio happens to be in contempt of a District Court order as well. We are unable to attribute to Congress an intent to award favored treatment to a person who is contemptuous of two or three orders instead of only one.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark United States v. Railroad Barnett…

A court without the power effectually to protect itself against the assaults of the lawless, or to enforce its orders, judgments, or decrees against the recusant parties before it, would be a disgrace to the legislation, and a stigma upon the age which invented it. In this country, all courts derive their authority from the people, and hold it in trust for their security and benefit.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark United States v. Railroad Barnett…

But it cannot be said that these statutes set a standard permitting exercise of the summary contempt power only for offenses classified as trivial. Indeed, the short answer to this contention is the Judiciary Act of 1789 which provided that the courts of the United States shall have power to 'punish by fine or imprisonment, at the discretion of said courts, all contempts of authority in any cause or hearing before the same.' [10] It will be remembered that this legislation was enacted by men familiar with the new Constitution.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature